Same way you do now. You buy property that abuts a public highway or has an easement to the public highway.
You may say that in Libertopia there are no public highways, but there would be some equivalent pay access system to a privately run highway corporation. No way would it happen that every 11 feet you pay a toll. People wouldn’t stand for such a business structure.
Why not? If I own the property, you have no power over what I charge to use my road. You are free to travel another route.
People wouldn’t stand for it? How would that work? If people don’t like something they just pass a law? For example if they don’t like the way private toll roads work, they just pass a law and make all the roads government roads? How is that libertarian?
What does libertarian commitment to individual freedom mean if it stops as soon as the individual tries to do something the majority don’t want him to do?
People generally don’t buy property like that. I can’t speak for every state, but I think generally you can’t sell property under those circumstances without granting an easement or equivalent, which then gets interpreted by public policy without regard to the contract. And in Libertopia, there is no public property, no public access, so every piece of property has this problem. Of course there are common sense solutions to all these problems. It’s what we do now. It doesn’t work perfectly, but it works a hell of a lot better than all the alternatives, including Libertopia.
You make sure there are contracts in place with the owners that provide an easement that can’t be revoked when they sell their property.
This really isn’t that different from how things work now. An easement is a right you have over someone else’s property, generally established by contract (although, sometimes established by adverse possession or some other sort of grandfathered-in way). So, if I have an easement to pass over your property, you can go ahead and sell that inch-wide strip to someone else. I’ll still have an easement to pass over it, because you don’t own that right, and can’t sell it.
I’m not much of a libertarian, and I think there are serious problems with a libertarian society. But “someone will buy a thin strip of land around my property and hold me hostage” isn’t one of them. That’s been a solved problem for a long time.
That’s the best first response I’ve read in some time.
The OP is demonstrating a pretty text book example of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.
Too bad Diogenes got banned. Based on his namesake, he’d be the perfect poster for this question.
It’s a solved problem because we’re not libertarians. We’ve created things like easements which impose limits on what people can do with their own property (like prohibiting movement across it).
But libertarians believe in virtually absolute property rights. When those of us who aren’t libertarians try to point out the problems that will arise from this, libertarians wave them away and say “those problems have already been solved.” Well, yes, they have been - but libertarians are rejecting those solutions. So they need to either explain what the alternative solutions will be or acknowledge that the problems will exist in their system.
What Little Nemo said: the problem has long been solved under our system of laws, but no one has been able to explain how it would work under a libertarian system of laws.
You said, “You make sure contracts are in place with the owners…” What if they don’t choose to agree to those contracts? Under our current system of government, I can go to court and compel the creation of an easement, if, by some shifting set of circumstances I find myself cut off.
In some variants of libertarian law, that would also apply. No one can use their property to “hurt someone else,” and holding them prisoner is a form of harm. But other libertarians deny that there is any non-market remedy for harm. These are the “over a barrel” or “by the short hairs” libertarians. But it is exactly because of predatory practices like this that our current system came into existence. Similarly, we only have anti-trust laws because of the rapacious behavior of the trusts. You might as well have said, “Make sure that no consortium of vendors colludes to fix prices.” Sure… How?
Maybe he means Second Amendment remedies…
I assume they’d either be carried over from the system we have today (if you’re imagining a transition from our current system to a libertarian system), or they’d be agreed upon by all the parties who voluntarily entered into the libertarian agreement to start the society in the first place (if you’re imagining a Peter Thiel-style seasteading thing).
It greatly reduces the appeal of libertarianism if it needs a non-libertarian base to keep it functioning. That need raises the question of why we shouldn’t discard the libertarian shell and use just the non-libertarian foundation?
Hey, look. No one responded to this post. Color (hah!) me surprised.
Oh, yeah, if you are talking about that type of libertarianism, I agree. Let’s say that Acme Corp owned the roads in town. If your arch-nemesis worked for Acme, he could negotiate the sale of a one inch strip of land between your property and the road just for spite and profit. I agree that type of arrangement has no place in society. Does anyone disagree?
Libertarians are just confused Republicans.
They see Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as a viable ‘philosophy’ - when it’s nothing of the sort. In fact, it’s voodoo.
But if there’s any point in talking about libertarianism, it should be to talk about the things that distinguish libertarianism from other systems.
Libertarians can say “We believe in good laws and social order and peace and justice and democracy and freedom and civil rights.” And everyone else can answer “We believe in all those things too. So why be a libertarian? We can get everything you offer in our current system.”
If libertarians want to convince people in their cause, they have to explain what libertarianism offers that you won’t get in other non-libertarian systems.
And in general, an extreme version of property values is a primary example of something libertarianism offers that other systems do not.
I already have a pair of Acme Rocket Powered Roller Skates just in case my arch-nemesis tries something like this.
If you’d prefer to be colored (hah!) enlightened by a response, you should provide context. Yes, the board has disabled multiquote, but that shouldn’t slow you down much. (It’s liberals who are lazy. 
)
Anyway, your claim was
[QUOTE=Omg a Black Conservative]
Based on such a criteria, you can’t be a liberal either.
[/QUOTE]
Your remark seems to assume that liberals are not “moralists.” To the contrary, with one exception, all systems of society impose moral views on their citizens, though the details may vary.
The ancient Greeks forced heretics to drink hemlock, liberals force the rich to pay taxes to school the poor, Tea Partiers force rape victims to bear their rapists’ children, et cetera, et cetera. Even anarchies like Somalia involve enforced views: “Kill whom we tell you to; don’t kill whom we don’t; disobey and we kill you.”
The exception of course is Libertarianism (unless Greed is God is admitted as the sole “moral view”).
Hope this helps.
When somebody posted “If one says “No” they cannot be a Libertarian. They are a moralist authoritarian who wants the state to impose their moral views on its citizens.” and OMG responded “Based on such a criteria, you can’t be a liberal either.” I was a little surprised. Was he really saying conservatives are the moralist authoritarians who wants the state to impose their moral views on its citizen?
It seemed unlikely, so I just assumed he had gotten confused.
The libertarians who want absolutely no public property at all are a minority, most libertarians understand and concede that publically owned roads and highways are needed for proper functioning of a society. I don’t understand why some continue to think a libertarian society would be possible to “crash” with absurd extremes and “gotchas!”, such a society would be run and populated with humans not the computer Captain Kirk could defeat with illogical statements on Star Trek.
Take the USA for example and you can find exceptions and exclusions for even the highest national ideals like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, that doesn’t make the whole notion bullshit.
What would happen right now in most of the USA if someone tried a scheme such as purchasing 1 inch of land surrounding a property and trying to charge a toll for crossing it?
It wouldn’t work. Even if a person were able to pay the tens of thousands of dollars in surveying fees to parcel surrounding properties into one inch strips, chances are (and the chances are near 100%) that the landowner has what’s called an easement, or a right to pass over a section of the property. This easement runs with the land, so that if the current landowner sells the property, the new owner takes subject to the easement.
Landlocked property is extremely disfavored in law. Land is valuable and society does not want any of it not put to full use because of lack of access. So much so that landlocking is just shy of “completely not allowed” in law. I’m sure that some property experts here know of a handful of exceptions. However, when presented with a normal situation, most judges will grant an “equitable easement” when a person is completely cut off from land. If it was done maliciously, the judge certainly would grant it.