Using Criminal Law to Confiscate Wealth – Civilly Without a Crime
COMMENT: A reader has submitted this which is typical of every economic decline.
The money grab by cities which are desperate for taxes is escalating, law enforcement is no longer about protecting but generating revenue. The confiscation of property obtained through illegal means appears reasonable, yet given this is civil forfeiture, no proof is needed. Houses, cars and other property which are suspected to be anyway connected with criminal activity are being seized without having to prove anything, providing an additional source of revenue for law enforcement agencies. Cars are confiscated because an office “smells” something. The cost of fighting the confiscation is often more than the value of the property or is more than the victim can afford.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all
http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html
ANSWER: The reason history repeats is rather simple. Human nature never changes. If you read Edward Gibbon, who wrote in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” NOT for the historical event but for the actions, you will see the same patterns in human nature. It is like a Shakespeare play that is performed for centuries. The story and plot remain the same. Only the actors change like Phantom of the Opera on Broadway for 25 years. New people step into the role but the songs are always the same.
Gibbon wrote about the bureaucracy: “Suspicious princes often promote the last of mankind, from a vain persuasion, that those who have no dependence, except on their favor, will have no attachment, except to the person of their benefactor.”
Edward Gibbon wrote of Commodus: Each
“distinction of every kind soon became criminal. The possession of wealth stimulated the diligence of the informers; rigid virtue implied a tacit censure of the irregularities of Commodus; important services implied a dangerous superiority of merit; and the friendship of the father always insured the aversion of the son. Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse”
(Book 1, Chapter 4).
If we fast forward to Maximinus I (235-238AD), Gibbons wrote that “The cruelty of Maximin was derived from a different source, the fear of contempt.” He used conspiracy as does the United States today where the crime requires no proof of doing something, it is merely an agreement to do something. You suffer the same fate as if you did the crime, and there are tons of crimes that everyone violates every day, as pointed out in the book Three Felonies A Day.
Gibbon wrote: “The dark and sanguinary soul of the tyrant was open to every suspicion against those among his subjects who were the most distinguished by their birth or merit. Whenever he was alarmed with the sound of treason, his cruelty was unbounded and unrelenting. A conspiracy against his life was either discovered or imagined, and Magnus, a consular senator, was named as the principal author of it. Without a witness, without a trial, and without an opportunity of defence, Magnus, with four thousand of his supposed accomplices, was put to death. Italy and the whole empire were infested with innumerable spies and informers. On the slightest accusation, the first of the Roman nobles, who had governed provinces, commanded armies, and been adorned with the consular and triumphal ornaments, were chained on the public carriages, and hurried away to the emperor’s presence. Confiscation, exile, or simple death, were esteemed uncommon instances of his lenity. Some of the unfortunate sufferers he ordered to be sewed up in the hides of slaughtered animals, others to be exposed to wild beasts, others again to be beaten to death with clubs. During the three years of his reign, he disdained to visit either Rome or Italy. His camp, occasionally removed from the banks of the Rhine to those of the Danube, was the seat of his stern despotism, which trampled on every principle of law and justice, and was supported by the avowed power of the sword. No man of noble birth, elegant accomplishments, or knowledge of civil business, was suffered near his person; and the court of a Roman emperor revived the idea of those ancient chiefs of slaves and gladiators, whose savage power had left a deep impression of terror and detestation.” (Book VII)
This is the man who simply declared all wealth belonged to the state. This inspired the collapse in the velocity of money as it went into hiding. Hoards of coins buried from this time period are still being found to this day. This is what destroyed Rome. It was not hyperinflation but deflation as the economy simply imploded. This is what happens when government hunts down its own people for money.
