>Would be thieves? Buying from SilkRoad usually means illicit drug sales (good or bad, it's not legal). So, it makes perfect sense for govt agencies cracking down on such activities to seize what ever assets were used in said exchange -- cash, credit card, bit coins...

This assumes that you accept the premise that a government should be able to steal property, simply because it doesn't like certain kinds of transactions.

Sorry, buying illicit drugs is a crime in this country, seizure of assets and materials used in the transaction is part of that. This part of the "war on drugs" I am ok with -- especially living in a community currently ravaged by meth ad heroin issues.

That said, I'm not a fan of the general blanket seizure laws associated with the WoD.

The WoD is very unlikely to be helping your community. In fact it's more likely diverting money that cold be used to actually help your community into futile enforcement efforts.

That said I agree, this is not the government "stealing" because it's the proceeds of crime and subject to forfeit. The way to tackle the WoD is not just by hiding money and enabling drug dealers.

>Sorry, buying illicit drugs is a crime in this country, seizure of assets and materials used in the transaction is part of that.

This assumes that you accept the premise that a government should be able to steal property, simply because it doesn't like certain kinds of transactions.

This depends on the "crime", and whether unwilling parties were harmed by the transaction. If two parties conduct an exchange of products or services, where both parties were not coerced, then this is not a crime in my opinion.

On the other hand, if I actually do injure someone, then that person could lay a claim against me. They are the ones entitled to any property of mine at that point, as compensation, not the State.

>> If two parties conduct an exchange of products or services, where both parties were not coerced, then this is not a crime in my opinion.

Sure, and much of the drug trade should be legal in my opinion. However it's not and the confiscation of funds from criminal activity is commonplace and (IMHO) a good thing.

I disagree with the government about what should be criminal, but not on stripping criminals of their profit, and I think there are circumstances where people exchange products or services, without coercion or other people directly harmed, that should be still be illegal and any profits confiscated.

As an extreme example, trade in radioactive material like uranium.

There are legitimate uses for uranium (medical isotopes and, arguably, energy production), that I think could lend themselves to a peaceful nuclear industry. Unfortunately that entire industry has been tarnished by violent end-goals from day one. Here's where the fox is guarding the henhouse, in a sense.

Sorry was that a fantasy of a world in which sales of uranium would be allowed openly because people would only use it peacefully? For medicine and energy generation?

Never let it be said you don't dream big!

I'm not sure you fit into the real world any more than a socialist utopian does, but hey, good for you for having faith in humanity....

No, it means that you understand current laws and enforcements thereof. If you want to have a philosophical debate about the appropriate limits of the state, then that's something you need to take up through the political process.

>No, it means that you understand current laws and enforcements thereof. If you want to have a philosophical debate about the appropriate limits of the state, then that's something you need to take up through the political process.

I certainly understand current laws and how they are enforced. I simply reject them.

Do you think that your own position is somehow not a philosophical position of some kind? We all have a similar obligation to either defend or not defend our positions. If your "side" happens to be the one in control, all the more reason to justify it, unless you prefer coercion and force to do so.

I've got nothing against philosophy or politics, the point is that in the USA as things stand, the DEA are not thieves by most reasonable definitions of that word. They are acting lawfully, in accordance with the rules set by the democratically elected representatives. If you don't like those rules, you should try to change them through the political process.

If you wish to enforce your own view of how things should be on everyone else without using the political process, you run the risk of being a greater tyranny than what you seek to replace.

Except I don't seek to use force to impose my will. You're suggesting that this is the only acceptable means by which to make change happen. I think that Bitcoin itself demonstrates that this is not the case. We can have a currency that does not rely on the State's bureaucracy. This is, of course, a great to some interests, which is all the more reason to see to it that those interests are defeated (imo) in favour of a free digital economy.

Language is for communication and by consensus. There are very visible differences (and whether there are underlying similarities is really beside the point) between the DEA and what most of us mean when we say thieves, and referring to one as the other only causes confusion.

Language is very important, and by repeatedly referring to what the DEA does as "seizure" or "asset forfeiture", this is itself an attempt to shape the conversation. They operate within the State's legal framework, which is why those euphemisms get used, rather than what they'd be called in almost any other circumstance when done by others (armed robbery, theft, etc).