The idea that people (collectively) have all sorts of rights to "their" land is pretty fundamental. If you're going to go after this there are bigger issues e.g. why does a country like Brunei with a tiny number of residents "own" the vast nearby oil reserves?
National borders are a military question. If you looked at the link, or just skimmed the quote I selected from it, you must have noticed that the town didn't decide to tax its own area; it annexed a nearby portion of a freeway and taxed that (seriously, go look at the picture). How do you think Malaysia would respond if Brunei suddenly claimed ownership of nearby Malaysian territory?
It's not a freeway, it's a highway. I went to school in Gainesville, FL and that road is on the way to Jacksonville, FL and it was a huge pain in the ass.
There was only a mile or two of road that the city "owned" and there were ALWAYS cops out. The speed limit went from 65 down to 40 a mile before the one stop light and then a mile after the stop light, back to 65.
Florida actually enacted a law saying that a city may derive no more than 25% of its revenue from fines specifically because of this city. I'm sure they immediately broke the law and just cooked the books for years until recently there was a big scandal and the city nearly had its charter revoked. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/29/us/hampton-florida-corruption-...
No worries! The reason I make the distinction is that here in the US typically a freeway is something that has controlled access (on and off ramps) and no traffic controls like stop lights, stop signs, etc. Highways are much more up to interpretation but typically have higher speeds (hence highways) but may well have lights, much less controlled access, etc.
Brunei did suddenly claim ownership of a bunch of sea that had previously been unclaimed, as have many nations in the past. That town didn't claim that piece of highway "off" another town (and I can imagine there would be arguments if they did).
