I am sure you are being faceious with this comment. The $10,000 is an arbitrary number that has been used for years. This is not a new law.
Money is property. You're telling me that I don't have the right to my property. I NEVER said you didn't have a right to your property. You are changing the argument in midstream. You were arguing you had a total right to privacy that could not be infringed upon. I am saying you have the right to privacy in your own home...and a more limited right to privacy in public. In this case, your right to privacy is limited by the need of law enforcement to track large cash transactions. If you don't want anyone to know you have the money, don't spend it all in one place in one day.
Now might be a good time to define freedom.
I believe that I have the right to walk out into a public place,
conduct myself in a lawful manner, go home,
and never be required to explain details of my life to anyone.
Why set the limit at $10,000?
What reason does anyone have to walk around with $5,000 in cash?..."
# 121 by exodus
*******************
To: exodus
Why set the limit at $10,000?
What reason does anyone have to walk around with $5,000 in cash?
I am sure you are being facetious with this comment.
The $10,000 is an arbitrary number that has been used for years.
This is not a new law..." # 124 by JD86
************
Of course it's not new law, JD86.
That's why I've mentioned the "War on Crime," and the "War on Drugs."
Like the "War on Terrorism," both of those un-Constitutional "wars"
were used to violate the freedom of good American citizens.
I'm not any happier knowing that an "arbitrary" (meaning "without reason") number
has been used to stick government noses into people's lives.
I was NOT being facetious.
What difference does it make what dollar amount
the government decides is more money than I need?
If the number is one million, a limit has been set on my prosperity.
Government that decides for me how much money I need is a tyranny.
To: exodus
"I NEVER said you didn't have a right to your property.
You are changing the argument in midstream.
You were arguing you had a total right to privacy that could not be infringed upon.
I am saying you have the right to privacy in your own home...
and a more limited right to privacy in public.
In this case, your right to privacy is limited by the need of law enforcement
to track large cash transactions.
If you don't want anyone to know you have the money,
don't spend it all in one place in one day. # 124 by JD86
************
I'm glad that you are willing to grant me the right of privacy in my own home.
However, it wasn't really nessessary, as that right was already granted to me by God.
How did I change the argument?
I said that the various "Wars" have been excuses
for government infringement on our freedom.
Everyone, and I include myself, has a right to total privacy.
The exception to that rule is enumerated in the 4th Amendment:
if there is probable cause to suspect involvement of a crime,
supported by the oath of an accuser,
a man can be required to bend the rule of privacy to defend himself.
Even then, he is required to reveal only details
directly involved in the charges of misconduct.
Going outside does not negate my right to privacy.
Privacy does not mean "unseen."
Privacy means that my life is my own.
I don't have to explain myself to you, to the police, or to the President.
Law enforcement is a branch of government, the Executive Branch.
(The President is the top law enforcement officer.)
My right to privacy is not limited by the "need" of law enforcement.
The "need" of law enforcement to violate my privacy is limited by the 4th Amendment.
That's a big difference, JD86.