>>103965
> We've already established that there's no such thing as public access
If no such public access exists, then no one would be able to homestead the encircled land except Owner A.
> Excuse me sir, but we have decreed that this is a public thoroughfare and you must allow this individual to pass.
Ignoring your reduction ad absurdum about shooting dogs, where is the NAP violation? Where is the initiation of force?
> Owner A owns the route
He never legitimately owned it since he never claimed the encircled property. If he homesteaded the route after the encircled land becomes owned, then yes he would own it. But as it is in continuous and in current use by Owner B, Owner A cannot claim it until Owner A abandons it.
> This is the same principle under which a landlord may evict his tenants at any time, for any reason, from any motivation.
This is not even a relevant analogy. Tenants are bound to a contract with their landlord for use of a landlords property. No such contract exists (physical or implied) for someone seeking to claim that unowned encircled land.