131–140 of 268 posts
Democracy has been bastardized over the past 150+ years to the extent that governments are now effectively nothing more than organized criminal organizations. Police serve as the enforcing arm of these organizations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The US Supreme Court, on a number of occasions. The case law is just full of outrageous stupidity, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennis_v._Michigan in the USSC ruled that a woman's car could be seized due to her husband's offence that was outside her control. The whole history of in rem actions is bonkers, as cases have titles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consi...
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're essentially saying that no one has a legitimate cause to hold thousands of dollars in cash, so they must be doing something illicit, so we have cause to take it. Think about it statistically. The standard is "more likely than not" the money is obtained illegally. If you pull over 100 people with large amounts of cash, what percentage obtained it illegally? If it's greater than 50%, then you can always seize…
> If you pull over 100 people with large amounts of cash, what percentage obtained it illegally? If it's greater than 50%, then you can always seize the cash under that standard. That's an interesting question, but it's not obviously greater than 50%. Honestly, I don't think it's higher than 50% at all, but certainly it isn't so clearly higher that it should be accepted without evidence.
I'm not a conspiracy nut but I can certainly see how someone who is could view this as an effort to legally coerce citizens into using only traceable methods of payment approved by commercial processors under the implication that something like cash or bitcoin would only be used by those trying to hide something.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. It is worse than that. The money is what is charged, not the person. So the money has to prove itself innocent, which is pretty much impossible. If you h…
Isn't the money innocent until proven guilty?
1. The owner decides it is not worth the hassle. 2. The government usually settles bogus seizes because they don't want case law building up over this subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
The self-interest involved inherently says absolutely nothing about the argument being made. The only thing that does that, is the argument in question, it stands alone. Anything else is bias no different than the kind you're trying to point at Monsanto or XYZ fracking company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't civil forfeiture take off as a way to counter the rise of drug monies making kingpins? If to a great degree it's true and simultaneously we're reëvaluating cannabis and society and reëxamining three strikes laws, etc., I would hope we also take a critical look at this shift in burden of proof transferred to the accused with the hope it goes back to the prosecution.
Yeah but policing is expensive, being tough on crime is popular (but mostly only with white republicans) and lowering or eliminating taxes is sacrosanct to republicans. Perfect combination for these kind of abuses. As long as the victimized populaces doesn't vote for the politicians in power or is otherwise disenfranchised and poor, it's a great plan /s.
Also civil forfeiture usually ruffles conservatives as government overreach. Basically, toughness on crime came from many odd bedfellows.
For example, California popularized three strikes, a very liberal state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
elected leaders There's your problem. Why are you electing people? That's completely backwards. Electing people is allocating labor and incurring production costs without evaluating demand signals. It is ideas that must be debated and voted on, and have people fill in to execute them. Only by having information on what policy is desired will you able to properly apportion the production costs and allocate the represe…
So direct democracy then? That presents it's own problems like the majority being in favor of something horrible, like the internment of muslim citizens after a terrorist attack.
Not to mention unjust internment already occurred despite representative democracy (in fact directly emanating from elected executive power), that of Italians, Germans and Japanese during WWII. Let's also not discount land law acts and a host of other attacks on civil liberties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
elected leaders There's your problem. Why are you electing people? That's completely backwards. Electing people is allocating labor and incurring production costs without evaluating demand signals. It is ideas that must be debated and voted on, and have people fill in to execute them. Only by having information on what policy is desired will you able to properly apportion the production costs and allocate the represe…
So direct democracy then? That presents it's own problems like the majority being in favor of something horrible, like the internment of muslim citizens after a terrorist attack.
And are we not just relying on elected leaders not doing horrible things anyway?