Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 268 posts

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#11

Post by entropyneur »

imron wrote: post #7
entropyneur wrote: post #2

> With government unable to pay police as much as they need or would like, police are confiscating their revenue directly from the populace. Where does the author think the funding comes from in the normal situation? It's confiscated from the populace just the same. What is this elusive property of the government that makes it not a self-funding gang which is not present in any part of the government (e.g. police in…

From taxes, which although complex, are still well publicized and listed and it's easy to know how much you need to pay and when. You also (generally) pay these based on your income level. That's completely different from have arbitrary amounts of cash confiscated from you at arbitrary times.

Would you be therefore fine with it if a local police department decided it's underfunded and went confiscating money in the neighborhood according to a pre-published plan and taking into account one's income level?

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#12

Post by bluedino »

imron wrote: post #7
entropyneur wrote: post #2

> With government unable to pay police as much as they need or would like, police are confiscating their revenue directly from the populace. Where does the author think the funding comes from in the normal situation? It's confiscated from the populace just the same. What is this elusive property of the government that makes it not a self-funding gang which is not present in any part of the government (e.g. police in…

From taxes, which although complex, are still well publicized and listed and it's easy to know how much you need to pay and when. You also (generally) pay these based on your income level. That's completely different from have arbitrary amounts of cash confiscated from you at arbitrary times.

You also get to vote on increasing/decreasing police funding.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#13

Post by purespark2 »

ndespres wrote: post #10
imron wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From taxes, which although complex, are still well publicized and listed and it's easy to know how much you need to pay and when. You also (generally) pay these based on your income level. That's completely different from have arbitrary amounts of cash confiscated from you at arbitrary times.

I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.

I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#14

Post by coreyp_1 »

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize" not considered unconstitutional? Has it just not been challenged that far yet, or is there a legal rationale that I have not heard yet?

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#15

Post by entropyneur »

ndespres wrote: post #10
imron wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From taxes, which although complex, are still well publicized and listed and it's easy to know how much you need to pay and when. You also (generally) pay these based on your income level. That's completely different from have arbitrary amounts of cash confiscated from you at arbitrary times.

I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.

> something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it

Does it mean the lawmakers and higher-ups in the executive branch are not sane people?

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#16

Post by entropyneur »

purespark2 wrote: post #8
entropyneur wrote: post #2

> With government unable to pay police as much as they need or would like, police are confiscating their revenue directly from the populace. Where does the author think the funding comes from in the normal situation? It's confiscated from the populace just the same. What is this elusive property of the government that makes it not a self-funding gang which is not present in any part of the government (e.g. police in…

This is a pretty interesting point that i haven't though much about before. I suppose one problem with confiscation vs. taxation involves incentives. Taxation incentivizes governments to create healthy economies to increase revenue whereas confiscation incentivizes police forces to violate property rights arbitrarily. Another problem at present is there is much less oversight of confiscation than of taxation and mayb…

That's a good point. Taxation is protection racket while stop-and-seize is armed robbery.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#17

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

I disagree with the author's attitude towards mercenaries operating in foreign countries. Having read "The Modern Mercenary", by former Blackwater merc, Sean McFate, I am fully convinced that mercenaries have a desirable and necessary place in future conflicts.

Take Afghanistan for example. It is a nation at a major geographic crossroads that truly acts as a set of tribes and alliances, not a Westphalian-style state that is Westerners think ought to be the standard. That's why no matter how much "nation building" we do, nothing succeeds.

Instead, as McFate argues, we should have mercenaries prevent groups like al Qaeda from using that space to plan attacks on American soil, instead of spending political capital on forever wars. Mercenaries will be seen as a foreign defense mechanism against terrorism, like what we see the TSA doing at home. (Disagree with their tactics all you want, but they have stopped some bombings).

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#18

Post by joshuacc »

purespark2 wrote: post #13
ndespres wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.

I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?

> Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation

Most people don't regard taxation as a violation of property rights.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#19

Post by cauterized »

coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

It's usually used against people who don't have the means to mount a legal challenge, in amounts that are too small to be worthwhile for a lawyer to pursue yet that can put the victim in such dire financial straits that they're struggling to stay off the streets let alone hire a lawyer.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#20

Post by walterbell »

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/ret..., "The use of mercenaries in warfare has a very long history—much longer, in fact, than the almost-exclusive deployment of national militaries to wage wars. Before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended Europe's Thirty Years' War and marked the rise of the modern state system, medieval powers from kings to popes routinely hired private fighters to do battle for them. As state governments sought a monopoly on the use of force within their territories in the 17th century, however, they moved to stamp out violence by non-state actors, including mercenaries, driving the industry underground."

The Peace of Westphalia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia, "… was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 … established … a new system of political order in central Europe, later called Westphalian sovereignty, based upon the concept of co-existing sovereign states … General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden."

Post reply on HN