Can the government legally confiscate your assets?

Denny · Last edited by Denny on Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

If you are an American, I guess you'd say no. Many recommendations here deal with putting goods aside for a calamity.

But, back in 1933, President Roosevelt ordered all gold seized. This was done, not with a direct act of Congress, but by invoking a clause of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. See here: The Confiscation Order. What is also vile is that he did not even have the guts to write the namne of the Act in question within the executive order, guessing logically, that the public would have seen it as outside the intended bounds.

Ultimately, the IRS was ordered to seal and then inspect bank safety deposit boxes.

This seems like the kind of thing one would expect in a dictatorship, like a Communist country, or Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. But, it happened in America!

What would be to stop a future U.S. government from seizing energy resources or food commodities in storage?

TommyJefferson

roccman

Ludi

I recommend appearing to have no assets to speak of. Don't flounce around. Fly under the radar.

That is my advice for all of this, for now and the future.

Don't flounce.
_________________
"...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy

efarmer · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 17, 2006 Posts: 445

You watched your government at the very height of the
American Empire and with the most reactionary and impulsive
government it has been able to conjure in modern times
botch Katrina. If you wish to think so doomer then let's play the
game with scale like it would be. The remnants of a central
government will be talking to each other in guarded compounds
while local chaos or local order exists in a dynamically shifting
polka dot pattern across the American landscape. You are
conjuring a central Hollywood bogeyman for a cameo that
will be filled by brutish gang and mob actions and opposed by
ad hoc community efforts. Besides Dennis Hopper will be to
old to run this government by then. Another factor to consider
is a bunch of blooded Iraq military vets getting orders to move against their own people by an elite leadership faction. I believe they would slay them before they issued the second page of the
orders.

I think a browning out to a miserable and relatively peaceful
shittiness like the Great Depression without oil in the ground
to drive away from itself is much more likely. And keep your
weapons small caliber, like 22 caliber. The bigger calibers
tear the rat up so bad that they don't stay on the barbecue
rack worth a damn.

kpeavey · Expert Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 1096

There is nothing tangible the government can't take from you. Money, property, vehicles, your kids, your life. They can take it all.
Legally, illegally, it does not matter, they have the power. Plan on your stuff being gone.

We've been heading in the direction of a fascist state for some time now. Its all in place. A national emergency is all that is needed.

In a time of crisis, which is projected to be the norm in a decade, what will keep the government from searching your home and seizing those things you have so carefully stockpiled? Nothing. I expect it to occur.

Can you hide your stuff? Possibly, but as soon as anyone gets a whiff that you have something, its reported, confiscated for the "Good of the People", and you get punished.

One particular thing they can't take away is skill. If you hold lots of food, it is gone, and you are in the same bag as everyone else. If you have the ability to grow a lot of food, you may hold value to the regime. While the regime may take everything from you, leaving you with enough to scrape by, then hand you a bunch of miscreants to serve as labor for your crops, as well as demand production levels be met that are unrealistic, you still might have a chance of getting by.

Got a sustainable homestead with solar panels on the roof? Expect the county to take them to use for the local hospital or sheriff. Then expect it to be seized again by the state government to operate something it deems more important. Finally, the national govt would seize it to operate something else, probably military. In the meantime, where ever the system is, some fat politician will be plugging in his rechargable razor, cell phone and ipod.

Immovable infrastructure can help. A brick oven and fireplace come to mind. Hiding your cache in multiple locations is wise. Figure guns being the first to go. Food is high on the list, as are energy devices and resources. Plenty of places to hide things if you are creative. Burial is an easy one. Be sure the containers can hold up. Take things apart and make room-furniture, walls, appliances, vehicles, hollowed out mail box posts, the roof of the dog house, septic tanks, canned spinach, old TVs.

If you are going to hide food during a famine, be sure to also stock up on oversized clothing. You will have to maintain the appearance of malnutrition. Some makeup would also be useful. Be sure to think about open sores, aroma, and posture.

Just talking about the subject shows how far the country has come. We are heading into oppression. This is a cycle of history coming full circle. We had it easy for a while but we got soft. Too many fools looking out for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

EnergyUnlimited · Fission Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 2957

NTBKtrader · Intermediate Crude Joined: Oct 19, 2004 Posts: 590

yes they can, it's called eminent domain

kpeavey · Expert Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 1096

EnergyUnlimited wrote

Ferretlover

Yes, they can.

It is now time to stop telling others in your physical world what you have.
Someone, somewhere is going to remember and come after it themselves or turn you in for the reward.
Watch the sheeple carefully and learn to mimic their behavior so you can stay under the radar.
If the elections are held and we actually get another president, I'd say we have about 2-4 years left.
But, beware. For example: one day Bear Stearns was doing fine, the next they were as bad off as they could possibly be without ceasing to exist.
That's how fast I think it is going to happen when it does. There might be a rumor or two, all dismissed as 'tin-hat conspiracies," then, BAM!
_________________
"RRrrruuuunnnn!!!" ~Apocalypto

Kingcoal

It kind of reminds of the police confiscating large amounts of cash from a motorist pulled over, citing that the large amount is probably going to be used to buy illegal substances. You have recourse to reclaim your cash, but sometimes the time and money involved is too great to bother. At first glance, this is completely unconstitutional, but you have to learn to read between the lines. A very similar strategy is used in DUI/DWI pull-overs. In the case of suspected drunk driving, the officer has no power to force you to take any tests for sobriety; you must consent. Your self incrimination is voluntary. You can refuse any tests and you may have your license suspended for a year, but that is better than being convicted for DUI. In the case of suspected drug money, it's the same. The officer asks if he/she can "look around" in your car and you consent. Since the drug money confiscation law is on the books and ignorance of the law is no excuse, you automatically consent to the jurisdiction whether you know it or not. You can alternatively refuse and the officers may call for K-9 dogs to sniff your car, but that's about all that will happen. They may take you down to the station, but they can only hold you for so long before they have to charge you and if they have no "evidence," they can't charge you, so they have to let you go.

There is an old saying among lawyers; "no good deed goes unpunished." How true. If you are innocent, you should not "cooperate" with law enforcement agencies in any way. Why? Well, because you are innocent, that's why. The only time you should cooperate is when you are guilty and being charged with something and they make a deal with you to reduce those charges. If you refuse to cooperate and are innocent, you have nothing to fear because it is actually a sign of guilt when a person seeks to prove his innocence before he is even charged with anything. That’s the way our system of law works; innocent until proven guilty.

Now that I've gotten the suspicion via cooperation thing out of the way, let's talk about your bank. Did you sign anything while applying for the safety deposit box? Yes? Ok, you are cooperating before you are charged with anything. How about this; present your bank with terms of your own. Tell them in a certified letter or better yet, a public document (certificate of mailing) that you do not authorize inspection or confiscation of your box without your explicit written consent. Naturally, there are situations where they don't have to cooperate with that, such as if a judge issues a search warrant. Does that work? You'd be surprised, most of what the federal government does at a state and local level is based on the flimsiest of authority, or in many cases, illusionary authority used to scare you into cooperation. What you are doing is forcing the government to follow due process (taking their case to a judge for a warrant); which they don't have to do if they already have your consent. Consent is everything in the legal system. The golden rule is: don't consent to anything unless you have something to gain by it. How do you consent? You consent to something every time you sign something or admit to something. Sounds like common sense, but you'd be surprised by how dumb we Americans have become. Our founding fathers understood these concepts very well; that’s why they provided us with a constitution. However, being free is paradoxically the easiest way to become un-free. When you are free, you are free to contract your freedoms away.
_________________
"That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money

Dreamtwister · Fission Joined: Feb 06, 2006 Posts: 2057

Your question presupposes that the concept of "legal" means anything any more. If they want to confiscate your belongings, they will find a way - legally or otherwise.

You have only the rights which you can defend by force.
_________________
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche

auscanman

In Canada your assets will only be considered to have been confiscated if you've lost practically all use of them and the state has acquired those same uses. For instance, if the government decides that your farm would be an ideal location for a Hooverville type settlement, you'd get no compensation provided that you were still able to grow some food (that would probably get stolen) on it.

In the US you only have to show loss of some use of your property in order for the government to have to compensate you. The government doesn't have to have acquired whatever uses you've lost.

Subject to the above, I don't think that Gov in Canada can legally confiscate your assets without compensating you. The problem is that the compensation would be in rapidly depreciating fiat Canadian dollars. So, the government, in a time of emergency, could decide that all gold must be turned in, and you get paper money in exchange.

BigTex

Yes, the federal, state, county and city governments have a variety of tools at their disposal to legally confiscate your assets.

They do it all the time. Taxes are a favorite method, primarily because cash is better than other property.

As noted above, the trick is to neither antagonize nor provoke the government. The one enormous advantage any one person has is that the goverment's resources are limited, and if you don't give them a reason to bother you, they probably won't.

But if you want to be the next David Koresh, you will likely have some trouble.

Just treat the government like a beehive and don't do anything stupid, and you'll get the honey of the roads, fire departments, subsidized education and other services without getting stung.
_________________
Smile

billp