71–80 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
> Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. It is both. > calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation. Taxation today is theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, vote 3rd party. That is essentially "none of the above."
3rd party voting is largely a wasted vote in First Pass the Post [0] systems like the US. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
How is voting for a Rep or Dem not a wasted vote, considering what they're doing to us?
3rd parties aren't fucking us (yet). Vote for whoever isn't fucking us, not because they might win (they won't), but to register the protest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof. The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no due process before they seize the money in the first place. But you do get the due process after the fact. Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from do…
> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive. NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.
Sure, if the government took 500 bucks, ya they are kind of fucking you. But for 10k you should fight in court.
In that respect it's a lot less oppressive than most government civil actions. If the EPA sues you, we are talking tens of thousands in legal fees.
Though I'd support making the government pay attorneys fees in cases where the money was found not to be illegal. That should prevent government from just going around and stealing money in bad faith.
Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. It is both. > calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation. Taxation today is theft.
In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. We are unable to give consent (consent implies choice), so it is theft through coercion (prison). See "group fund" for a voluntary form of taxation: http://groupcurrency.org
One of the original cases establishing the third-party doctrine was US v. Miller (1976), where SCOTUS ruled that turning over deposit slips and checks to your bank removes your reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if you choose to opt out of using the banking system to avoid this, you'll need to use cash. However, if you carry large amounts of cash, you're subject to warrantless seizure because of so…
It is amazing that Americans allow this sort of thing then say they are a world leader in personal liberty.
I've heard this sort of thing happening in Third World countries. Perhaps the US is - for all its advanced technology and creature comforts - essentially now a Third World kleptocracy. Silicon Valley and Manhattan are like Dubai - gaudy showcases that don't represent the true nature of the hinterland. I would be very wary about working in Dubai; I would be equally wary about working and living in the US for the same…
The civil forfeitures problem is non-trivial, but you're drastically exaggerating. The whole of the US has a very highly functional, low-corruption judiciary system, and a mostly still intact and strong property rights system.
Most of America is low crime, low corruption, the opposite of what you're implying. In fact it's because of that, that most Americans are unaware of what organizations like the DEA are doing.
The US is less corrupt than France for example:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive. NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.
This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Sure, if the government took 500 bucks, ya they are kind of fucking you. But for 10k you should fight in court. In that respect it's a lot less oppressive than most government civil actions. If the EPA sues you, we are talking tens of thousands in legal fees. Though I'd support makin…
Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996).
There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.