71–80 of 268 posts
Obviously I'm not serious in what I wrote above. The serious point I want to make is that this is one of the many unintended side-effects of the whole 'lower taxes for the sake of lower taxes' movement. Don't say I didn't warn ya.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?
Taxation in a democracy is inherently legitimate. And the reasoning behind it is explained clearly in Rousseau's Social Contract, although the idea goes back centuries. Simply stated, if you decide to continue living in a society, then you implicitly agree to abide by its rules. In most countries, the agreement means paying taxes set by elected representatives.
Beyond that, categorizing anything as "inherently legitimate" is fraught with peril. One could perhaps surmise that all things are legitimate within a democracy, but so long as the favors of the majority come at the expense of the minority, that claim is disputable.
Beyond that, I don't really know that Rousseau's contract would invalidate a North Korean government as it exists, and North Korean citizenship precludes the option of defection.
The biggest flaw I see with the assertion that "if you want to live here, you agree to pay taxes" is that there's no opt-out policy in America as it is. If you object to the taxation, and wish to opt out, your only path is expatriation, with its associated expatriation taxes.
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…
The TSA is killing people and without trial at that?
Why is this a bad thing? We don't want to pay ANY taxes, so this way only THE BAD PEOPLE pay to fund the municipalities that do this. ARE YOU A BAD PERSON? OR ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE TAX US TO DEATH PEOPLE? Obviously I'm not serious in what I wrote above. The serious point I want to make is that this is one of the many unintended side-effects of the whole 'lower taxes for the sake of lower taxes' movement. Don't say I d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not aware of a case making it far enough, but I could be wrong. It's a tough one because in most cases, I believe, the seized property is not worth enough to warrant a case making it to the Supreme Court. I would be interested seeing if a class-action would be possible. But I've often wondered how this could stand up to constitutional muster. I believe one of the arguments is that the criminal case isn't against…
It's a tough one because in most cases, I believe, the seized property is not worth enough to warrant a case making it to the Supreme Court. When they do run into someone with enough gumption and resources to appeal, they immediately drop the charges against the money and return it minus fees, just to prevent the creation of specific precedent against the practice.
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"…
What are the mechanisms or processes by which we expect to be protected? Since this is a civil case, one would have to hire a lawyer with their own money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun. Yes they should. Either they are arresting you and the gun gets processed like everything else, or they aren't arresting you and thus need a warrant to seize anything from you. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest you for the crime then they don't have enough evidence to seize the gun without…
What if you were just passing through and they hit you with a bullshit charge, the fine for which is "give us your gun?" That's the way these laws often work. They snag people who don't live in the area and don't have the resources to fight them in court (especially if you seize their money).
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"…
As George Carlin said; your rights can be taken away whenever convenient. Thus, they are not really rights at all, but temporary privileges. http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4
It's pretty obvious that they exist, otherwise nobody would really care about murder, rape, theft, fraud, lying, etc. So the burden of proof is on those that want to limit or deny inalienable rights.
George Carlin is hilarious (at least in general), but ironically gives abusers a lot of ammunition with this argument.
> 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…