5 ms·

> 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 aut

> 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 this case) but present in the whole?

MindTwister 11y ago
With governments you get to decide the makeup and leader of the gang. Thats... quite a fundamental difference.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Within a specific form of government when it is properly running within a system with minimal corruption, you get to decide the makeup and leader of the government... in theory. In practice, the average person has no say over who is ruling them.
- entropyneur 11y ago
  The police in this instance is following the law made by leaders you've supposedly decided on.
Elessar 11y ago
This 'elusive' property is the idea that taxes are an indirect method of funding the police (as it is re-proportioned via much bureaucracy), while seizures directly fund the policeman's wallet. Obviously the latter is much more dangerous, because there's a self-reinforcing cycle where the police spend their entire time stealing, instead of doing their government-defined jobs. Indirection is important. It allows someone to give you goals that are productive, otherwise you would just steal from your employer instead of working for them (so they would give you money).
- wanderingstan 11y ago
  Nice explanation. I'd never thought about the important role of indirection in productive employment.
TY 11y ago
Distribution of violence makes the differences: taxes are applied to the majority and there's an established and predictable pattern for this way of wealth transfer from the populace to the government, while stop seizures apply to a very small group but in a much more impactful (for that group) way in an unpredictable manner.
imron 11y ago
From taxes, which although complex, are still well publicized and listed and it's easy to know how much you need to pay and when. You also (generally) pay these based on your income level. That's completely different from have arbitrary amounts of cash confiscated from you at arbitrary times.
- ndespres 11y ago
  I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.
  - purespark2 11y ago
    I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?
    - joshuacc 11y ago
      > Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation Most people don't regard taxation as a violation of property rights.
    - hyperpape 11y ago
      Knock yourself out: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006 http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/... http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781 http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000... (Seriously, what kind of response are you expecting? There are so many assumptions built in to your question that you're basically asking for a summary of political philosophy).
    - _ak 11y ago
      > Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation? Because these people are not egotistical, anti-social assholes, but contribute their share to society instead.
purespark2 11y ago
This is a pretty interesting point that i haven't though much about before. I suppose one problem with confiscation vs. taxation involves incentives. Taxation incentivizes governments to create healthy economies to increase revenue whereas confiscation incentivizes police forces to violate property rights arbitrarily. Another problem at present is there is much less oversight of confiscation than of taxation and maybe confiscation is less predictable than taxation.
- entropyneur 11y ago
  That's a good point. Taxation is protection racket while stop-and-seize is armed robbery.
joshfraser 11y ago
I'm happy I live in a country that has taxes, because I like the improved quality of life that comes from having utilities and public services like streets and water. Civil forfeiture hurts the quality of life for everyone except the cops.
- Kluny 11y ago
  I believe it hurts quality of life for cops as well, in that it reduces their self-respect.
jimrandomh 11y ago
The difference is that the amount of taxes and how they're spent are determined by a legislative process by elected officials.

MindTwister 11y ago

With governments you get to decide the makeup and leader of the gang. Thats... quite a fundamental difference.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Within a specific form of government when it is properly running within a system with minimal corruption, you get to decide the makeup and leader of the government... in theory. In practice, the average person has no say over who is ruling them.
entropyneur 11y ago
The police in this instance is following the law made by leaders you've supposedly decided on.

Elessar 11y ago

This 'elusive' property is the idea that taxes are an indirect method of funding the police (as it is re-proportioned via much bureaucracy), while seizures directly fund the policeman's wallet. Obviously the latter is much more dangerous, because there's a self-reinforcing cycle where the police spend their entire time stealing, instead of doing their government-defined jobs. Indirection is important. It allows someone to give you goals that are productive, otherwise you would just steal from your employer instead of working for them (so they would give you money).

wanderingstan 11y ago
Nice explanation. I'd never thought about the important role of indirection in productive employment.

TY 11y ago

Distribution of violence makes the differences: taxes are applied to the majority and there's an established and predictable pattern for this way of wealth transfer from the populace to the government, while stop seizures apply to a very small group but in a much more impactful (for that group) way in an unpredictable manner.

imron 11y ago

From taxes, which although complex, are still well publicized and listed and it's easy to know how much you need to pay and when. You also (generally) pay these based on your income level. That's completely different from have arbitrary amounts of cash confiscated from you at arbitrary times.

ndespres 11y ago
I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.
- purespark2 11y ago
  I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?
  - joshuacc 11y ago
    > Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation Most people don't regard taxation as a violation of property rights.
  - hyperpape 11y ago
    Knock yourself out: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006 http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/... http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781 http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000... (Seriously, what kind of response are you expecting? There are so many assumptions built in to your question that you're basically asking for a summary of political philosophy).
  - _ak 11y ago
    > Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation? Because these people are not egotistical, anti-social assholes, but contribute their share to society instead.

purespark2 11y ago

This is a pretty interesting point that i haven't though much about before. I suppose one problem with confiscation vs. taxation involves incentives. Taxation incentivizes governments to create healthy economies to increase revenue whereas confiscation incentivizes police forces to violate property rights arbitrarily. Another problem at present is there is much less oversight of confiscation than of taxation and maybe confiscation is less predictable than taxation.

entropyneur 11y ago
That's a good point. Taxation is protection racket while stop-and-seize is armed robbery.

joshfraser 11y ago

I'm happy I live in a country that has taxes, because I like the improved quality of life that comes from having utilities and public services like streets and water. Civil forfeiture hurts the quality of life for everyone except the cops.

Kluny 11y ago
I believe it hurts quality of life for cops as well, in that it reduces their self-respect.

jimrandomh 11y ago

The difference is that the amount of taxes and how they're spent are determined by a legislative process by elected officials.