>>taxation is agreed implicitly by you as you choose to live in that country and have a vote.
>>
>>Confiscation is not agreed. usually there's some element of crime over what is confiscated.
>
>The situation here is a little more complex. There are some crimes where a court can rule that some things (typically, items that it determines are fruits of the crime) can be confiscated by the government. However, that's entirely separate from taxes.

The courts are *supposed* to be ruling on confiscations.
It is the due process guaranteed by words on an old piece of paper

What I heard from an American who lived in Mexico for a year, the federales can and do roust you in the middle of the night, make vague accusations of a crime, ransack your residence for "evidence" and then walk away with any cash or other goodies they find. No judge, no jury.

Thank god we don't live in Mexico!
Um, well, er.
Drug asset forfeiture laws allow police to seize cash or any other goodies they find when they "suspect" a crime.
Poor un-banked people carrying cash to purchase cars, medical care, tombstones etc. are a favorite target - they can't fight back:
https://medium.com/@danwwang/civil-asset-forfeiture-when-the-law-confiscates-from-the-poor-aa3b437e3e1

The agency doing the seizing gets to keep some or all of the property.
Conflict of interest on the face of it.
Unconstitutional on the face of it

A few years ago, there was a big inter-agency fight over who got to police I-40 through Tennessee.
They all wanted the money.

Donald P. Scott was killed during a police raid on October 2, 1992 as they attempted to serve a warrant to search for marijuana.
The police had done extensive research on Scott's assets.
No marijuana—or any other illegal drug—was found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Donald_P._Scott

I guess words on an old piece of paper just won't stop men with guns and force of "law" behind them.