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).
