so i have been looking up some of the material at this website with ron paul. one thing i am wondering about is the transition to private property and nonagression. this may be absurd, but it is a question i have.
currently , if someone is surrounded 360 degrees of public property such a roads , what if that is sold to someone that puts up a no trespassing sign? a person is then surrounded by 360 degrees of of land in which if they step foot on they will be trespasing. with the nonagression principle, who is being agressive if the person blocked in tries to leave and in doing so must cross into the now private land that they don't have permission from the new owner to cross? it seems like that would be a seige where a person has no choice but to fight out of the block?
This has been asked before.
This thread may be of interest.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Thank you Thatoldguy.