Posted on 10/27/2014 4:28:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
I don’t particularly care how people vote, but I do care whether they believe in freedom.
That’s why I periodically share stories that should convince everyone to believe in the libertarian philosophy of small government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.
The stories that get me most agitated are the ones that involve innocent people being robbed by bureaucrats.
And when I say robbed, I use that word deliberately.
Such as the case of an elderly couple who had their hotel stolen by government.
Such as the case of the family grocer who had his bank account stolen by government.
Such as when the government wanted to steal someone’s truck because a different person was arrested for drunk driving.
Such as when the government tried to steal the bond money a family collected to bail out a relative.
Such as when the government seized nearly $400,000 of a business owner’s money because it was in the possession of an armored car company suspected of wrongdoing.
Such as when the government sought to confiscate an office building from the owner because a tenant was legally selling medical marijuana.
Such as when the government killed a man as part of an anti-gambling investigation undertaken in hopes of using asset forfeiture to steal other people’s cash.
With all this background, you can probably guess I’m going to add to that list.
And you’re right. We have a report from the New York Times that has me frothing at the mouth. I can’t imagine any decent person not being outraged by this example of big government run amok.
For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.
In other words, this is an example of two evil policies – asset forfeiture laws and money laundering laws – coming together in a vortex of we’ll-screw-you-over-even-if-you’re-law-abiding statism.
And you can forget about the Constitution’s presumption of innocence.
Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?” The federal government does. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.
Of course, much of tax code enforcement is based on the upside-down premise that taxpayers are guilty and have to prove themselves innocent.
But that still doesn’t make it right. And the IRS is just the tip of the iceberg. Stealing is now a common practice by all sorts of bureaucracies at all levels of government.
The practice has swept up dairy farmers in Maryland, an Army sergeant in Virginia saving for his children’s college education and Ms. Hinders, 67, who has borrowed money, strained her credit cards and taken out a second mortgage to keep her restaurant going. Their money was seized under an increasingly controversial area of law known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agents to take property they suspect of being tied to crime even if no criminal charges are filed. Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited. Critics say this incentive has led to the creation of a law enforcement dragnet, with more than 100 multiagency task forces combing through bank reports, looking for accounts to seize.
Here’s just one horrifying example of how this process works.
In one Long Island case, the police submitted almost a year’s worth of daily deposits by a business, ranging from $5,550 to $9,910. The officer wrote in his warrant affidavit that based on his training and experience, the pattern “is consistent with structuring.” The government seized $447,000 from the business, a cash-intensive candy and cigarette distributor that has been run by one family for 27 years. …the government seized $447,000, and the brothers have been unable to retrieve it. …Mr. Potashnik said he had spent that time trying, to no avail, to show that the brothers were innocent. They even paid a forensic accounting firm $25,000 to check the books. “I don’t think they’re really interested in anything,” Mr. Potashnik said of the prosecutors. “They just want the money.” …“We’re just hanging on as a family here,” Mr. Hirsch said. “We weren’t going to take a settlement, because I was not guilty.”
Still not convinced about the venality of big government? Here’s another nauseating example.
Army Sgt. Jeff Cortazzo of Arlington, Va., began saving for his daughters’ college costs during the financial crisis, when many banks were failing. He stored cash first in his basement and then in a safe-deposit box. All of the money came from paychecks, he said, but he worried that when he deposited it in a bank, he would be forced to pay taxes on the money again. So he asked the bank teller what to do. “She said: ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just have to deposit less than $10,000.’” The government seized $66,000; settling cost Sergeant Cortazzo $21,000. As a result, the eldest of his three daughters had to delay college by a year. “Why didn’t the teller tell me that was illegal?” he said. “I would have just plopped the whole thing in the account and been done with it.”
By the way, some of you may be thinking that these terrible examples are somehow justifiable because the government is stopping crime in other instances.
But that’s not true. Experts who have looking at money laundering laws have found that there’s no impact on genuine criminal activity. But lots of costs imposed on innocent people.
Which probably explains why the first two directors of the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Officenow say the laws should be repealed.
If you want more information, here’s my video on the government’s costly and failed war on money laundering.
Sigh.
By the way, the government also abuses people in ways that have nothing to do with money laundering or asset forfeiture.
And there are more examples where those came from.
Not surprised. Worried about out of control government.
ping for later
Decent and moral people are also conservatives. For example, abortion:
Future Abortion Doctor: “Seeing an Arm Being Pulled Through the Vaginal Canal Was Shocking”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3219648/posts
... Men and women who are considering providing abortions as a career must overcome their natural revulsion to witnessing violence. They must silence their consciences and prepare themselves to participate in the destruction of human life on a daily basis. If they cannot do this, they will not be able to perform abortions. Here are quotes from four people – two medical students, a doctor, and a would-be Planned Parenthood director, going through this process.... [snip]
Neal Boortz used to bash pro-life people and he banned them from debating him on it. He was a cowardly punk on that issue.
Libertarians gave us gay marriage and abortion on demand.
Go away.
No, no, and no.
One need not be a Libertarian to see that the examples listed are wrong and need to be corrected.
I have serious, serious heartburn with his totally open border immigration plan, his shallow thinking about marriage, and his free trade and 'respect other cultures' political correctness platforms. But his totally open border beliefs mean that he doesn't believe in national sovereignty. That means anyone can vote. It actually means why have a country in the first place.
. He's virtually unknown but here is his platform from his website. I've heard John Stoessel, Fox Libertarian, saying essentially the same things:
>End domestic spying. A warrant should be required for any domestic surveillance.
◦Immigration reform. Peaceful people should be allowed to move freely, with minimal interference.
◦End state marriage. Consenting adults do not need permission from government.
◦End the drug war. Prohibition is costly, in dollars and in liberty, and unsuccessful.
>Non-intervention. Keep our nose out of the business of other nations.
◦Respect other cultures. We would not want other cultures pushed onto us.
◦Free trade. Trade is the best way to ensure peaceful international relations.
No bailouts. Companies must live and die by their own merits.
◦No special perks. Whether big or small, the rules should be the same.
◦No excessive regulations. Don't strangle our economy with ideology.
◦No cap on liability. Companies should be responsible for their actions.
◦Tax reform. End the income tax.
◦Industrial hemp. Allow our farmers to grow a versatile, viable crop here in America.
Decent and Moral People should not be stupid and waste their vote voting Losertarian.
Vote Conservative and do not siphon votes to allow DemocRATS to win elections they otherwise would have lost.
Most Libertarians are Pro-Choice and care less if everyone smokes pot!!
Where’s humblegunner whining about someone pimping a web site?
It took all of 20 minutes for the straw man argument to appear.
the whole history — since history could stoop to notice them — of their whiny little (alleged) political philosophy, libertarians have but one consistent accomplishment; providing the margin of victory for extremist liberals to go to congress, and dramatically expand the size and scope of the central government.
then, usually, they blame republicans.
if every one of them dropped dead tomorrow, no one would notice.
The problem is that third partyers have no chance anywhere here in the states, so voting for them in the primaries and general elections are a waste of time and only turns the votes over to the rats
The ONLY way I see for 3rd parties to be relevant is to campaign on their issues, and then agree to endorse a major candidate in exchange for concessions on policy. It’s not the same impact as a minority party has in a parliamentary system, but it could result in them getting some of what they want instead of their throwing an election to those they absolutely disagree with.
This is one Libertarian position with which I agree. The The alternative, courtesy of the 14th Amendment, is nationwide, state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. Let religious institutions marry people and let the state allow consenting adults to draw up legal contracts that control the ownership and distribution of assets. Eliminate distinctions in the tax law between married and single people.
I wouldn’t put all libertarians in the same pot. Some are okay, like John Stossel for example and some like Ron Paul are nuts imho.
That is very true and I am not a libertarian
“Most Libertarians are Pro-Choice and care less if everyone smokes pot!!”
I’m a pro-life conservative and care less if everyone smokes pot. I don’t want to, but I could care less if there are some who want to do so.
It is incomplete, and that makes it incorrect.
The whole point of recognizing marriage is a legal protection for women bearing children.
As a pastor, can I engage in civil disobedience and just marry folks in the eyes of God? Sure. But, if I have a supportive governmental system that also wants to protect that marriage for rational reasons, such as because the nuclear family is the basic building block of society, then I’m enjoined by the Apostle Paul’s summary about good laws in Romans 13 to support such a good law. For about good government, Paul says “he is God’s servant to do you good”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.