walling people into their own property

[thenelli01]

No, it's not enough. Our neighbor needs to get the grocery store ('B' in your example), the barber ('G'), the gas station ('H'), etc. There would need to be an easement on everyone's property, to connect each property to it's neighbors.. so that we can all get to these private businesses.

Not only is that not true, it is also not the objectivist position. This allows for an easement on the private road to get to the store too. If that is the case, then what is the incentive to even construct a private road? Heck, what is the point of private property if anyone can use it for free and without your consent? This argument is a death blow to property rights.

Edited November 25, 2012 by thenelli01

[mdegges]

Not only is that not true, it is also not the objectivist position. This allows for an easement on the private road to get to the store too. If that is the case, then what is the incentive to even construct a private road? Heck, what is the point of private property if anyone can use it for free and without your consent? This argument is a death blow to property rights.

Actually I said anyone should be able to use an easement either for free or for a cost, depending on the owner's stipulations.. not that anyone can use your property for free, for whatever they want.

How else would you solve this problem? You can either 1) create easements on private property and have both parties (ie: the landlord and the neighbor) agree to specific terms, which allows only the neighbor access to the easement, or 2) make the easement public (or charge a small fee for people to use it, as would be done on private roads) so that people can get where they need to go.

[thenelli01]

Actually I said anyone should be able to use an easement either for free or for a cost, depending on the owner's stipulations.. not that anyone can use your property for free, for whatever they want.

How else would you solve this problem? You can either 1) create easements on private property and have both parties (ie: the landlord and the neighbor) agree to specific terms, which allows only the neighbor access to the easement, or 2) make the easement public (or charge a small fee for people to use it, as would be done on private roads) so that people can get where they need to go.

No forced easements, only ones made between consenting parties. This is sort of a silly question anyways.

How often would a piece of land be blocked where going through a neighbor's land is the only route possible? Most property is built with access to a roadway from the driveway. It would be in the private road owners' self interest to do business with you and if he decides not to: you can try to mobilize support to protest and put pressure on him or you can move.

If someone is silly enough to buy a house that is surrounded by property on all 4 sides without access to private roadway and did not come up with an easement agreement in their contract or with their neighbor before they purchased the property, then that is their own fault. The government doesn't protect stupidity.

Edited November 25, 2012 by thenelli01

[mdegges]

Well that's the whole point of this thread: if you are stuck in the middle of a doughnut hole, can you cross through your neighbor's property (to get to the grocery store, barber, etc) even if he says you can't (because you slept with his wife or something ridiculous like that)? I would say yes, you sure can. You can pass through his property on a designated area (a road easement) for a previously agreed upon fee (or for free, if the guy is nice). He can't turn around and say, "You can't use my easement anymore because you slept with my wife!! You better start growing some potatoes cause you aren't gonna get to a grocery store anytime soon!!" and trap you on your land.

Each land needs an easement, a road, that can get you from point A to point B to point C. As you said, that already exists via public roads, and it's paid for by tax dollars. If everything were privatized, it is still necessary to leave your own property to do business with others, buy food, etc. Does your neighbor's (the one trapped in the doughnut hole) need give him any claim to your property? Objectivists would certainly say no.. but they would recognize the fact that trapping your neighbor takes away his liberty. He'd be unable to buy food, go to work, school, etc. That's why easements are necessary.

It would be in the private road owners' self interest to do business with you and if he decides not to: you can try to mobilize support to protest and put pressure on him or you can move.

Even in this unrealistic scenario, I don't see that happening.

[thenelli01]

Well that's the whole point of this thread: if you are stuck in the middle of a doughnut hole, can you cross through your neighbor's property (to get to the grocery store, barber, etc) even if he says you can't (because you slept with his wife or something ridiculous like that)? I would say yes, you sure can. You can pass through his property on a designated area (a road easement) for a previously agreed upon fee (or for free, if the guy is nice). He can't turn around and say, "You can't use my easement anymore because you slept with my wife!! You better start growing some potatoes cause you aren't gonna get to a grocery store anytime soon!!" and trap you on your land.

Each land needs an easement, a road, that can get you from point A to point B to point C. As you said, that already exists via public roads, and it's paid for by tax dollars. If everything were privatized, it is still necessary to leave your own property to do business with others, buy food, etc. Does your neighbor's (the one trapped in the doughnut hole) need give him any claim to your property? Objectivists would certainly say no.. but they would recognize the fact that trapping your neighbor takes away his liberty. He'd be unable to buy food, go to work, school, etc. That's why easements are necessary.

Why would you buy a house that puts you in that position? If I was going to buy a house, I'd make sure it had a driveway that entered into a road. If someone is stupid enough to buy a "doughnut" house without buying land from the neighbor to construct a driveway to the road or create a contractual agreement, then that is their own problem, not the government's.

What you are talking about are contract issues. Whether or not a neighbor has the right to do that depends on the terms of the contract.

The neighbor isn't trapping anyone. The landowner trapped himself when he bought the house.

Edited November 25, 2012 by thenelli01

[2046]

DonAthos: After your helpful responses, I think now I am for the most part on board with you. My guess is that, since the idea of hostile encriclement clashes with most people's regular moral intuitions, and not being aware of the proper Objectivist/libertarian solution founded in the basis of all property rights (homesteading/contractual exchange), most people probably just attempted to justify some type of easements in an ad hoc manner, without really delving into it.

[Devil's Advocate]

Don Athos,

In you 1st exchange with mdegges, you divided her donut property into two halves...

I'm curious if you would allow travel to the "trapped man" along the property lines separating the halves on the premise that neither you or mdegges "own" the property line that seperates you, or the trapped neighbor. By own, I mean that no property owner would ever have a veto right over the property of the property line.

[tadmjones]

Aside from the walling in aspect of exercising property rights. What happens to property and any improvements on the land after say a mudslide occurs?

I own property that borders your land, a mudslide occurs and the result is my building ends up on your property, along with soil and other debris. Who then is responsible for costs associated with cleanup? Have I lost title to my salvageable property, because it now rests on your land?

Edited November 25, 2012 by tadmjones

[Devil's Advocate]

Each land needs an easement, a road, that can get you from point A to point B to point C. As you said, that already exists via public roads, and it's paid for by tax dollars. If everything were privatized, it is still necessary to leave your own property to do business with others, buy food, etc. Does your neighbor's (the one trapped in the doughnut hole) need give him any claim to your property? Objectivists would certainly say no.. but they would recognize the fact that trapping your neighbor takes away his liberty. He'd be unable to buy food, go to work, school, etc. That's why easements are necessary.

I'm not convinced every property needs an easement, i.e. a right to cross or use someones land for egress, because an easement implies a negotiated lane of travel. A property owner may legitimately prohibit trespassing, and being forced to negotiate with would be trespassers traps both property owners.

I believe property lines, or more specifically, property lanes provide a solution to the "trapped man" problem because,

1) Property lines divide property, giving neither owner dominion over the line itself.

2) Private property lines allow travel around the perimeter without ceding access to the interior.

Therefore property lines, being common to all property owners (because property lines cannot be individually possessed), provide egress and lanes of travel without forcing anyone to negotiate access to their property (interior).

I'm open to being presented with any inherent flaw in this use of property lines (as lanes of travel) according to Objectivist principle. The only obvious argument I see has to do with the implied width of property lanes, but I think this is less of a problem than a necessary concession to some form of buffer around private property so that one doesn't become imprisoned as a consequence of owning property.

[Jonathan13]

I'll be glad to answer any questions I haven't already responded to. Please point to them by post number and I'll give it my best shot...

I'll be glad to answer any questions I haven't already responded to. Please point to them by post number and I'll give it my best shot...

Here are a few of mine that remain unanswered by you and others who share your position:

From here:

Let's take Puzzle Peddler's original scenario a bit further:

A man named Karl owns a piece of property, and I have purchased all of the property around his. When he purchased his property, he neglected to contractually arrange for access to and from it. I don't want him on my property, and I don't want to sell him any of it.

He calls up Judge Grames and Judge SoftwareNerd, who grant him access to my property against my will. And they even charge me and fine me for "imprisoning" him. They give him an easement which runs from his land across mine to my neighbor Bob's land (in this hypothetical, the world is Objectivist, and all property is therefore privately owned -- there are no public roads).

Bob declares that he also doesn't want Karl on his property, so Judges Grames and SoftwareNerd charge him with "imprisonment" as well, fine him, and grant Karl an easement through his property to the nearest privately owned highway, which is owned by Tom.

By this time, Tom has heard of Karl's unjust legal actions against me and Bob, and he announces that he also doesn't want Karl on his property. So Karl once again calls Judges Grames and SoftwareNerd, and they charge Tom with the "imprisonment" of Karl, fine him, grant Karl an easement through Tom's property, and instruct Tom that he does not have the right to refuse to allow Karl to drive on Tom's privately-owned highway.

Is that the way that some of you imagine the Objectivist concept of private property works?

From here:

No. The use of your property has NOT been diminished. You can use it to your heart's content. You can grow your own food and live off of it. What's been diminished is your use of others' property, and your free access to others via public roadways. See, you currently live in a society where you receive the benefits of others' labors, and you appear to be just now discovering that you like and want to keep those benefits. Well, that mindset clashes with Objectivism. If you want liberty, you have to give up the freebies. Government-forced, guaranteed access to your property, in which others are forced to involuntarily allow you to use their property, is one of the freebies that you have to give up.

J

From here:

Before you purchased the property, did you check if it contained voluntary contractual arragements with the contiguous landowners that would protect the property from becoming landlocked in the event that those landowners sold to others? Or did you just decide that, having lived in a statist system your entire life, the statist rules and benefits to you should apply in Objectiland, and you therefore didn't have to take the responsibility to concern yourself with the details of property purchasing in a non-statist system because later, after the consequences of your nonchalance and negligence kicked in, you could always make a public show of tugging at people's emotions by claiming that you're a victim of "imprisonment"?

From here:

Exactly. Putting our opponents' argument into the form of a syllogism makes it clear what the mistake is:

The act of initiating force to confine a man is immoral.

Jim has become confined to his own property due to the sales of surrounding properties.

Therefore the immoral act of initiating force has been used against Jim.

It's an example of the logical fallacy known as "Affirming the Consequent." It overlooks or ignores the fact that a man can become confined without others initiating force against him.

And DonAthos has several posts that remain unanswered as well. (And by "answered" I mean actually answered with substance, and not evaded with something like, "Oh, that's just too darned silly to respond to."

J

[Jonathan13]

All property ownership is possession. What O'ist premise allows your possession to confine others to their possessions?

That is what property ownership means. It means that people are confined to using their property, and to not using others' property against their will.

Must others have your permission to leave their possession??

Yes. They must have permission to enter or use others' possessions.

I've already addressed this... I can travel along whatever property line is common to us, and I don't require your permission to do it. I can step all over your property line.

No, you haven't addressed the fact that you've been making blatantly false claims. You haven't explained why you falsely claim that someone is being "denied access to his property" when he is in full possession of it, and what you actually mean is that he is being denied access to others' property, and that you're trying to invent a "right" of access to others' property.

As for your latest consequentialist argument that you can arbitrarily declare others' property lines to be a commons constructed to accommodate your wish or whim to travel, and to use others' property, you've offered no philosophical justification. You've merely made yet another fallacious, empty assertion about what you "can do."

This is really too silly to respond to...

Is that your idea of a substantive response? My argument isn't silly at all. It accurately identifies the errors and falsehoods that you've been perpetrating on this thread. You are falsely claiming to be talking about a person's property rights, and his right to access his property, when what you're actually advocating is his "right" to access others and their properties. You are proposing a system of public roads and commons in which landowners are not even compensated fair market value for the forced use of their property by others. You are using a fallacious argument, as I've identified here, to assert that property ownership is unjust because if "confines" or "imprisons" those who have not earned the right to use it.

No, my notion of property rights grants me the defense of my life and liberty. The moment your aggression threatens the former, I'm justified to kill you; the latter, to confine you.

Your use of the word "aggression" is fallacious, as I've pointed out here. Additionally, neither you nor anyone else on your side of this argument has shown that your "life and liberty" are at stake if you are not allowed to use others' property against their will. In this thread's initial scenario, no one has interfered with anyone's freedom to use his own property to support his life. Now, it may be true that you, personally, would lack the competence to support your life on your own property, but your incompetence at providing for yourself is not a legitimate basis on which to claim that you therefore have the "right" to cross all of the properties between you and a grocery store and an employer who happens to need any services which you aren't incompetent at providing.

A property line is the buffer.

Because you say so? Do you have any justification for your position other than that you want it to be true? Inventing a "buffer" or a commons against the will of the rightful property owners is theft, not to mention arbitrary. Taking a fraction of their land, against their will, for others' use, doesn't make it less of an act of theft, just as I wouldn't be justified in claiming that it's morally wrong for me to steal ten thousand dollars from you but it's not really stealing if I take only a few pennies from you against your will.

Besides, your "buffer" solution doesn't accomplish anything in regard to this thread's initial scenario. The property line shared by the surrounder and the surrounded is inside the surrounder's property, and being able to walk this "buffer" zone would only allow the surrounded access to a slightly larger diameter. It wouldn't get him out of the donut hole.

Does this sufficiently respond to your "multitude of questions"? Here's one for you...

Must an individual in a free market society trade with someone who has confined him to his property?

Again, your argument is fallacious, as I've pointed out here.

J

[Devil's Advocate]

... Inventing a "buffer" or a commons against the will of the rightful property owners is theft, not to mention arbitrary. Taking a fraction of their land, against their will, for others' use, doesn't make it less of an act of theft, just as I wouldn't be justified in claiming that it's morally wrong for me to steal ten thousand dollars from you but it's not really stealing if I take only a few pennies from you against your will.

This is not an invention, as property lines exist by necessity to divide property, and neither owner owns the line exclusively. You are losing nothing by my traveling around your property, and you certainly cannot prohibit me from doing so. Being on the line doesn't place me in your property, nor does it place me in your neighbors property, because I cannot be in two distinct places at the same time.

Besides, your "buffer" solution doesn't accomplish anything in regard to this thread's initial scenario. The property line shared by the surrounder and the surrounded is inside the surrounder's property, and being able to walk this "buffer" zone would only allow the surrounded access to a slightly larger diameter. It wouldn't get him out of the donut hole.

No, it wouldn't get him out of the doughnut hole, but it would get him out of any combination of surrounding properties, but let's face it... who would buy their way into the confinement? If a trapped man wishes to be trapped, then let him, but no one can be confined to property against their will except as a deterrent to some prior aggression.

Unless there's some Objectivist principle that allows a property owner to claim exclusive ownership of the line itself (against his neighbor's equal claim), my argument stands.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Jonathan13]

I'm open to being presented with any inherent flaw in this use of property lines (as lanes of travel) according to Objectivist principle. The only obvious argument I see has to do with the implied width of property lanes, but I think this is less of a problem than a necessary concession to some form of buffer around private property so that one doesn't become imprisoned as a consequence of owning property.

Are these "lanes" to be defined and imposed by the force of government? Are you suggesting that I do not have the right to purchase property and disagree with your idea of providing common lanes for others? Are you saying that I and a neighbor of mine don't have the right to define the details of our own contract, that we cannot agree to recognize the dividing line between our properties as having zero width? Are you suggesting that you and the rest of society have the "right" to override my voluntary contractual arrangements with others -- that when I purchase 2,000,000,000 millimeters of property, society has a "right" to a cut of it, on the very edge, without my permission?

J

[Jonathan13]

Unless there's some Objectivist principle that allows a property owner to claim exclusive ownership of the line itself (against his neighbor's equal claim), my argument stands.

You're inventing a line with width to accommodate your desired, fallacious outcome. There is no width to the line separating property just as there is no width to the line separating individuals. You don't get to claim a buffer zone into my body, and you don't get to claim a buffer zone into my property. One's person and property end where another's begin.

J

[Devil's Advocate]

Are these "lanes" to be defined and imposed by the force of government? Are you suggesting that I do not have the right to purchase property and disagree with your idea of providing common lanes for others? Are you saying that I and a neighbor of mine don't have the right to define the details of our own contract, that we cannot agree to recognize the dividing line between our properties as having zero width? Are you suggesting that you and the rest of society have the "right" to override my voluntary contractual arrangements with others -- that when I purchase 2,000,000,000 millimeters of property, society has a "right" to a cut of it, on the very edge, without my permission?

No, I'm pointing out that the purchase of property doesn't entitle the owner to exclusive possession of the line.

[Devil's Advocate]

You're inventing a line with width to accommodate your desired, fallacious outcome. There is no width to the line separating property just as there is no width to the line separating individuals. You don't get to claim a buffer zone into my body, and you don't get to claim a buffer zone into my property. One's person and property end where another's begin.

The line needn't have a width to accommodate travel along it. It is sufficient to determine if anyone owns it exclusively, thus having a right to prohibit trespassing...

[Jonathan13]

The line needn't have a width to accommodate travel along it. It is sufficient to determine if anyone owns it exclusively, thus having a right to prohibit trespassing...

You appear to be not grasping what a line of zero width means. A third party walking on either property without permission is trespassing, so it wouldn't suddenly become non-trespassing for him to walk on both properties without permission.

J

[Devil's Advocate]

You appear to be not grasping what a line of zero width means. A third party walking on either property without permission is trespassing, so it wouldn't suddenly become non-trespassing for him to walk on both properties without permission.

You appear to be not grasping what a property line means; it is the limit of your dominion, and not your possession (or your neighbor's). Being on the line is the same as being at the door. Trespass cannot occur until one crosses the threshold. Let's be clear... I'm not talking about moving from one side of the line to another... I'm talking about walking the line like a tightrope. Unless the rope is your personal possession, it belongs (at least philosophically) to whoever uses it.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Jonathan13]

You appear to be not grasping what a property line means; it is the limit of your dominion, and not your possession (or your neighbor's). Being on the line is the same as being at the door. Trespass cannot occur until one crosses the threshold. Let's be clear... I'm not talking about moving from one side of the line to another... I'm talking about walking the line like a tightrope. Unless the rope is your personal possession, it belongs (at least philosophically) to whoever uses it.

You appear to still be inventing your own personal definitions and meanings of things. Either that or you don't understand that although property lines can have zero width, humans cannot. They cannot make themselves fit between two properties which have a property line of zero width.

Here's a visual representation of a property line of zero width:

In this representation, let's say that I own the red property, that DonAthos owns the blue, that you don't have permission to enter either property, and that the yellow areas represent your footprints. The position of your foot in step 1 is on both of our properties, therefore that step is an act of trespassing on both. Your step 2 is on DonAthos' property and is therefore an act of your trespassing on his property. Your step 3 is on my property and is therefore an act of trespassing on it. Your step 4, like your step 1, is on both properties, and is therefore an act of your trespassing on both.

See? There is no unowned "lane" or "rope" width for either party to own or not own. There is no third dividing property or buffer between the two properties. There is nothing but the one property ending where the other begins.

J

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jonathan13

[thenelli01]

No, it wouldn't get him out of the doughnut hole, but it would get him out of any combination of surrounding properties, but let's face it... who would buy their way into the confinement? If a trapped man wishes to be trapped, then let him, but no one can be confined to property against their will except as a deterrent to some prior aggression.

This couldn't be done if the land owner made specific rational decisions before buying property ( i.e. making sure there is a driveway on property that extends into the road, buying part of the neighbor's land to create a driveway, or making an indefinite or long-term contractual easement agreement before buying the property.)

If he didn't do any of that and still proceeded to buy the house then that is part of the risk of buying the house - you put yourself in a position to get "trapped" by your own doing. The neighbor doesn't have an obligation to him nor does he have to give up property rights because the landowner decided to trap himself.

[Devil's Advocate]

You appear to still be inventing your own personal definitions and meanings of things. Either that or you don't understand that although property lines can have zero width, humans cannot. They cannot make themselves fit between two properties which have a property line of zero width.

Not at all...

Legitimate private possession, by definition cannot depend on sharing your possession with another owner. Yours =/= ours. No one can claim an exclusive right to a property line (or prohibit anyone else from using it) as a consequence of earning that which is necessarily shared with others. Your argument falls to relying on a sympathetic neighbor to aid in your defense of a common property line, which equates to relying on a collectivist solution (rather than the strength of your own claim) to prohibit trespassing between properties you and your neighbor own, but apparently can't defend without each others assistance.

The width of a property line doesn't matter; that it cannot be privately owned does. Being on the line isn't the same as trespassing within that which the line divides... nice diagram; wrong conclusion

Edited November 27, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

This couldn't be done if the land owner made specific rational decisions before buying property ( i.e. making sure there is a driveway on property that extends into the road, buying part of the neighbor's land to create a driveway, or making an indefinite or long-term contractual easement agreement before buying the property.)

If he didn't do any of that and still proceeded to buy the house then that is part of the risk of buying the house - you put yourself in a position to get "trapped" by your own doing. The neighbor doesn't have an obligation to him nor does he have to give up property rights because the landowner decided to trap himself.

I agree

[Jonathan13]

Not at all...

Legitimate private possession, by definition cannot depend on sharing your possession with another owner.

No one is suggesting that any property is shared. Well, no one, that is, other than you.

Yours =/= ours. No one can claim an exclusive right to a property line (or prohibit anyone else from using it) as a consequence of earning that which is necessarily shared with others.

No one owns the line. The line has no width and is therefore not property! It is nothing but the demarcation of where one property ends and the other begins. Person A owns the property up to person B's property. There is nothing to own in between.

Your argument falls to relying on a sympathetic neighbor to aid in your defense of a common property line...

No, my argument does not rely on a sympathetic neighbor. I could have a hostile neighbor who does not permit anyone, including me, onto his property, and your trespassing on both of our properties wouldn't be any less of an act of trespassing on both of our properties. And the thing that you're still not grasping is that there is no "common" property between my neighbor and me. The line has zero width. The line itself is not property, but the point at which mine ends and his begins.

...which equates to relying on a collectivist solution (rather than the strength of your own claim) to prohibit trespassing between properties you and your neighbor own, but apparently can't defend without each others assistance.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. You appear to have confused yourself to the point of incoherence.

The width of a property line doesn't matter; that it cannot be privately owned does.

There is nothing to own! There is nothing between the two properties. One ends where the other begins.

Being on the line isn't the same as trespassing within that which the line divides... nice diagram; wrong conclusion

Did you look at the diagram and understand it? In it, your footprints are within that which the line divides! See, the point of showing the diagram was to show that a line dividing two entities can have zero width but your footprints cannot! In walking on the center of a zero-width property line, even if you walk on it while wearing ice skates, you necessarily walk within the properties which the line divides.

J

[Devil's Advocate]

No one owns the line. The line has no width and is therefore not property! It is nothing but the demarcation of where one property ends and the other begins. Person A owns the property up to person B's property. There is nothing to own in between.

Agreed, and that is exactly the point I'm making; property lines are common, not private. Whether you define them as "demarcations" or thresholds, a trespasser must cross the line to be guilty of any offense. Being on the threshold, or at the line of demarcation, doesn't demonstrate an intention to unlawfully enter someones property until one is actually within the property. The best one can do is accuse someone on the line of loitering.

In all other respects, I agree with your assertion that a rightful owner of property hasn't any duty to negotiate easements as the necessary liberty of others. But philosophically (and by definition), there's no legitimacy in calling someone a trespasser, who is simply traveling around the perimeter of your property without fully entering it. And a trespasser cannot be divided in half to suit your argument, such that he can simultaneously be in two distinct locations (your property, and your neighbor's property) at the same time.

The philosophical premise being tested is whether your right to property can stand on your own efforts to earn it without relying on claiming title to an object shared by others, e.g. property lines, or narrowing the common definition of trespassing to mean knocking on the door, as opposed to entering into your house.

[Devil's Advocate]

The key words necessary to determine a solution to the "trapped man" scenario are trespass and entry. Presuming rightful owners of property have no duty to grant easements across their own land, or justification for confining others by surrounding them, the only way to avoid becoming trapped or forced to negotiate in lieu of easements is to make legitimate use of property lines as a means of egress. The first hurdle of course, is to understand that property lines represent a limit to authority, and that one cannot legitimately demand obedience beyond the limit of ones own authority. Being halfway within, or on the threshold of someones authority, doesn't compel obedience. At best, a person centered on a property line may be accused of loitering, but isn't trespassing until he's fully crossed over the line and into someones property.

The origin of the word trespass is trespasser, which means to pass over. Common law definitions for trespassing refer to an unlawful (or wrongful) entry onto someones property, with entry being most often defined as the intrusion of the entire body. What would it mean to try half a person for trespassing? Those who would argue that a person on the line simultaneously trespasses on both properties, like Solomon, then need to divide the trespasser into halves in order to present the offender to prosecutors of two jurisdictions.

The OP's problem asks if capitalism allows for absolute authority of your own property, and I'd have to agree that it does. But that authority ends at the property line, and doesn't include authority over those on the line. Were it possible to create some object-land without common lanes of egress, property lines would become lanes of egress by default because capitalism doesn't support somehow allowing access to land and then removing it as a consequence of ownership. The idea that one must purchase every step one takes, either as owner or tenant, is "nonsense on stilts". Were that the case, the term free market would be a true misnomer.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Devil's Advocate