No he doesn't, because he doesn't even demonstrate an understanding of the concept. Property rights extend from self ownership or the "lack of interference from others". Once you recognize that the boat is mine because I cut down the trees, carved out the trunks, sealed, built a sail and made sure it was sea worthy his argument falls apart. You cannot attack the libertarian position this way because they view the boat as being a part of the person who built it. It is a store of his labor and that is the reason you are interfering with my freedom when you take it, but I am no interfering with yours by not allowing you to. But because he ignores the way libertarian theory builds property rights from self ownership he misses the mark by a mile.

Did anyone notice that under the "freedom" laid out in the OP, yachts wouldn't even exist in the first place?

As soon as government obtains legitimate ownership of some property, I'm all for it renting it out.

been there, done that

It also seems telling that mooro wants to define the word freedom as a thing.

I think you misunderstood his post. He's merely OBSERVING that, because nonpayment of property taxes can result in land forfeiture, IN EFFECT government has somehow usurped partial claim to the land. It's an area of government intrusion/ownership that many people don't realize.

Edit: Carry on in defining freedom.

FMP

too late to edit

But using force to take possession of something from someone else is only tangentially related to the question of legitimate ownership. Unless you want to say that IN EFFECT muggers have somehow usurped partial claim to your wallet.