LOL You asked the question backwards! It should be: Does your body own all it's bloodcells? If it doesn't, you are done. Same with the property you attained.

So you're saying that the land you live on actually owns you? The earth owns all of the cells that make it up? I don't think that's what you're shooting for, but that's the metaphor you've used, which fits pretty well in line with what I've written here.

whence did that floating non-sequitor originate? Who gives a rat's pooper whether or not the land was owned previously? Where is the relevance for this?

It comes directly from the quotes by Rothbard & Hoppe that I included

Rothbard: ...any piece of nature that has never been used is unowned and is subject to a man’s ownership through his first use or mixing of his labor with this resource

Hoppe: ...as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him

The relevance is that these statements are what capitalists base their concept of land ownership on, so in a discussion of land ownership, the foundation for the concept seems pretty relevant.

It never ceases to amaze me how Anarchos will (rightfully) back/express NAP via some sort of Objective Universal Moral Maxim

The "universal" (I put universal in quotes because it obviously is not universal, or we wouldn't have states, wars, etc.) moral maxim of 'do not harm'... which I am upholding, and which I find an anthropocentric view of the universe to be in direct opposition to. I am simply demanding moral consistency, not picking & choosing where morality applies. As I said in the post: If a man builds a fence around his "property", keeping animals from getting to the food & water they depended on there, has no harm (aggression) been done? If the trees which make home for various animals are chopped down, has no harm (aggression) been done?

...yet every other moral and philosophical premise is purely subjective depending on the tribal whim of the day.

Show me where I've made the assertion that morality is subjective? My whole point here is that morality extends past humans, that it is MORE objective than most anarchists are willing to accept.

The concept of land ownership is by far the newer "tribal whim", brought by conquering hordes of anti-moral zealots as they spread across the world killing everyone who didn't agree with them.

you write as if this rock we named "Earth" is some organism with a conscience. Is that the case in your world view?

It is very clearly an organism (definition: "organic structure, organization,"), with interconnected systems that have an absolute dependency on each other. Since consciousness is that which precedes matter, it would also seem quite clear that the Earth has/is consciousness, as is every other thing in existence.