3 ms·

I think we live in a democracy, and the people set the rules. If we the people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok, because

I think we live in a democracy, and the people set the rules. If we the people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok, because the people are sovereign.

throw2016 9y ago
Voting for 2 seconds every 4 or 5 years does not make you sovereign, in theory, practice or in day to day reality.
falcolas 9y ago
No, we (speaking as a US citizen here) do not set down most of the rules. We instead elect representatives who we "trust" to make the rules on our behalf. Asset forfeiture was not one of the laws which would have hit the ballots; it came down from the federal level. > people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok It's doubtful that this was never actually presented to the public - at most the public raised concerns about drug runners using their ill-gotten gains too freely, so the elected (and appointed) officials decided to implement a solution this way. It's also equally possible that the public had no input whatsoever in the process.
michaelmrose 9y ago
This is a wholly and totally ridiculous line of argument on several levels. The people merely pick representatives for a whole host of reasons they rarely get a say regarding an individual law so its extremely difficult to argue that a given law is by default the will of the people merely because it exists. Further even if we were to accept such a thing it is insufficient to abrogate our responsibility to exercise our critical thinking regarding the nature and effect of the law. More importantly the US constitution clearly and in plain language makes such taking illegal unless the government undergoes the arduous process of amending it which would pretty clearly signify public acceptance of such a change. The fact that such an amendment is not merely unthinkable its laughable seems to suggest that the public will you imagine exists is wholly a figment of your imagination.

I think we live in a democracy, and the people set the rules. If we the people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok, because the people are sovereign.

throw2016 9y ago

Voting for 2 seconds every 4 or 5 years does not make you sovereign, in theory, practice or in day to day reality.

falcolas 9y ago

No, we (speaking as a US citizen here) do not set down most of the rules. We instead elect representatives who we "trust" to make the rules on our behalf. Asset forfeiture was not one of the laws which would have hit the ballots; it came down from the federal level. > people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok It's doubtful that this was never actually presented to the public - at most the public raised concerns about drug runners using their ill-gotten gains too freely, so the elected (and appointed) officials decided to implement a solution this way. It's also equally possible that the public had no input whatsoever in the process.

michaelmrose 9y ago

This is a wholly and totally ridiculous line of argument on several levels. The people merely pick representatives for a whole host of reasons they rarely get a say regarding an individual law so its extremely difficult to argue that a given law is by default the will of the people merely because it exists. Further even if we were to accept such a thing it is insufficient to abrogate our responsibility to exercise our critical thinking regarding the nature and effect of the law. More importantly the US constitution clearly and in plain language makes such taking illegal unless the government undergoes the arduous process of amending it which would pretty clearly signify public acceptance of such a change. The fact that such an amendment is not merely unthinkable its laughable seems to suggest that the public will you imagine exists is wholly a figment of your imagination.