Three principles. The first is Stein’s Law: if something can’t go on forever, it won’t. The second is that governing is ruled by the law of unintended consequences. The third is that expanding government power will ultimately be tyrannical inasmuch as its exercise of its power will become increasingly capricious. Governments can be remarkably creative when it comes to dipping their hands into our pockets.
What brings this on? This remarkable story by Sarah Stillman in The New Yorker dealing with “civil forfeiture,” by which local authorities have essentially grabbed citizens’ property with impunity. The principle of civil forfeiture, originally a strategy employed in the Reagan “war on drugs” (why conservatives insist on thinking of Reagan as one of them is beyond me), has been expanded in such a way that municipalities are confiscating wealth directly and terrorizing innocent persons in the process.
Later when I have a few minutes I’ll be glad to explain why we conservatives consider St. Ronald to be one of us, even though he did some very un-conservative things like you describe. And this is not the worst of it.
But by putting a comment here now, I can get notification of follow-up comments, which will remind me to explain later.
That such an obvious conflict of interests could be enacted into law is absolutely stunning. The author points out that in states where civil forfeiture proceeds are put into generic statewide funds (for, say, education) that the abuses seem much smaller. No kidding.
We have arrived at a state of affairs where the very institutions that are tasked with prosecuting the “war on drugs” are utterly dependent on illegal drug profits for their day-to-day operations. Note the accounts of true drug-money launderers being set free without charges after the cash is confiscated. An effective parasite never kills its host.
Enough is enough. It’s time to end drug prohibition.
Comments are closed.