Sort:  

These analogies are highly flawed, and different types of property are, frankly, different. Land just sits there and doesn't require anyone else to take action in order for you to use it. Putting up a fence is an action which requires authority.

In this case, witnesses are declining to process certain (hypothetical) transactions because they do not believe, on balance, those transactions are in the best interests of Steem. Stakeholders are free to vote in a different set of witnesses if they disagree with that judgment (and I wouldn't rule out that this may well happen especially once some very large stakeholders have found out about the situation and decided to weigh in on it).

just for now, to make sure you don't shoot me with your shotgun, yes. But once i'm sure you won't, the fence will come down!

Exactly.
The mental gymnastics employed to justify an unethical decision, shows everything about the character.

We are talking about ninja-mined and ninja-exited stake here that posed an existential threat to Steem, not land. You are sufficiently smart to see the difference.
And BTW , to talk in your jargon, the NAP was clearly broken by Justin announcing a swap and plans to deprecate the steem chain.