Right? Like, and when we talk about the police protecting property, like, this kind of thing

makes me wonder like, okay, but who's property? Right. Whose property is like, like an object

of protection versus whose property can just be like taken by like agents of the state. And it's,

you know, if, if you're any of your assets, you know, your cash are seized, they don't have to bring charges against you.

It's kind of like a weird thing.

Like the charges are against like the property, which doesn't have rights, like not against, you know, like you as a criminal defendant.

So they don't have to bring any charge.

You know, you don't have to be charged or convicted of a crime.

I mean, obviously, I think this varies a lot by location.

And it's really, really hard to get your stuff back.

Like, I think it's nearly impossible to get your stuff back if it sees this way.

So, yeah, I mean, like, the police are defunding you in a number of ways, right?

Like through your taxes, through taking your stuff, through like harassing you, right, for traffic tickets and stuff.

This thing about who actually has the charges against them and in some, it's actually the property is just making me

think of the rich history of especially federal law enforcement agents or just like, you know,

intelligence agents and things like that, reading like high theory and, you know, clearly taking

vast logical leaps to like imbricate it into the state apparatus.

I'm just imagining like some extremely like coaked up officer at a union meeting or something

was told about object oriented ontology or something and just decided that that was going to

become like the justification for and and like bureaucratic loophole structure for

for civil asset forfeiture.

I mean, it's so intentional.

...