zlacker

>Their primary concern is to defend private property, the people themselves come second.

And of course the more private property one has, the better the protection...

>>coldte+(OP)
Until someone decides that the capital committed a drug crime because it smelled suspicious.

>>neltne+l2
You're confusing private property with personal property.

The police don't care about your personal property. Just try to get them to do anything useful in response to a burglary.

Private property, like land, or the means of production, is an entirely different story. Those things receive full police protection.

>>vkou+c4
Good point, thanks. I did mean personal property.

>>coldte+(OP)
Civil Forfeiture means private property can be a liability unless one has a lot of extra liquidity to fund a legal defense.

>>vkou+c4
They were more honest back when they called it movable property. As in, a peasant's movable property is taxed while a lord's immovable property is not. It's easier to tax things that can be picked up and taken if the tax is not paid.

>>justfo+Ij
Civil asset forfeiture only matters for personal property. Private property, such as investments, stakes in ventures, and so on, is not affected by civil asset forfeiture. I've never seen anyone have their business seized without trial, but people have had their houses destroyed without trial.

>>sudosy+fV
They've tried: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323539804578264...

>>justfo+Ij
The rich have so many layers between them and their property, that "Civil Forfeiture" is not an issue, sometimes not even when convicted.