I like how the first two paragraphs under the intro (History) is basically outlining how the British doing it to American colonists was a catalyst for violent revolution to come…
…and then the third is describing how American courts immediately recreated the laws with these inspirations to increase their budgets.
While that's true, you absolutely don't have to settle for monarchy because a lot of democratic countries don't have this problem. Start with Canada (ignoring its namesake monarch). Civil forfeiture is a US specialty.
While perhaps specifically Canada does not have this type of asset forfeiture, I’m not sure they’re a good example of financial liberty that we should aspire to here in the US.
As a Canadian I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you what you know about Canada.
Like what do you really know about Canada?
Because I'm getting the same "Montreal is the capital of Canada" vibes that I got from an American tourist when I was a little kid visiting the same tourist town that they were on summer vacation.
It astounds me how confidentially incorrect Americans (I'm assuming that you're American) are when it comes to their close neighbour.
I think it exists in Ireland too. I suspect it may be a legislative flaw that can be exploited in all common law countries (with the buy in of legislatures of course).
I dunno, there's some stuff like French ferme générale private tax collectors that weren't constrained in their profit-margin [0] or privateers with letters of marque and reprisal that went after civilians from other countries. [1]
The Sheriff of London paid the monarch for their position, ￡300, and paid for this (as well as stashing away some for themselves) through taxes and fees or fines assessed by the sovereign.
This would have certain parallels to contemporary civil forfeiture.
The Wikipedia page has more on the rationale, good or bad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...