4 ms·

Capitalism works because there is an elected authority, the U.S. Governement, that guarantees its citizens their right to own property. Property is one of the f

Capitalism works because there is an elected authority, the U.S. Governement, that guarantees its citizens their right to own property. Property is one of the fundamental pillars of Western society. Under certain formal processes, property can be taken away (without the consent of the owner). The motivation behind such drastic actions is to balance out economic interests of the involved parties, e.g. in lien those of debtor vs creditor. Or when the government needs to build a road and a land owner is unwillig to sell, there must be a fair process, which must balance the need of the public as well. So, now, asset forfeiture can be a useful tool to undermine criminal activity (or any activity really) of a specific person. But this must happen in a fair trial (unless danger is imminent, under which one can argue in favor of indemnity). In this case there hasn't even been a charge brought forward. This alone is executive abuse of power, because a independent judicial system must only be allowed to take such actions. Moreover, this will hit economically weak peak people hardest. Which further increases crime. It's a vicious circle.

abhi3 9y ago
Not an American but reading all the outrage gives me the impression that police in US is just going around seizing a couple of thousand dollars from anyone they can find to fill up their budget and hope no one will go to court because it'd be more expensive for the accused to hire a lawyer. Nevermind that contingency fee arrangments are widespread and that small amounts of cash, even to the extent of a few tens of thousand dollars can easily be proved as legitimate money if one has a job. Not familiar with US civil procedure but it should involve showing your tax returns and asking for a summary judgment, and later a tort lawsuit against the State for all the suffering caused. I would be interested in knowing the median amount seized by police in such cases. Maybe its just a case of politicians one after another not being ideologues about property right but recognizing the merits of adopting a pragmatist approach to augment law enforcement budget by seizing large amounts of obviously ill gotten wealth without having to discharge a high (and expensive) burden of proof in each case. If so, sounds good to me.
- arjuan 9y ago
  If you want additional perspective on how it's actually used, then checkout John Oliver's segment on Civil Forfeiture.

abhi3 9y ago

Not an American but reading all the outrage gives me the impression that police in US is just going around seizing a couple of thousand dollars from anyone they can find to fill up their budget and hope no one will go to court because it'd be more expensive for the accused to hire a lawyer. Nevermind that contingency fee arrangments are widespread and that small amounts of cash, even to the extent of a few tens of thousand dollars can easily be proved as legitimate money if one has a job. Not familiar with US civil procedure but it should involve showing your tax returns and asking for a summary judgment, and later a tort lawsuit against the State for all the suffering caused. I would be interested in knowing the median amount seized by police in such cases. Maybe its just a case of politicians one after another not being ideologues about property right but recognizing the merits of adopting a pragmatist approach to augment law enforcement budget by seizing large amounts of obviously ill gotten wealth without having to discharge a high (and expensive) burden of proof in each case. If so, sounds good to me.

arjuan 9y ago
If you want additional perspective on how it's actually used, then checkout John Oliver's segment on Civil Forfeiture.