Our remaining hope is a newfound fifth - the personal computation box.

(And as for the ammo box, guerilla fighters have proven resourceful. Modern guerilla warfare and its relationship to technology is an interesting subject you can dive deep into. One must also keep in mind modern 'win' conditions for guerilla fighters, many of which don't look much like win conditions in traditional warfare. But I don't think our present situation will come to this.)

I expressly do not mean the computation box as a new version of soap box (ie general means for swaying opinion), but as a type of private meeting place where individuals may freely associate for their own mutually-beneficial purposes.

Guerilla warfare can only exist when there's a local consensus against an (outside) imposing military. This possibility is obviated by democracy, which guarantees that the non-military majority opinion will carry without having to shoot. It's a last defense against outside conquerors, but not domestically-grown totalitarianism.

Our modern conundrum is that opinion is being defined by mass media, and now interactive-personalized mass media (the Inception effect is powerful). The same process that has anointed this succession of hopechange-actor presidents also assures those ammo boxen are mutedly waiting for the bogeyman.

I guess the problem is that not enough people know that civil forfeiture is a thing yet.

I'm just blown away that such a thing could ever be written into law. I think it's a pretty clear-as-day violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

...or that not enough people have experienced it yet, and probably never will. There's a lot of "it won't happen to me" thinking around this, and to be honest, how many people do take large amounts of cash with them while traveling? The fact that this item is newsworthy is enough to show that it happens rarely.

I'm almost willing to bet that if the number of people affected goes high enough, there will be armed revolts; but the government is smart enough to not do that, instead preferring to strip liberties in tiny bits at a time.

And probably thinking "They had a reason to do it", which I don't think has shown to be the case.

you're talking about our government?

Additional info for anyone interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty

He's factually correct though. I don't see how you can disagree with the fact that the supreme court already ruled these practices legal (jury), neither republicans nor democrats managed to fix the matter (ballot), and the average american showers once a day...

Stories like these have been all over the news under both republican and democratic presidents and congress - nothing changed.

Don't give people a four-step program and then act aghast they're considering to go through with it. Find a better four-step program/quote instead.

It's not a fact that soap box options have been exhausted. It's merely your opinion that the soap box has been tried enough, to the point that giving up on trying to inform and persuade people is rational and/or ethical.

But... is that actually your opinion? You're here arguing online using your soap box, instead of waging a guerilla war against the system. So I think in actual fact you haven't given up on the soap box. Or at least you still see value in the soap box for purposes of inciting a rebellion?

The ballot box has already been used. Both sides either take no action or work to extend the practise. People still don't care.

The jury box has already been used, the supreme court has ruled this legal. People still don't care.

If you think it's too soon to resort to the ammo box, you need to reevaluate your perspective on the government in the USA. Remember, "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing."

Ironically, right now, you are using the soap box and not the ammo box. You're arguing your viewpoint online instead of killing people. That's a good thing, keep at it.

He explicitly didn't want people to be able to defend themselves! "Requiring the Federal Government to provide a free attorney to anyone who wants to contest a forfeiture action would overwhelm the judicial system with frivolous claims."

"Raise the standard of proof in forfeiture cases to clear and convincing evidence." He didn't want that.

Really, why is any democrat voter complaining about this? It's their own fault.

It's been 21.5 years since anyone voted for Bill Clinton. Those democrats who are 39.5 years or younger have no consequent blame.

And by the way, Clinton's administration posted that opinion about 3 years after anyone had voted for Bill Clinton. The voters no longer had any input.