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

A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 286 posts

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#41

Post by seibelj »

decebalus1 wrote: post #26
seibelj wrote: post #14

It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destro…

> The more power you give to the government, the less power the citizenry has. Sure. So what's the solution in this particular case? Should we go full corporate and privatize border control and customs? The government has a monopoly on violence and law enforcement. Do you think privatizing this outside of government is a good idea? Do you really think this power would be less abused? Don't pick a bad example to dismi…

Giving the government the ability to seize assets without any sort of hearing or due process, with the burden on the individual to prove innocence with the assumption of guilt, is obviously a bad thing. I can only imagine that it was implemented to fight the drug war.

If you agree this is a bad result, and the situation has affected lots of people, then you agree that the government is capable of doing wrong.

So you should agree that expansions of government power should be treated extremely skeptically and with serious concern.

I do not “dismiss the idea of government” and I opened my post by saying so. I’m saying that we should try and limit the government’s power by default and try not to elect and empower lawmakers who believe otherwise.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#42

Post by orf »

refurb wrote: post #29
orf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thousand times this. I'm not saying the UK is some shining beacon of how to run a country but I do think overall our governmental systems are pretty sensible . I think being sensible might be a stereotypical English trait, but it's true. For example you have to comply with the spirit of a law, not the exact text. Also our QC's are pretty level headed and the same goes for our police force. Nobody is overly nitpicky…

You mean like arresting people when they say something the gov't doesn't like? [1] I'll take a pass, thank you. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...

Couple of thousand fines in a city of 8,700,000 seems sensible to me.

Not everyone values free speech quite as highly as the USA. It's important, sure, but it's not live or die. There are limits and spreading vile hate speech is one of them.

I also like the complete focus on the free speech aspect, completely ignoring the "we actually deal with racists here" aspect. How narrow minded.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#45

Post by mikeash »

api wrote: post #39

How is asset forfeiture not precisely the system of police bribery and police corruption that we routinely criticize "third world" countries for having?

That’s simple: with third world bribery, you pay the police for a favor. With asset forfeiture, they just take your money and don’t do anything for you.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#46

Post by rdiddly »

api wrote: post #39

How is asset forfeiture not precisely the system of police bribery and police corruption that we routinely criticize "third world" countries for having?

Yeah exactly... this guy thought the crime & corruption was bad in Albania.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#47

Post by Zak »

decebalus1 wrote: post #26
seibelj wrote: post #14

It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destro…

> The more power you give to the government, the less power the citizenry has. Sure. So what's the solution in this particular case? Should we go full corporate and privatize border control and customs? The government has a monopoly on violence and law enforcement. Do you think privatizing this outside of government is a good idea? Do you really think this power would be less abused? Don't pick a bad example to dismi…

Small government can also provide border controls and customs. Small, in this case might refer to the scope of the government's powers rather than the size of its budget or number of employees.

Reasonable limitations in this case might include a requirement that property seized temporarily be the subject of a criminal investigation, with a short, strict time limit for either filing charges or seeking an extension from a judge, who should be expected not to grant it without exceptional circumstances. Forfeiture of property could require a felony conviction, and if the felon isn't the owner of the property, additional proof that the owner knew it was being used illegally.

I have no illusions here: these restrictions would sometimes prevent the government from taking the assets of real criminals. That seems like a reasonable trade. The sort of criminal behaviors that civil asset forfeiture might be effective against are not such a significant threat to the stability of the USA as to justify taking the property of innocents with less legal protection than they would have in the criminal justice system.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#48

Post by jboles »

refurb wrote: post #24
3pt14159 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not last. Not first. Not all powerful. Not feckless. Americans act like their government is representative of governments. It isn't. They act like everything needs to be invented there. It doesn't. They believe that America is the greatest country in the world. It isn't. If people in America just stopped to look around at how other countries do things they'd be doubly as well run. Most parts of Europe, Japan, Canada,…

OK, I get it, the US being a superpower is under a microscope and every imperfection is called out so other countries can look down their nose at it. That's fine. But what are you talking about? What could the US learn from Canada on asset forfeiture? Canada does it too! How to do it better? And as a Canadian, saying the gov't run their is better is purely laughable.

> What could the US learn from Canada on asset forfeiture? Canada does it too! How to do it better?

So does the UK, Australia, NZ, and many other countries. But somehow only the US has wannabe-military police rambo types doing it, to stock up their SWAT vans, machine guns and other gizmos. That does not exactly inspire confidence.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#49

Post by untog »

refurb wrote: post #34
woolvalley wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go live in the USA, and you'll see the multiple ways it's more broken than Canada. Many other friends who have moved over from other developed countries collaborate the experience. I'm in the bay area, maybe it's just a special kind of broken that you don't see in other places in the USA, but things like flint, michigan also exist in the USA.

I do live in the US. And you know what? I think there is plenty the US has to offer that Canada doesn't. That's why I'm here.

I agree that the US offers a whole lot that other countries do not. I would disagree that the US government offers anything other governments do not.

Of course, the US government has a role in the other attractive attributes the US has, but I personally think that role is exaggerated. I think the US would still be an economically dominant world power if it had the government of, say, Germany.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#50

Post by [deleted] »

martin1975 wrote: post #40
platinumrad wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster you're replying to is basically correct about how civil asset forfeiture works in the US. If you search, there are plenty of articles about similar cases.

If there's truth to it, without understanding the govt's rationale about this, it looks about as un-American and un-capitalistic as it gets.... goes against the grain of who we are as a country.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN