6 ms·

Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Sh

Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can the state take their stuff to begin with, at least beyond what is required or might reasonably be required to pay for fines or compensations or was acquired illegally?

yieldcrv 3y ago
yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Communists at least seize stuff with good intentions.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    The reasons communism allows seizure of property are with good intentions, just as the reasons the law allows the seizure of property in this case are because of good intentions. How it's used and abused in practice in both systems is the important part. I'm not sure either system necessarily has a great track record in that respect.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      Sorry, but the intentions behind these seizures are in no way benign. Maybe in the original intentions of the law, but the police are there to shake people down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU Reminder: this is yet another piece of evidence that The War on Drugs™ does not serve us well in any way, shape, or form.
      - kbenson 3y ago
        > Maybe in the original intentions of the law Yes, that is exactly what I said. I'm not sure how to read it otherwise. If you're going to assess how it works under communism by looking at why the government allows and and what their goal is, it only makes sense to assess other systems the same way, which is why I said "the reasons the law allows..."
    - danbruc 3y ago
      Fair point. I should have been more precise, I was actually thinking of »hypothetical, never actually realized, potentially impossible to realize true platonic communists« and not of some Soviet era communists or something like that.
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    Perhaps they can seize this pile of cobblestones I have, in case they need to pave a road to somewhere warm.
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  It is a bit bizarre to read about a system of exploitation that has flourished under a capitalist police state and then mention communists.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    Eh, I'm not really pro communism, but it makes sense to me. If one of the central differences people focus on between the systems is private property, if someone sees that as somewhat of an illusion it makes sense to note it.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Private property != personal property Means of production is not the same as the shoes on your feet. It's just unfortunately confusing terminology that leads to twisted argumentation. Btw, the alternative to capitalist liberal states is not exclusively authoritarian marxist-leninist communism. Not all anti-capitalists are pining for another different boot to lick.
      - Retric 3y ago
        A tool (boot, glove, knife, hammer, etc) is easily both the means of production and personal property. The distinction is in effect meaningless.
        enterprise_cog 3y ago
        A hammer isn’t a factory. There is a distinction, unless you don’t think industrialization had any effect on society.
        Retric 3y ago
        The rhetoric around the means of production was initially in reference to slaves. Communism was an offshoot of the abolition movement not in reference to at the time minimal number of factories. And in that context people did abandon slavery. Even today factories aren’t the means of production, they don’t make houses that’s mostly people with hand tools. Nor do they make food or mine resources etc.
- gtowey 3y ago
  It's not communism, it's a new form of feudalism.
phone8675309 3y ago
Thank Nixon and the war on drugs for this. Joe Biden was also a huge fan of civil forfeiture in the 80s and 90s: https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-architect-of-the-governments-asset-forfeiture-program/ https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-ar...
soneil 3y ago
You should read up on civil asset forfeiture - it's hilariously obtuse. They arrest your money. You are not accused of a crime, your money is. Your money is not a person, and thus has no constitutional rights. Your money is not innocent until proven, that's a silly system reserved for persons - instead, your money must prove its innocence. And thus you get cases with absurd titles such as "United States v. $84,740.00 U.S. Currency" ( https://casetext.com/case/us-v-8474000-us-currency https://casetext.com/case/us-v-8474000-us-currency ) I'd love to say you can't make this up, but they did.
- cdchn 3y ago
  Here's even more absurd: United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola A federal suit under which the government unsuccessfully attempted to force the Coca-Cola Company to remove caffeine from its product.
- danbruc 3y ago
  I remember some discussion here quite some time ago where somebody brought this up and linked to a list of the strangest cases, I still remember something like United States vs. a few tons of fish.
  - cdchn 3y ago
    Wikipedia's list of "in rem" cases has a lot of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_in_rem_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_in_rem_...
    - danbruc 3y ago
      There it is. Seemingly it was not against complete fish. United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...
      - 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago

yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.

danbruc 3y ago
Communists at least seize stuff with good intentions.
- kbenson 3y ago
  The reasons communism allows seizure of property are with good intentions, just as the reasons the law allows the seizure of property in this case are because of good intentions. How it's used and abused in practice in both systems is the important part. I'm not sure either system necessarily has a great track record in that respect.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Sorry, but the intentions behind these seizures are in no way benign. Maybe in the original intentions of the law, but the police are there to shake people down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU Reminder: this is yet another piece of evidence that The War on Drugs™ does not serve us well in any way, shape, or form.
    - kbenson 3y ago
      > Maybe in the original intentions of the law Yes, that is exactly what I said. I'm not sure how to read it otherwise. If you're going to assess how it works under communism by looking at why the government allows and and what their goal is, it only makes sense to assess other systems the same way, which is why I said "the reasons the law allows..."
  - danbruc 3y ago
    Fair point. I should have been more precise, I was actually thinking of »hypothetical, never actually realized, potentially impossible to realize true platonic communists« and not of some Soviet era communists or something like that.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  Perhaps they can seize this pile of cobblestones I have, in case they need to pave a road to somewhere warm.
enterprise_cog 3y ago
It is a bit bizarre to read about a system of exploitation that has flourished under a capitalist police state and then mention communists.
- kbenson 3y ago
  Eh, I'm not really pro communism, but it makes sense to me. If one of the central differences people focus on between the systems is private property, if someone sees that as somewhat of an illusion it makes sense to note it.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Private property != personal property Means of production is not the same as the shoes on your feet. It's just unfortunately confusing terminology that leads to twisted argumentation. Btw, the alternative to capitalist liberal states is not exclusively authoritarian marxist-leninist communism. Not all anti-capitalists are pining for another different boot to lick.
    - Retric 3y ago
      A tool (boot, glove, knife, hammer, etc) is easily both the means of production and personal property. The distinction is in effect meaningless.
      - enterprise_cog 3y ago
        A hammer isn’t a factory. There is a distinction, unless you don’t think industrialization had any effect on society.
        Retric 3y ago
        The rhetoric around the means of production was initially in reference to slaves. Communism was an offshoot of the abolition movement not in reference to at the time minimal number of factories. And in that context people did abandon slavery. Even today factories aren’t the means of production, they don’t make houses that’s mostly people with hand tools. Nor do they make food or mine resources etc.
gtowey 3y ago
It's not communism, it's a new form of feudalism.

phone8675309 3y ago

Thank Nixon and the war on drugs for this. Joe Biden was also a huge fan of civil forfeiture in the 80s and 90s: https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-architect-of-the-governments-asset-forfeiture-program/ https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-ar...

soneil 3y ago

You should read up on civil asset forfeiture - it's hilariously obtuse. They arrest your money. You are not accused of a crime, your money is. Your money is not a person, and thus has no constitutional rights. Your money is not innocent until proven, that's a silly system reserved for persons - instead, your money must prove its innocence. And thus you get cases with absurd titles such as "United States v. $84,740.00 U.S. Currency" ( https://casetext.com/case/us-v-8474000-us-currency https://casetext.com/case/us-v-8474000-us-currency ) I'd love to say you can't make this up, but they did.

cdchn 3y ago
Here's even more absurd: United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola A federal suit under which the government unsuccessfully attempted to force the Coca-Cola Company to remove caffeine from its product.
danbruc 3y ago
I remember some discussion here quite some time ago where somebody brought this up and linked to a list of the strangest cases, I still remember something like United States vs. a few tons of fish.
- cdchn 3y ago
  Wikipedia's list of "in rem" cases has a lot of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_in_rem_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_in_rem_...
  - danbruc 3y ago
    There it is. Seemingly it was not against complete fish. United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...
    - 3y ago