US government agency argues that money isn't property–so it can take yours

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Nature of the case vs. headline framing

  • Several commenters say the headline/article overstates things: the “money isn’t property” point appears only in a DOJ/DoL footnote, not as the core argument.
  • The underlying dispute: a lawn-care company using H-2B visas was found by a Department of Labor administrative law judge to have underpaid workers and misrepresented its needs, resulting in back wages ($38k) plus a penalty ($16k).
  • The company is attacking the administrative process itself (and seeking Article III / jury adjudication), not just denying the facts.
  • Some argue Reason is an ideological advocacy outlet pushing an anti–administrative state agenda and framing the case to inflame fears of asset seizure.

Money, property, and constitutional doctrine

  • One side: saying “money isn’t property” is obviously absurd and dangerous; if accepted, it undermines due process and enables broad state confiscation.
  • Others stress the footnote’s narrow purpose: money has long been treated differently from “property” in specific constitutional analyses (e.g., taxation not being a “taking”), so the distinction is technical, not a claim that people don’t own their money.
  • Debate centers on the Fifth and Seventh Amendments: Is an administrative monetary penalty a deprivation of “property” requiring full due process and jury trial, or a “public right” that can be handled in agency tribunals?

Administrative courts, fines, and due process

  • Some argue only real judges should impose punishments and that agency ALJs, employed by the same executive branch that prosecutes, are structurally suspect.
  • Others reply that administrative courts are still adversarial, the company had years of process and multiple appeals (with reduced liability), and forcing every fine into federal court would cripple enforcement (e.g., against wage theft).
  • A few commenters are explicitly torn: they want wage theft punished, reject “money isn’t property,” but also don’t want to DOS regulatory enforcement.

Fears of overreach and civil forfeiture

  • Many extrapolate: if money is not “property,” what stops the government from arbitrary fines, expanded civil forfeiture, or other seizures?
  • Some see a slippery slope toward authoritarianism (“another China”), others say this specific case is being wildly overblown.

Crypto, inflation, and protecting wealth

  • “Bitcoin fixes this” prompts a long subthread:
    • Proponents: crypto (especially privacy coins like Monero) is harder to seize than bank balances and can serve as an exit option from an overreaching state.
    • Critics: physical coercion (torture, kidnapping) can still extract keys; crypto execs are attractive kidnap targets; taint analysis and AML tools give unprecedented visibility into transactions.
    • Practical issues: using Bitcoin as money triggers capital gains reporting; US law already treats digital assets as “property” for tax, which undermines the “not property” theory but doesn’t make BTC convenient as currency.
  • Others note governments can already “take” money via inflation and devaluation, though there is debate on who is harmed most.

Passports, exit strategies, and alternative jurisdictions

  • Some commenters react by talking about leaving the US:
    • Passports are typically the issuing government’s property; historically some regimes tightly controlled access.
    • Discussion of wealthy individuals buying second citizenships or residencies, or assembling “passport portfolios” as a hedge against domestic decline.

Media literacy and ideology

  • There is an extended meta-debate about:
    • The difference between journalism vs. ideological advocacy.
    • Whether Reason misleads by omission (emphasizing the footnote, minimizing wage-theft context).
    • The broader trend of outlets, across the spectrum, blending reporting with agenda-driven narratives.