Comment by pjc50 3 days ago
> Moving money around is a crime...why?
The short answer is that said money is either the proceeds of a crime, or (in the other direction) being sent to or from a sanctioned person, organization, or country.
This is why it's so hard to push back against, like the TSA. "Do you want terrorists using the banking system?" is a killer argument for midwits.
> If you pay income taxes you get a vote.
Why?
I’m not allowed to vote medicine FDA approvals because I’m not a doctor.
Why are some topics “restricted” to the experts? But voting for president is not?
> I’m not allowed to vote medicine FDA approvals because I’m not a doctor.
Seriously? That's probably because the FDA does not have the power to declare war, annex territories, or sign treaties on your behalf.
> Why are some topics “restricted” to the experts?
You're still allowed to go across borders and get medication that the FDA has not approved for your own personal use. This "restriction" isn't nearly as complete as you pretend it is.
It actually only binds what professionals can do not what citizens can do.
> But voting for president is not?
It's actually /any/ representative. Does that make it clearer for you?
The fundamental goal of voting isn't to pick the best candidate, but to pick a consensus candidate in such a way that everyone feels their voice was or at least could have been heard. The distinction gets obscured because a lot of people describe their decision about who to vote for in terms of candidate quality, but if you scratch the surface, you'll find that most have cultural and ideological expectations in mind, and because those expectations are often incompatible we have to find a way to balance them that everyone will agree is fair.
Just replace "money" with a gold bricks. If I have them in the trunk of my car and move it around, you can't arrest my car on the assumption that the bricks are "the proceeds of a crime". You have to reasonably prove it with all the red tape involved, or GTFO of my way.
Civil asset forfeiture- a law enforcement officer in many jurisdictions in the US can seize the gold bar without charging you with anything, under the assumption that it is proceeds for a crime, and in an insane twist, they get to keep part or most of the value of the seized property when it is sold at auction. It’s insane.
Everyone else telling you about civil forfeiture; I'm going to mention the original James Bond novel Goldfinger, in which part of the early plot is exactly Auric Goldfinger hiding gold in the panels of his Rolls-Royce in order to smuggle it out of the UK, which was illegal at the time. Even for gold legitimately owned.
(historical background: https://www.chards.co.uk/guides/exchange-control-act/785 )
Actually, yes they can. No warrant, no charges, nothing. It’s basically up to the discretion of the officer present.
The “crime” is alleged to the objects in question, and since they aren’t people they don’t have rights.
Civil Asset Forfeiture. It’s clearly unconstitutional, but it’s too profitable to stop.
My understanding was the police were able to do this in the US using civil forfeiture.
> killer argument for midwits
It's a real shame that kind is allowed to vote. IMO, they're more destructive than the 90 IQ and below crowd.