A stateless society based upon property rights is a broader definition than Rothbardian Libertarianism, which would argue that you must compete via price for access to your land. But that is a relatively silly thing to say given the logic at hand:
The questoin is, if you have property and it’s capable of being locked, then how did you get there? Were you stealing access already? Did you sell your land to someone without thinking of preserving that access? Or lastly, did someone buy your access somehow and now desire to charge you for it?
The problem is, that this circumstance actually doesn’t arise, unless you were committing an act of theft or rent in the first place. And if that is the case, then you have obtained access to your property at a discount and as such must now pay full price for access, and pay the cost of your discount.
I am not really sure this is a libertarian argument. it’s pretty ancient common law. Generally speaking most societies allow free passage on land boundaries just to avoid this problem.
The libertarian argument doesn’t make instinctual moral sense to people because it sounds like an involuntary transfer without added value or compensation. But the truth is that the circumstance can’t really occur unless you were obtaining access at a discount in the first place.