You wrote: “Every time I point out that private property is not a notion restricted to individual ownership of something, you still resort to your pet paradigm of individuals owning parts of sidewalks exclusively for themselves.”
You are correct that private property is not restricted to individuals, since companies, partnerships, etc. can also own property. And companies can own long stretches of sidewalk. None of this excludes me from obtaining the piece adjoining my property. Whoever owns the stretch can sell the piece to me. If they legally can’t, then it’s their private property in name only. Any number of circumstances can lead them to choose to sell me the piece that adjoins my lot. I might be near a dead-end; the value to them is low and my offer high.
You wrote: “Your proposal for what you could do in such a situation [fence with dogs] is unreasonable by any rational standard”
Why? Is it my property, or not?
You continued: “and yes, you can argue that you are acting within your rights if you conceive property rights as inviolable. However, my point is that anyone who conceives of his property rights as inviolable should be able to live with such behavior on the part of others.”
I do conceive of property rights as inviolable in this context, in the way that I take you to mean. And I am ready and able to live with reciprocal behavior. Remember, I favor private property and public access corridors. Let’s talk about my house. No one here (I hope) will find me repugnant or antisocial for barring passage from my front door through to my back door. And I am very happy to live in a city where all my fellow citizens behave similarly. I can live with it, because I can get where I am going through public corridors. I don’t have to be nice, or reasonable, I just walk where I want to go. They don’t have to let me through their house for a short-cut and I don’t let them—because, this is the point, every parcel is connected to the next by a corridor I do not have to pay, beg, harshly persuade or bully my way through (though I pay taxes for upkeep.)
You wrote: “Yet you see nothing unreasonable about behaving in a way that would leave others unable to come and visit you by car/foot if practiced consistently.”
It certainly is an unreasonable outcome. Privatizing what should be open public corridors causes it.
You wrote: “However, this does not rule private ownership of sidewalks, even in the form [you] attack, out of court immediately. Since your use of your property is clearly unreasonable by moral standards, other members of the community will [most] likely see it fit to retaliate against you.”
Again, no one wants to retaliate against me for barring passage through my house. The chaos, the retaliations and counter-retaliations arise when open corridors are removed and powers they should never possess are granted to individuals (or companies, etc.) The government should properly maintain and keep open sidewalks that connect private parcels.