41–50 of 94 posts
The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.
Might that also lead to questionable practices to make sure they're perceived to be "doing a good job"? It already happens in the form of ticket quotas.
The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.
In theory we live in a democracy that should make fixing this easy.
What surprises me is that this hasn't been declared unconstitutional. I thought you couldn't be deprived of property without due process? I know it has survived numerous court cases so I'm baffled.
it's almost as if the original american political ideals are corrupt enough to afford chattel property rights over human beings and aren't actually built on ethical grounds
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those particular geese only lay golden eggs until you kill them. My guess is they got greedy and then got attention. It was fine and good when they took PimpDaddy's caddy because drugs, but not so fine when they took his grandma's house too because he parked there for an hour last tuesday.
man you're not even trying with the racial dogwhistles here but it speaks to a deeper truth
I'm curious why libertarians around here and Tea Party followers elsewhere do not make more noise over this issue. It's an honest question; my hypothesis: It's because the intrusion is from the right and not from the left.
Magazines like Reason have covered this for decades, here's an article from the 90s.
Similar NYTimes article posted yesterday with a bit more substance: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-w... I'm not really sure why civil forfeiture places the burden on owners. Kind of defies the logic of innocent until proven guilty.
What surprises me is that this hasn't been declared unconstitutional. I thought you couldn't be deprived of property without due process? I know it has survived numerous court cases so I'm baffled.
I'm curious why libertarians around here and Tea Party followers elsewhere do not make more noise over this issue. It's an honest question; my hypothesis: It's because the intrusion is from the right and not from the left.
Go to Liberty Forum or Porcupine Festival and you'll see not just one but multiple studied experts discussing both the particulars of these policies and also strategies for achieving change.
Rand Paul (whom isn't nearly radical enough for my palate but carries the "Tea Party" label arguably more than anyone else) is by far the loudest member of either house of congress on this issue.
As far as I know, Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party candidate in 2012 and former New Mexico Governor) was the only viable candidate for President (defined here as being on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of victory) who talked about this issue in his stump speech.
I'm not sure what more you want?
As an aside: Gary Johnson is a truly wonderful human being and an incredible elite athlete. I've been fortunate to get to hang out with him on about half a dozen occasions and, dare I say, become a personal friend, albeit not a close one (yet :-)). He's a really warm person who radiates amazingly positive energy (something you don't necessarily expect from a Libertarian) and is full of really intense entrepreneurial drive. He's planning a run again for 2016; be sure to at least give his material a chance.