When I said “slice” up the land, I meant to infer that it doesn’t necessarily need to be used as a roadway. Perhaps they could agree to divide the former cul-de-sac into pieces and each could use it as a lawn, or whatever each chooses.

Although it probably depends on roads to exist, such a cooperative property would still be adjacent to an existing road at the nearest nodal intersection. Residents probably don’t necessarily need to be mobile with an automobile within the cooperative. Perhaps, it could be developed as a large apartment complex with underground parking. But, property rights would have to be allowed such that the cul-de-sac itself does not need to stay in-tact.

When I said “slice” up the land, I meant to infer that it doesn’t necessarily need to be used as a roadway. Perhaps they could agree to divide the former cul-de-sac into pieces and each could use it as a lawn, or whatever each chooses.

Although it probably depends on roads to exist, such a cooperative property would still be adjacent to an existing road at the nearest nodal intersection. Residents probably don’t necessarily need to be mobile with an automobile within the cooperative. Perhaps, it could be developed as a large apartment complex with underground parking. But, property rights would have to be allowed such that the cul-de-sac itself does not need to stay in-tact.

When I said “slice” up the land, I meant to infer that it doesn’t necessarily need to be used as a roadway. Perhaps they could agree to divide the former cul-de-sac into pieces and each could use it as a lawn, or whatever each chooses.

Although it probably depends on roads to exist, such a cooperative property would still be adjacent to an existing road at the nearest nodal intersection. Residents probably don’t necessarily need to be mobile with an automobile within the cooperative. Perhaps, it could be developed as a large apartment complex with underground parking. But, property rights would have to be allowed such that the cul-de-sac itself does not need to stay in-tact.

When I said “slice” up the land, I meant to infer that it doesn’t necessarily need to be used as a roadway. Perhaps they could agree to divide the former cul-de-sac into pieces and each could use it as a lawn, or whatever each chooses.

Although it probably depends on roads to exist, such a cooperative property would still be adjacent to an existing road at the nearest nodal intersection. Residents probably don’t necessarily need to be mobile with an automobile within the cooperative. Perhaps, it could be developed as a large apartment complex with underground parking. But, property rights would have to be allowed such that the cul-de-sac itself does not need to stay in-tact.

You are right that it’s not as simple as just privatizing and deregulating, without re-examining property rights. Without getting into anarchist theories, government probably needs some regulatory role in land use, even in the most free-market setting. This would be necessary to prevent situations like you mention, where one person owns the land surrounding a neighbor. That situation is referred to as “forestalling”, and is considered an act of coercion, even by the staunchest proponents of property rights. At a minimum, I would imagine property rights regulations would have to stipulate that one property owner could not hamper the use of an other’s property through forestalling or other acts of coercion.

Nonetheless, I consider such discussions somewhat utopian in this day and age, but I think it’s worthwhile to liberalize what we can, and shift the dialogue in the direction towards a more free society.