"That includes public property, which is practically never for sale and are mostly hoarded by the state without any chance of private ownership/transfer. That's called a monopoly."
I don't see how that's a monopoly. They're holding an asset that they don't wish to sell, but there's plenty of competition in near-perfect substitutes. How is this more of a monopoly than Ted Turner's 2 million acres? You can't buy that specific piece of land, but there's lots of land for sale that might work very nearly as well for your purposes.
To illustrate my point: Please tell me where/how can I buy the land for a river/beach in the United States? How about some 30x30 meters of lagoon beach? I'm filthy rich, and I want to own a river... Thought so.
Here is the formal definition of monopoly that I just looked up: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."
The fact that there are near-substitutes is a factor in preventing monopolies from forming in a free-market. Not so in the case of a state-lorded market, where there is no near-substitute or alternative for a lot of things. This encompasses a lot of things, and public property is one of them.
Another definition of monopoly: "a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company of group." Let us not forget that the state owns all land, and you're merely renting it from them. If you doubt that, please proceed to not pay your property taxes and let us know how that goes for the "ownership" of your land/property. Or for that matter, hold land that the government wants; it will eventually cease it from you via eminent domain.
However, I will conceded that I probably didn't use the word monopoly in the standard, cookie definition. But that's usually the case when arguing against a behemothic concept such as the state. Perhaps you'd look past that, and understand the point I was trying to make rather than the pedantic, non-near perfect usage of a word. I tend to do that with words :)
If you restrict to seashore and similar areas that we have categorically removed from the market, then I totally agree that the government has claimed a monopoly on those areas. That's not all (or, I think, most) "public property".
I don't see how that's a monopoly. They're holding an asset that they don't wish to sell, but there's plenty of competition in near-perfect substitutes. How is this more of a monopoly than Ted Turner's 2 million acres? You can't buy that specific piece of land, but there's lots of land for sale that might work very nearly as well for your purposes.