Mugged by the state
You should read this. I’ll add one thing: if you are ever pulled over by the police and they ask to search your vehicle, tell them no. State exactly: I do not consent to a search of my vehicle. Don’t say anything about the fourth amendment or then you’re just a trouble maker.
Same goes for your house. Just say no.
November 11th, 2003 at 2:08 pm
Looking at the blurbs, one gets the distinct impression that the stories told are very one-sided, and that important details may have been omitted. But then, it’s a Reader’s Digest author, and omitting details is their bread and butter.
Examples:
The claim that most US money has drug residue on it seems dubious at best. And why isn’t he fighting for his money? There’s such a thing as suing for court costs, you know. We also aren’t told why Peruchi was pulled over in the first place. From what little detail we’re given, it smells fishy.
Didn’t it strike the Tahoe woman as odd that this one plot was conspicuously undeveloped, while everything around it was developed? Why was this so? We don’t know, because we aren’t told. Again, smells fishy to me.
I hear all kinds of anecdotal tales of environmental regulations getting in the way of search and rescue efforts, but never anything sufficiently substantiated. I want details, and I want all sides of the story.
I don’t doubt that there is significant abuse of power that goes on every day (witness US citizens being held indefinitely without charge and without access to counsel). But the selection of these stories, and the one-sidedness of their telling here, belies a distinct anti-regulatory agenda.
If there are legitimate abuses of power going on, then by all means, let’s clean them up. But let’s not throw out the regulatory baby with the bath water, which seems to be what the author’s agenda is.
And by the way, Uncle’s right. I do not consent to a search. At least, not without an attorney present.
November 11th, 2003 at 2:13 pm
As to your questions about minimal details, it’s probably an effort to get you to buy the book 🙂
November 11th, 2003 at 2:49 pm
Maybe, but it’s not working. If he wanted to get me to buy the book, he would have given me a clue that indicated he actually provided the other side of the story. He does no such thing. At least in this article, the book is clearly being marketed directly to the “all government is evil” crowd.
November 11th, 2003 at 2:52 pm
all government is evil
To very roughly paraphrase Stranger in a Strangeland: He realized that men had to have government. He was just sick of men’s effort to convince him that this inescapable evil was good.
November 16th, 2003 at 11:22 am
I am greatful for the book it is an eye opener to say the least.The fact is there is no “other side” when it comes to people loseing there rights as well as there land.
November 16th, 2003 at 11:43 am
I agree. There is no other side to taking your money and keeping it when no charges are being pressed. It is stealing.
November 27th, 2003 at 8:52 pm
As the author of the book, MUGGED BY THE STATE, I feel compelled to respond to the comments made by tqirsch, who obviously has not read my book.
First, studies by the U.S. Treasury Department have found 80 percent of the U.S. money supply in denominations of 100 dollars and more is contaminated with residue of cocaine or methamphetamine. This is not a secret. It has been widely publicized.
Second, Dan Peruchi did not contest the seizure of his $18,890 because he was strongly advised not to do so by attorneys who estimated the cost of challenging the seizure would equal or outweight the amount seized. Peruchi was a man of limited means, so he did what these agencies count on–he rolled over.
Third, the Lake Tahoe widow bought her lot before adjoining lots were developed. She had no idea that later land use regulations would render her property worhtless.
What is fishy and smells to high Heaven are people who ridicule books they have not bothered to read.
–Randall Fitzgerald
November 28th, 2003 at 12:48 am
Mr. Fitzgerald:
Thanks for taking the time to respond, albeit belatedly. You will of course forgive me for being a bit skeptical about a book whose agenda is so clearly delineated by its very title. And for the record, I would have been equally skeptical if the title had given away a statist or leftist agenda.
But I wasn’t trying to “ridicule your book,” and I think it’s hypersensitive to think that’s what I was doing. It’s called being skeptical, and that’s the sort of behavior we ought to be encouraging, not attacking.
Now, on to some particulars:
See, now that’s a very different statement than “most all of the U.S. money supply carries faint amounts of drug residue, mostly cocaine,” which is what the linked story says. Your statement specifically discusses large bills, and actually cites a source (the US treasury department). The article’s statement gives no such clues, and could just as easily be urban myth as fact.
(I realize that the linked article was not written by you; so I’m more taking issue with the author of the linked article than I am with you.)
But if there aren’t extenuating circumstances in the Peruchi case, then by all means he has a legitimate beef, and should get the angry press on his side.
In the Lake Tahoe widow’s case, it sounds like she has as much of a complaint against her realtor as she does against the TRPA.
Now that’s a wee bit self-serving, wouldn’t you say? First of all, as I said before, I don’t really think I did anything even close to ridiculing the book. I expressed skepticism. Secondly, why shouldn’t I be able to do this? If I’m not allowed to express skepticism without having read the book, then the other people in this forum who said “Amen, brother!” or the equivalent without having read your book are equally in the wrong.
November 28th, 2003 at 12:52 am
Looking again, I see that my Readers Digest comment was a bit out of line, so I do apologize for that.