> Which basically seems to mean that (at least in the US) 
> people don't have a
> right against seizure without being (criminally) guilty of 
> any wrongdoing.

In my country that is basically correct, *but* there are a number of
taxes that can be applied, judged by the tax officer. That judgement is
far less open to scrutiny, review, etc. than a court judgement. And an
IMHO bad tendency of the government is to outsource that judgment
activity to 'independent' parties, which allows for even less scrutiny
than decisions made by civil servants.

(Now that you remind me - I think I did write something like that once -
but where did it go?)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist