Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Wake Up!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 886091" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>trplnkl,</p><p></p><p>In June, Forbes had a pretty good article on civil forfeiture and this is a different animal completely from criminal forfeiture. In the case of the motel owner above, he personally committed no wrong but in effect the gov't is suggesting a motel owner must now do a background check on it's guest or face possible sanctions themselves if said guest is of questionable character later discovered. Now when a motel owner does engage in such background reviews, watch the gov't step in and say it's a violation of the guest's privacy and it is but this is a good example of how gov't impedes market action and voluntary exchange. Gibson's situation is a civil forfeiture because no crime so far has been alleged so before you pass off the UPS example as total hooey, consider Gibson's case. And going to court is questionable because the game is rigged in the State's favor.</p><p></p><p>As to the Forbes piece, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000">here it is</span></a> and it's not definitive by any means but it'll give you a general idea if you want to look further and you should. This is a huge problem that the state has been able to keep quite because "we citizens" demand our "law and order." Those demands always have serious and unintended consequences. Hope the piece proves profitable!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 886091, member: 2189"] trplnkl, In June, Forbes had a pretty good article on civil forfeiture and this is a different animal completely from criminal forfeiture. In the case of the motel owner above, he personally committed no wrong but in effect the gov't is suggesting a motel owner must now do a background check on it's guest or face possible sanctions themselves if said guest is of questionable character later discovered. Now when a motel owner does engage in such background reviews, watch the gov't step in and say it's a violation of the guest's privacy and it is but this is a good example of how gov't impedes market action and voluntary exchange. Gibson's situation is a civil forfeiture because no crime so far has been alleged so before you pass off the UPS example as total hooey, consider Gibson's case. And going to court is questionable because the game is rigged in the State's favor. As to the Forbes piece, [URL="http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html"][COLOR=#ff0000]here it is[/COLOR][/URL] and it's not definitive by any means but it'll give you a general idea if you want to look further and you should. This is a huge problem that the state has been able to keep quite because "we citizens" demand our "law and order." Those demands always have serious and unintended consequences. Hope the piece proves profitable! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Wake Up!
Top