I don't think shelter has ever been a "right" - any more than food or sex or luxury.

I also don't think private profit is a "right" - not everybody is entitled to it.

But I do think shelter can be earned, in a meritocracy - be successful at what you do, and you will get top housing. Be less than successful, and you will be able to own less than stellar digs. This makes sense.

Also property ownership is legally established through centuries of precedent. I mean, SOMEBODY will own that land, whether it be individuals, corporations, or governments.

I agree with you about Blackstone et al. This will lead to all kinds of bad things. I've even become open to AirBNB counter-arguments, although I still maintain AirBNB was meant to disrupt the hotel industry, and the timeshare industry, which is not entirely a bad thing.

Where I disagree with you is your belief that ALL private ownership of land is unethical. You almost sound like a mouthpiece of Klaus Schwab and the WEF, "You will own nothing and be happy with it." The ONLY thing preventing this central planning dystopia is private ownership. And you for some reason are against this, thinking the only possible shelter paradigm that makes sense is community living through collective ownership. Which has not worked out for a single national government in all our history - USSR, Venezuela, Nepal, Ethiopia...not once has it worked. Ever.