Trespass In A Free Society and What Should We Do About Litter-Bugs (Unedited):
Trespass In A Free Society and What Should We Do About Litter-Bugs (Unedited):
Granting self-ownership and the freedom to own what resides in nature is the seal of libertarian philosophy. Yet, what about the right to terminate ownership? What rights do we have when we wish to discard some object we once claimed ownership to? Although libertarian philosophy grants us the right to discontinue our claim to ownership at any point in time it does not guarantee us the right to dispense of said object. In most scenarios a person who wishes to dispense ownership of an object must find someone else willing to procure the object. Take garbage for an example. In most spheres of society some entity must be willing to accept the property transfer of our waste. This individual may do so for free or demand to be paid for the service. Either way, the property transfer must be agreed upon by both parties. Anyone who discards their garbage onto someone else (without their consent) has committed a trespass. I do not draw a distinction between objects you claim to own versus objects you claim you are simply in possession of. Either state carries with it the same infringement with regard to trespass. The facts dictate that although you can make a claim to nature by incorporating your labor with it, once you are in possession of the property you are responsible for the extent to which you wish to preserve it as well as the extent to which you wish to discard it.
Often times discarding an object you claim ownership to, or possession of, is relatively simply. If you pickup a stick while in nature you may just as easily decide to drop the stick. In most cases this type of property transfer from you back to nature is met with no objection. However, when there is an objection how should the matter be settled? If you agree that a claim to the ownership of an external object is simply an extension of self-ownership then the solution is evident. The individual who discarded the object they previously claimed to own or previously claimed to possess is an act of trespass. Whether the actor knew it was a trespass or not is also irrelevant since the intent is presumed from the act itself. Yet, what of the scenario where my neighbor collects a stick from my yard only to discard the stick back to my yard after use? In a scenario like this no trespass has occurred since the actor never had a legitimate claim to the ownership of the stick (we are of course assuming the actor had permission to be on my land). However, assume that the actor picked up the same stick but this time discarded it onto his land. In this case, the actor has committed theft of my property. Clearly such a transgression of this sort is inconsequential to most parties but it is not the function of the law within a free society to evaluate utility scales. It's function is to uphold private property--the neighbor must return the stick.
Predominately we are not concerned with discarded sticks when we speak of littering. Littering is normally thought of in terms of throwing a piece of trash out the window of our car while driving--an act understood to be trespassing in a free society. Yet, is it? Returning to the idea that a claim to the ownership of an external object is simply an extension of self-ownership lets survey how trespass is managed when it comes in the form of land trespass. Take for example the door-to-door salesman who shows up at your front door to sell you overpriced magazine subscriptions. You did not invite this individual onto your property did you? Can it be said then, ipso facto, he is trespassing? Remarkably, most local statutes would answer no. Most local ordinances allow solicitors/peddlers access to your property as long as they abide by certain etiquette (say, no soliciting before 8am or after dark) as well as conducting certain best practices. Other than these restrictions they are allowed access onto your property unless the property owner takes it upon themselves to post "No Trespassing" or "No Soliciting" signs that are visible to all who enter. Even in the absence of all the above, most law enforcement operate under the assumption that an unwanted guest must first be asked to leave and then be given the proportional amount of time to exit your property before it can be claimed that they are trespassing. If the above course is the correct interpretation of trespass ( coupled with the idea that a claim to the ownership of an external object is simply an extension of self-ownership) then the situation involving littering should also fall under the same interpretation. Meaning, the piece of litter that was dropped in your front lawn must first be asked to leave and then be given the proportional amount of time to be removed by its rightful owner before it can be said that there is a trespass. This obviously is not appealing but it is not the purpose of this piece to offer alternative interpretations. We are simply surveying our current definitions.
Nevertheless, this implicit right of easement granted by the state to outsiders who seek to enter your property does not encompass the entirety of your property. There are exclusions. For example, although a solicitor may have the right to access your front door to solicit their products they most certainly do not have the right to enter your home unannounced. In this case, many homeowners would immediately take up actions of self defense. For some home owners the solicitor may consider himself lucky if he is even given the chance to exit the domicile. With the above in mind, maybe we can make the claim that trespassing is contingent upon the location/position of the visitor relative to the fringes (boarders) of a property. Maybe it can be argued that the closer a visitor is to the boarders of a property, the more freedom they are implicitly granted in terms of access to the property. Such a claim seems to mirror the way we think of bodily trespass. For example, when someone touches another person on their shoulder to get their attention the action is normally assumed to be permissible up until (or before) the point where the person expresses that the action is not permissible. In fact, gestures such as that described above are now becoming more and more prohibited within workplace. Placing that aside, there certainly are areas of the human body that are never granted these implicit assumptions. These areas of the human body must be granted access beforehand by the owner and can be revoked at any time.