I challenge anyone to justify civil asset forfeiture.
Without implying you do not support tyrannical government
shareWell I do not support tyrannical government explicitly or otherwise, but if someone owed me and refused to pay, it would ultimately be referred to the bailiffs who could seize property to the value of said debt. Nothing to do with the govt.
shareWhat does that have to do with police taking people's property without out proof it came from illegal activity and forcing them to prove it didn't come from illegal activity?
shareNothing, but you did specify civil asset forfeiture.
In terms of Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime orders I can only say I agree with it in principle. It happens in the UK I know, but it is not done casually without the involvement of a judge and normally follows criminal proceedings.
In regards to Unexplained Wealth Orders which are separate and distinct to the above, they require people or organisations to explain how they obtained a property or money. They're issued when there are reasonable grounds to suspect either: the person or organisation's known sources of income would not be enough to obtain the property. the property was obtained through unlawful conduct. Again these are not common and I think the law was designed to effect particular sorts of (usually organised) crime. Again, when used proportionately and with due and fair process, can't really see an issue.
Neither of these imho indicates we live under a tyrannical government.