Trash is Private Property in New Hampshire

suwain_2 writes "As this article in the Nashua (New Hampshire) Telegraph discusses, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that trash set out on the sidewalk for collection is private property. In the case that led to this landmark decision, police searched through an area man's trash, finding traces of marijuana in his garbage. The New Hampshire Supreme Court declared yesterday that the police didn't have the right to go through his trash without a warrant. This is the opposite of what most states, and the US Supreme Court, have previously ruled. Live free or die indeed."

Comments

Re:correct decision

[dh003i]

that point is good enough, and I hadn't considered that the trash was on the curb (I assumed it was on his driveway, as is my trash on mine). However, when you consider that all public property is the result of theft from millions of individuals through the systematic enslavement of the tax-payer, the "street" (at least the part of it by his house) in legitimacy belongs to the house-owner, as the street is only paid for by stealing from him.

Re:What does it mean for dumpster divers

[John Hasler]

Until the New Hampshire Supreme Court reverses itself or New Hampshire amends its constitution. There is no court with jurisdiction for the cops to appeal to.

Gander Sauce, now on special ...

[timothy]

Thanks for pointing this one out. I vaguely remembered this story (read it in the paper when it was published) but not the specifics. Pretty good capsule summary of what statists believe :)

a) We get to invent the rules
b) The more rules, the better
c) except for us

wrt point b), notice that many public oafficials like to brag about how many new laws they passed or implemented (depending on whether they're in the stick-em-up or the stick-it-to-ya part of the political spectrum). This is something that they *ought* to shamefacedly cough their way out of answering, not brag about.

If we called them all "rule inventors" and "tattletale," I think the proper perspective would be easier to maintain. Words like "lawmaker" and "executive" sound far too important for these arrogant brats.

What, me venty?

timothy

Re:actually, what I'm saying

[dh003i]

I gave you the necessary reference in Rothbard's section on the public sector:

How, then, would the courts operate in the libertarian society? In particular, how could they enforce their decisions? In all their operations, furthermore, they must observe the critical libertarian rule that no physical force may be used against anyone who has not been convicted as a criminal--otherwise, the users of such force, whether police or courts, would be themselves liable to be convicted as aggressors if it turned out that the person they had used force against was innocent of crime. In contrast to statist systems, no policeman or judge could be granted special immunity to use coercion beyond what anyone else in society could use.

Let us now take the case we mentioned before. Mr. Jones is robbed, his hired detective agency decides that one Brown committed the crime, and Brown refuses to concede his guilt. What then? In the first place, we must recognize that there is at present no overall world court or world government enforcing its decrees; yet while we live in a state of "international anarchy" there is little or no problem in disputes between private citizens of two countries. Suppose that right now, for example, a citizen of Uruguay claims that he has been swindled by a citizen of Argentina. Which court does he go to? He goes to his own, i.e., the victim's or the plaintiff's court. The case proceeds in the Uruguayan court, and its decision is honored by the Argentinian court. The same is true if an American feels he has been swindled by a Canadian, and so on. In Europe after the Roman Empire, when German tribes lived side by side and in the same areas, if a Visigoth felt that he had been injured by a Frank, he took the case to his own court, and the decision was generally accepted by the Franks. Going to the plaintiff's court is the rational libertarian procedure as well, since the victim or plaintiff is the one who is aggrieved, and who naturally takes the case to his own court. So, in our case, Jones would go to the Prudential Court Company to charge Brown with theft.

It is possible, of course, that Brown is also a client of the Prudential Court, in which case there is no problem. The Prudential's decision covers both parties, and becomes binding. But one important stipulation is that no coercive subpoena power can be used against Brown, because he must be considered innocent until he is convicted. But Brown would be served with a voluntary subpoena, a notice that he is being tried on such and such a charge and inviting him or his legal representative to appear. If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon--a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim.