3 ms·
My point is that's too narrow a view. You can't treat property opaquely, or the reasons for the state for seizing it equally. Eminent domain, civil asset forfei
by duped 2y ago
My point is that's too narrow a view. You can't treat property opaquely, or the reasons for the state for seizing it equally. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, red flag laws, even economic sanctions and KYC compliance in finance are all different trees of the state asserting power over different classes of property, for different reasons from public safety to foreign policy, or just plain old corruption.
- giantg2 2y agoAll personal property should have adequate protections from seizures. We shouldn't be side stepping protections by moving things to the civil system to avoid the protections in the criminal system. It shouldn't be easier to side step the protections guaranteed as rights just because something seems scary. You've admitted it's fine to strip innocent people of their rights to protect society, and the numbers show that most red flag laws have not been successful and overwhelmingly impact people who pose no threat. If believing in basic protections and rights is too narrow a view, I'm happy to say that I support that narrow view.