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

31–40 of 268 posts

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

#31

Post by joshfraser »

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 is unconstitutional, but our government stopped following that document a while ago. Just look at civil forfeiture, the NSA dragnet, journalists being sued by the Whitehouse administration, NDAA authorization to kill Americans w/o trial or the existence of Gitmo.

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

#32

Post by hyperpape »

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?

Knock yourself out:

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/...

http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000...

(Seriously, what kind of response are you expecting? There are so many assumptions built in to your question that you're basically asking for a summary of political philosophy).

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

#33

Post by talmand »

entropyneur wrote: post #15
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.

> 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?

In many cases, no they are not.

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

#34

Post by joshfraser »

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…

I'm happy I live in a country that has taxes, because I like the improved quality of life that comes from having utilities and public services like streets and water. Civil forfeiture hurts the quality of life for everyone except the cops.

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

#35

Post by joshuaheard »

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"…

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there was not.

For a small amount of money, it is not worth it to some people to invest the time and money to sue the state to get the money back. For those that can afford a lawyer and a lawsuit, there is (Constitutional) due process.

The remedy lies with the legislatures to add a criminal element, to reverse the burden of proof, and to add an interest penalty to losing agencies.

As for the article, it is a novel idea. I would think that the amount and type of official corruption would be a better indicator of a state in decline.

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

#36

Post by wehadfun »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #17

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…

You think Mercenaries are good based on a book written by a mercenary?

Thats like believing GMO corn is good based on a book by Monsato. Or that fracking is good based on a book by some company that builds fracking equipment

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

#37

Post by merpnderp »

joshuaheard wrote: post #35
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"…

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

But what set of idiot justices decided that the police can stop you, see you have $10k in your trunk, and then take it even though you tell them it is from your savings and you're on the way to buy a car?

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

#39

Post by asift »

The author's reference to Morris' high-end/low-end classification of states and absolute preference for centralization seems simplistic and out of touch with economic research on the topic.

I think Elinor Ostrom (the only female recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics to date) provides a much more useful framework for evaluating institutional design. In some cases centralization works and in others decentralization is preferable, but a very important component that gets left out of Morris' dichotomy is the role that jurisdictional overlap plays in forcing centralized and decentralized institutions to compete against each other and ultimately provide better outcomes than either could independently.

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

#40

Post by _ak »

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 but not by confiscation?

Because these people are not egotistical, anti-social assholes, but contribute their share to society instead.

Post reply on HN