The recent Supreme Court decision (March, 1996) to allow the government to seize property of innocent owners, without recompense, if it was used in the commission of a crime may indeed exist as precedent in law, but it is a chilling reminder that we citizens are not free in our right of possession of property. Another right has been abrogated and the government has prevailed and kept a power over citizens to itself. We might ask whether this decision protects anyone other than those who govern. Certainly it is a way to bring revenue to government coffers and extend the power of threat over citizens' lives. There have been many instances in the past 30 years in which the court has upheld or redefined the government's power at the expense of citizens' rights. We no longer have the full panoply of rights that the founders envisioned in the Constitution.

Our government is supposed to be one of the people, not government or the people, but those in positions of power, whether elected, appointed or hired bureaucrats, want to preserve and extend their power. This is a natural human condition. This situation has created in many instances the condition of government vs. the people. And the people are often ignorant of it or of the consequences of new laws that restrict personal liberty. Simply, this situation may in some ways be that the people don't pay attention to government's actions. And those in positions of power don't want to tell them what they are doing. It is too easy for the government to act covertly or not allow pending cases wide publicity. That is also a fault of the news media which should act in an adversarial relationship to government, exposing its machinations. And it may not be in the interest of big business media to expose laws that take away citizens' power to act against them.

The government has its agendas; the people have theirs', and only occasionally do they meet. The government sees law as a protection of itself or of society that is its embodiment. Crime is seen as a violation against society rather than individual citizens, an excuse for government to gain from prosecution of crime. National security or protection of society are always justifications or rationalizations that government uses to pass restrictive laws over individual citizens. But wasn't government in this country set up to protect individual rights? Society has no rights, government has no rights, politicians have no rights - only individuals can have rights. With these restrictive laws we are no more secure than without them, but less so.

The following are important instances where we have lost freedoms:

Killing a police officer is a greater crime than killing another citizen.

Assassinating the President is a greater crime than killing another citizen.

The President may suspend the Constitution in a national emergency.

Seizing property of drug felons, including property held in joint ownership with the innocent.

Immanent domain without just compensation. Often condemning property that the government wants to seize.