4 ms·
There's the whole civil asset forfeiture angle to this: they may have been ostensibly planning to have people defend their deposit box in court, only to get cha
by pclmulqdq 3y ago
There's the whole civil asset forfeiture angle to this: they may have been ostensibly planning to have people defend their deposit box in court, only to get charged with a litany of crimes related to its contents. They didn't keep any of the articles separate, though, which makes me think this was just a legal robbery.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoDefinitely a case of malicious non-compliance. The police love to ignore their oath when they face no repercussions.
- data_monkey 3y agoI hate everything about our anarcho-tyranical state.
- anonym29 3y agoA 'state' in the sense of a government is the antithesis of anarcho-anything.
- logicchains 3y agoAnarcho-tyranny means a government that doesn't enforce any of the laws that protect people, only enforces laws that protect itself. So it's like the absence of a government in the sense that a government is supposed to be tasked with protecting people's life and property.
- anonym29 3y agoWell that's objectively poor phrasing, then. 'Anarcho-' as a prefix refers to Anarchy, which refers to a society being in a state of not having authorities. You could argue that having authorities that abuse their authority to self-serving ends renders that authority illegitimate, but by the admission of Anarcho-tyranny's own proponents (as a theory), they still recognize the existence of these "authorities", and just contest the governance decisions made by those authorities. That's certainly a bad government, but to call it anarcho-anything is just downright confusing.
- GauntletWizard 3y ago> Anarchy > a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems Emphasis mine. The Government failing to recognize it's own laws and founding principles absolutely qualifies as anarchy. Anarchy as a state(1) of disorder predates Anarchy as a form of government for a state(2).
- trinsic2 3y agoIf you want a real understanding of a word, look to its etymology. Anarchy 1530s, "absence of government," from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon). From 1660s as "confusion or absence of authority in general;" by 1849 in reference to the social theory advocating "order without power," with associations and co-operatives taking the place of direct government, as formulated in the 1830s by French political philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865).
- sidewndr46 3y agoThis has been the default for thousands of years and I wouldn't expect any less from our current government.
- ETH_start 3y agoThe anarchic aspect comes from the void in accountability that comes with large bureaucracies like states. It is this dysfunctionionality that makes free market oriented societies that place greater limits on the power of the state generally more prosperous than societies with significant government intervention, despite the latter theoretically being better able to address a litany of collective action problems.
- roenxi 3y agoI get what you're saying and agree. But even theoretically a corporation is much better at dealing with collective action problems. Setting up a new entity that looks a lot like a corporation is the standard approach to moving a needle. The government doesn't have the bandwidth to move on collective action problems that people don't already have figured out by some other means, voting isn't a great tool for doing more than the really basic stuff like keeping a military and police force functional. And even for things like the military, private sector institutions are better at building all the components. We have corporations (using a very wide definition that includes non-profit entities that are legally similar) that tackle every problem under the sun. You can't expect beat an entity that exists for the sole purpose of addressing a problem with a general purpose schizophrenic institution like a government.
- justinclift 3y agoYeah, that sounds dodgy as all heck. So if someone had (say) $1000 in cash in there, they'd be told to pick out the bank notes or something. At which point it's just gambling as to whether any particular bank note is going to get you arrested or not due to it having a bad history.
- exhilaration 3y agoRelated story: 4 or 5 years ago my brother got held up on the street in Baltimore in a daytime robbery. The cops drove by 30 seconds later, my brother pointed out the guy, and they caught him right away. My brother was told he could only get his money back if he could provide the serial numbers for the cash he had stolen. Of course he couldn't do that.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoWere there witnesses or video or some other proof independent of your brother’s claims?
- boeingUH60 3y agoI smell BS in this story..
- treyfitty 3y agoBaltimore police is known to be corrupt, what’s BS about the police officers citing unreasonable demands for proof in an attempt to pocket the money?
- chaps 3y agoHah. Yeah. Maybe 10y ago I was robbed. The investigator who took my case, a month later, asked me if I had anything to drink that night. I said, yeah, one beer about 7hr earlier. He said that because I drank that night that would close the investigation and that was that.
- FireBeyond 3y agoYou may want to watch The Wire, which was problematic enough. But then, nearly two decades later We Own This City (based on the non-fiction book of the same name) which breaks down a lot of the endemic corruption in Baltimore PD.
- pjc50 3y agoCivil forfeiture has turned into legalized robbery in the US. This is just an exceptionally egregious example, and you can see why people don't trust the FBI when things like this happen.