Reading Dr. Long’s claims, I think I see how easements work. If you’ve landlocked property A by building a donut property B, then people have a right to trespass if they have to cross B for 1) food & water, 2) clothing, 3) vacations to France. They have no easement and hence no right to trespass if they want to 1) develop A as a vacation resort, 2) vacation to Mars, or 3) hit the mall and hang out.

Ya better believe it:

Which one does he have an easement over?

I’m inclined to think: whichever one he likes, unless the owners come to some other agreement. You have a right to defend yourself against a rights-violation, whether the rights-violator is an individual or a group.

I’ll ponder your further questions when I’m less sleepy.

You can imagine the donut is owned by 100 people. Cross any of their tracts gets him in or out. Which one does he have an easement over?

Or how about this. Imagine a fully-owned planet. I want to fly to Jupiter. I can build a rocket, but I don’t own enough land to place it on. I need a 100 acre tract to use as a takeoff pad. No one will sell me their land. Do I have a “rocketpad” easement on — someone’s? — property? Otherwise, they’re “trapping” me here on earth.

***

BTW, Roderick, you may find of interest some of the following, drawn from a previous comment I made on a libertarian list–

“the problem of enclosing others’ estates is not a new one that is the product of the imagination of libertarian theorists in their armchairs. It is a problem since antiquity and the law has found ways to deal with it. Maybe libertarian, maybe not, but one would think that one would want to be aware of and analyzie these practical solutions which were found by people trying to find a just solution to an apparently conflict of property rights. Why we think we would be any better at it than them, I don’t know, assuming their attempt to solve the problem was not based on any non-libertarian premises or rationales. In short, maybe we can lean something from history? Maybe a study of continental civil codes, or the Roman law, or the common law, might prove fruitful? If a libertarian society were achieved, do we think judges faced with difficult decisions might not read up on what judges 500 years ago did in similar cases?

Now: as an example: see articles 689 etc. of the Louisiana Civil Code (

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?folder=222 ) — this contains
codified legal principles roughly based on those developed over centuries in
the Roman law (see arts. 693-94 especially)

Art. 689. Enclosed estate; right of passage.

The owner of an estate that has no access to a public road may claim a right
of passage over neighboring property to the nearest public road. He is
bound to indemnify his neighbor for the damage he may occasion.

Art. 690. Extent of passage.

The right of passage for the benefit of an enclosed estate shall be suitable
for the kind of traffic that is reasonably necessary for the use of that
estate.

Art. 691. Constructions.

The owner of the enclosed estate may construct on the right of way the type
of road or railroad reasonably necessary for the exercise of the servitude.

Art. 692. Location of passage.

The owner of the enclosed estate may not demand the right of passage
anywhere he chooses. The passage generally shall be taken along the
shortest route from the enclosed estate to the public road at the location
least injurious to the intervening lands.

Art. 693. Enclosed estate; voluntary act.

If an estate becomes enclosed as a result of a voluntary act or omission of
its owner, the neighbors are not bound to furnish a passage to him or his
successors.

Art. 694. Enclosed estate; voluntary alienation or partition.

When in the case of partition, or a voluntary alienation of an estate or of
a part thereof, property alienated or partitioned becomes enclosed, passage shall be furnished gratuitously by the owner of the land on which the passage was previously exercised, even if it is not the shortest route to
the public road, and even if the act of alienation or partition does not
mention a servitude of passage.

Art. 695. Relocation of servitude.

The owner of the enclosed estate has no right to the relocation of this
servitude after it is fixed. The owner of the servient estate has the right
to demand relocation of the servitude to a more convenient place at his own
expense, provided that it affords the same facility to the owner of the
enclosed estate.