You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)
So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.
[/quote]
There is no morality between nations, only individuals. Raw power, the rule of the jungle, is the only law in megapolitics.
You should know this if you studied British history at all.
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
[/quote]
I’m surprised no one has pointed out that this would constitute a Bill of attainder, and would thus be unconstitutional. Are there any educated posters on this forum?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
A country =/= an individual.
There is no such thing as a country. It is just a collection of ideas to represent an abstract locality – the country of the USA, or any other country for that matter doesn’t even exist. The individual is real and exists and supersedes the notion of such collectivist ideals as a nation.
Wartime =/= to peacetime.
This has nothing to do with anything. The laws of the universe do not change during war.
War is to the USA like jihad is to Islam.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a country? Wow, you just blew my mind man!
[quote]Gael wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
I’m surprised no one has pointed out that this would constitute a Bill of attainder, and would thus be unconstitutional. Are there any educated posters on this forum?[/quote]
Only in the US, thats a small percentage of the earth
This law would not target working tax paying paeople who have nice cars even though they do not eran much.
This would be against people who eran absoloutley zero monry (legitmatley) and have a lot of wealth. specifically the people that are known criminals but that the police do not have enough evidence to prosecute for their crimes.
I cannot see any liberal complaining if they had a drug dealer living next door to them that lost all their stuff becuase of this law, I think they would be happy about it.
I am suprised at your replies i did not realise I was so right wing
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no such thing as[/quote]
Is it just me, or does every other post you write begin with “there is no such thing as”? This is why I can’t stand you philosopher types. What if I told you that there was no such an individual. That which you call an individual is merely a collection of cells. Cells are real and exist, but the abstract concept called the individual does not.
This is not real discussion or insight. The observed world can be described at a multitude of levels of abstraction, and you need to get over this. Describing things at one level of abstraction does not preclude the validity of such a description at another.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
Does this mean I will be forced to carry a receipt for the shoes on my feet?
I don’t like the use of the word “legitimate” because it implies that those who make the rules are always legitimate.
OP, I think your idea is stupid.[/quote]
But it does sound like an idea I would expect from a subject of the crown as opposed to a citizen of a republic.
[quote]Gael wrote:
I’m surprised no one has pointed out that this would constitute a Bill of attainder, and would thus be unconstitutional. Are there any educated posters on this forum?[/quote]
A simple change in temporal order would shift this out of the realm of “bill of attainder.” If the accused is charged with, say, illegitimate purchase of property (or whatever made up term you want to give it), and a trial follows (which would likely be very brief), and the confiscation occurs after the trial, then due process has been followed.
In fact, confiscation before the trial could occur as long as it were authorized by warrant.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Gael wrote:
I’m surprised no one has pointed out that this would constitute a Bill of attainder, and would thus be unconstitutional. Are there any educated posters on this forum?
A simple change in temporal order would shift this out of the realm of “bill of attainder.” If the accused is charged with, say, illegitimate purchase of property (or whatever made up term you want to give it), and a trial follows (which would likely be very brief), and the confiscation occurs after the trial, then due process has been followed.
In fact, confiscation before the trial could occur as long as it were authorized by warrant.[/quote]
In this case, it would still be unconstitutional as the constitution protects �??the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.�?? The OP’s request reverses the burden of proof.
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
This would apply to known criminals that are ‘untouchable’ by normal methods, that have wealth way beyond reasonable explanation.
[/quote]
How would this be determined? Who decides what is “way beyond reasonable explanation,” or how is it defined?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
This would apply to known criminals that are ‘untouchable’ by normal methods, that have wealth way beyond reasonable explanation.
How would this be determined? Who decides what is “way beyond reasonable explanation,” or how is it defined?[/quote]
[quote]Gael wrote:
In this case, it would still be unconstitutional as the constitution protects �??the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.�?? The OP’s request reverses the burden of proof.[/quote]
The constitutionality of a hypothesis is simply irrelevant, especially in light OP’s willingness to overturn existing regimes in favor of his new standard.
However, I believe it is possible to craft a law to this effect that is constitutional. It would have to rely upon reporting of deposits by banks and the tax code.
At any rate, if you report income of 5K per year, and buy a house worth $1 million, that would probably be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one has hidden or improperly reported income.
I cannot see any liberal complaining if they had a drug dealer living next door to them that lost all their stuff becuase of this law, I think they would be happy about it.
I am suprised at your replies i did not realise I was so right wing :)[/quote]
Nobody is advocating that the pushers get to keep their illegally earned money. The thing that all these replies have in common is that your idea puts too much discretion in the hands of individual authority figures and disregards the safeguards that are meant to protect the innocent from harm.
A corrupt or mistaken police officer can claim that anyone is a “known drug dealer”, but the system of innocent until proven guilty prevents them from acting on it until they can prove it, rather than just believing it. I would much rather have a drug dealer living next door than give any cop the power to confiscate my stuff on suspicion. I can solve the dealer problem by leaving the neighbourhood, but I’d have to leave the country to get away from a dangerously bad justice system.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
This would apply to known criminals that are ‘untouchable’ by normal methods, that have wealth way beyond reasonable explanation.
How would this be determined? Who decides what is “way beyond reasonable explanation,” or how is it defined?
If they are known criminals lock them up![/quote]
The implication is that, like Al Capone, everyone knows that they are criminals, but there is insufficient evidence to convict them in a trial.
