Civil disobiediance: disagreements and strategy

[David]

Gov't steals anytime they want to, usually by legalizing it first.  Eminent domain and asset forfiture are nice sanitized names for crimes that would send anyone else to jail.  The consitution legalized both, but with (vague) restrictions, and with 'public use' as the flimsy excuse for eminent domain.  Public use has been redifined (legally,) as public benifit.  The reality is eminent domain and asset forfiture was and will continue to be the piggy bank for those in gov't. 
Gov't is so big, that it is a self protecting organization.  It only needs sanitized 'nice sounding' excuses to commit gross levels of immorality. 

[FrankChodorov]

Eminent domain and asset forfiture are nice sanitized names for crimes that would send anyone else to jail.  The consitution legalized both, but with (vague) restrictions, and with 'public use' as the flimsy excuse for eminent domain.

putting aside the Kelo decision for the moment, what was the specific philosophical principle of classical liberalism that demanded ED be included in the constitution?

[Russell Kanning]

Does Frank/Bill Grennon make sense to any of you?

[FrankChodorov]

Russell, 

how about a quick refresher to a conversation and agreemnt we had in the past?

a slave escapes the south before the civil war and shows up in NH but all of the land is previously owned and there is no government.

can the man truly considered to be free if as soon as he steps foot in NH he either has to pay someone or be gifted the right to step on someone's land?

[Sam Adams]

a slave escapes the south before the civil war and shows up in NH but all of the land is previously owned and there is no government.

can the man truly considered to be free if as soon as he steps foot in NH he either has to pay someone or be gifted the right to step on someone's land?

a slave escapes from the south before the civil war and shows up in NH, but all the land except for government roads, town halls, and the state house, is privately owned

can the man truly be considered to be free if as soon as he steps off a government road, town hall lot or state house lot, he either has to pay someone or be gifted the right to step on someone's land?

[FrankChodorov]

a slave escapes the south before the civil war and shows up in NH but all of the land is previously owned and there is no government.

can the man truly considered to be free if as soon as he steps foot in NH he either has to pay someone or be gifted the right to step on someone's land?

a slave escapes from the south before the civil war and shows up in NH, but all the land except for government roads, town halls, and the state house, is privately owned

can the man truly be considered to be free if as soon as he steps off a government road, town hall lot or state house lot, he either has to pay someone or be gifted the right to step on someone's land?

no, and my point is that it matters not one whit whether there is or is not a government in place...

[anthonybpugh]

Gov't steals anytime they want to, usually by legalizing it first.  Eminent domain and asset forfiture are nice sanitized names for crimes that would send anyone else to jail.  The consitution legalized both, but with (vague) restrictions, and with 'public use' as the flimsy excuse for eminent domain.  Public use has been redifined (legally,) as public benifit.  The reality is eminent domain and asset forfiture was and will continue to be the piggy bank for those in gov't. 
Gov't is so big, that it is a self protecting organization.  It only needs sanitized 'nice sounding' excuses to commit gross levels of immorality. 

I don't know how asset forfeiture has been justified under the Constitution.  Asset forfeiture law comes to us from English Admiralty laws which allowed the tax authorities to seize cargos if the ship's captain could not prove that he paid the tax on them.  This is the same source of the requirement for the citizen to prove to the IRS that they don't have a tax debt.  Because drugs were originally regulated by the taxing authorities this is how we got to the practice of using civil asset forfeiture against drug dealers.  Because the drug dealers didn't pay taxes on their drug profits.  Then like everything else, they simply expanded it.  I think the courts have ruled that the 4th and 5th amendments doesn't apply to asset forfeiture.  I will have to research this some more when I get the time. 

[David]

Taxes?!  So thats how they get away with asset forfiture.  I did'nt know that.     Either or, it is still theft.  Taxes are just the convieniant legal excuse to violate the moral priciple of thou shalt not steal. 

[Pat McCotter]

Gov't steals anytime they want to, usually by legalizing it first.  Eminent domain and asset forfiture are nice sanitized names for crimes that would send anyone else to jail.  The consitution legalized both, but with (vague) restrictions, and with 'public use' as the flimsy excuse for eminent domain.  Public use has been redifined (legally,) as public benifit.  The reality is eminent domain and asset forfiture was and will continue to be the piggy bank for those in gov't. 
Gov't is so big, that it is a self protecting organization.  It only needs sanitized 'nice sounding' excuses to commit gross levels of immorality. 

I don't know how asset forfeiture has been justified under the Constitution.  Asset forfeiture law comes to us from English Admiralty laws which allowed the tax authorities to seize cargos if the ship's captain could not prove that he paid the tax on them.  This is the same source of the requirement for the citizen to prove to the IRS that they don't have a tax debt.  Because drugs were originally regulated by the taxing authorities this is how we got to the practice of using civil asset forfeiture against drug dealers.  Because the drug dealers didn't pay taxes on their drug profits.  Then like everything else, they simply expanded it.  I think the courts have ruled that the 4th and 5th amendments doesn't apply to asset forfeiture.  I will have to research this some more when I get the time. 

I've seen references to the below states having drug tax stamps that dealers must affix to the drug packages they sell. If the tax stamps are not sffixed to drugs siezed the police may sieze money from the suspect for failure to pay taxes on the drugs.

Iowa
Tennessee
South Carolina
North Carolina
Arizona
Kansas

Some links:
http://www.ksrevenue.org/perstaxtypesdrug.htm
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6670
http://www.whatdoiknow.org/archives/000897.shtml
http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/stamps.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/stamps-002.html

[anthonybpugh]

Well it is originally through taxation that the federal government began regulating a lot of what it now regulates.  It is why the ATF and the drug enforcement were originally part of the Department of Treasury.

I know about the drug stamps.  Iowa's are ugly.  I've looked into buying some.  I think they cost somewhere around $5 each but you have to buy several of them at once.