21–30 of 186 posts
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/05/07/m...
I'm not saying the police are right, the whole seizure thing is ridiculous, but this story is so shady. You have 11 grand in cash and want to move it from A to B. The obvious and safe way is to deposit it in a bank and get a cashier's check or do an ACH transfer. Who in their right mind would carry it with them or even worse, put it in a checked bag that airlines notoriously lose? The point of the story is valid, but…
Inadvisable? Absolutely. And I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of people moving around large amounts of cash for dubious reasons. So, if they lose the cash or get robbed, some degree of "I told you so" is absolutely in order. But getting robbed by your own government should not be on the list of possible consequences of dubious (but legal) ideas.
I'm not saying the police are right, the whole seizure thing is ridiculous, but this story is so shady. You have 11 grand in cash and want to move it from A to B. The obvious and safe way is to deposit it in a bank and get a cashier's check or do an ACH transfer. Who in their right mind would carry it with them or even worse, put it in a checked bag that airlines notoriously lose? The point of the story is valid, but…
1. https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2012_unbankedreport.pdf...
I'm not saying the police are right, the whole seizure thing is ridiculous, but this story is so shady. You have 11 grand in cash and want to move it from A to B. The obvious and safe way is to deposit it in a bank and get a cashier's check or do an ACH transfer. Who in their right mind would carry it with them or even worse, put it in a checked bag that airlines notoriously lose? The point of the story is valid, but…
Your attitude towards other people's business offends me about as much as the actual seizure. Its attitudes like this that make the US more dangerous since "Shady" is the same reason SWAT teams are used to throw flash bangs in houses and server warrants. That attitude escalates the danger to us all.
What's wrong with "untraceable"? How is it anyones business what anyone does with their money unless they are actually committing a criminal activity or defrauding someone? If those were happening and charges were brought and a guilty conviction happens, then fine seize the money, but not until.
That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to get mad about people experiencing bad outcomes when they take stupid risks.
There are many other examples that make a better case against civil asset forfeiture.
I'm not saying the police are right, the whole seizure thing is ridiculous, but this story is so shady. You have 11 grand in cash and want to move it from A to B. The obvious and safe way is to deposit it in a bank and get a cashier's check or do an ACH transfer. Who in their right mind would carry it with them or even worse, put it in a checked bag that airlines notoriously lose? The point of the story is valid, but…
You are assuming in this case that the young man in this case has access to the banking tools that you do, which is a big assumption. Poor and minority populations are less likely to have bank accounts, and more likely to keep their savings in cash[1]. Combine that with the fact that he was more likely to be stopped for being black in the first place and you have a recipe for abuse. 1. https://www.fdic.gov/households…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who in their right mind would do thing X where thing X is risky because of an out-of-control state agency. Someone who is blissfully unaware of how out of control the state agency is, probably.
He said it was risky because airlines lose bags. He's right--doing that is insane.
I still don't understand why this kind of thing has not yet led to violence. Edit: > Originally, it was designed for situations in which the court would not have jurisdiction over the person, so it's an action on the property itself. Oh, interesting. So it is a bug in the law itself that nobody has any interest in fixing; but people who've already been robbed at gunpoint.
Because the government and businesses have slowly but surely been eroding the role of cash in our lives. Most people use checks or credit cards for big purchases. Most people are paid by check, and the exceptions are usually near minimum wage. Nobody does big transactions in cash anymore -- even if you want to pay tens or hundreds of thousands in cash for a car, a house, or college tuition, if you show up with a brie…
Using virtual Money is obviously much better than paper money. The difference is should it be centralized or de-centralized and anonymous ?
The paradoxical economic problem with decentralized money is that the govt has no control over it. Which means during bad time its going to be very difficult for the govt to enact changes. We learnt it the hard way During the great depression when money was pegged to gold and the govt was unable to use inflation to restart the economy.
Its a deep economical problem for which there is no known theoretical solution. Is it possible to have a decentralized monetary system that can also be controlled by a representive govt ?
For those who didn't RTFA, he carried his life savings with him in cash . We've seen several stories like this: person has $xx,xxx in cash on them like that's just a normal thing to do. Bad thing happens. Person is incredulous. No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives. That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to g…