To anyone who thinks this could be hyperbolic; every single statement here is verifiable, from asset-forfeiture being applied overwhelmingly to people who are never convicted of a crime, to the police themselves admitting that seized funds are subject to NO regulation and are routinely used for "nice-to-haves" such as Margharita Machines, office parties, and other institutional costs.

I'm all for capitalism, but it has created a vicious positive-feedback loop here that if unchecked, means this will NEVER change.

1) Ex-LE create "training" subsidiary programs like Black Asphalt and Desert Snow succeed because, they teach the "police" how to operate "efficiently" and increase their financial "earnings." This is perpetuated by the rationalization of many police that they are "underfunded," "constrained" and thereby justified in the name of "protecting the public."

2) LE adopting these programs see an exponential rise in intake, and news spreads. These training programs become the new "ideal," and earn large sums in the process for the "training" they provide--an increased incentive to keep developing them.

3) Somewhere in this process the police 'mentality' shifts from "how do I uphold the law and protect the freedoms it affords" to, "how do I get mine, while not majorly stepping outside the bounds of the law."

In many ways it's ironically American, and yet, it's also very much an automatic symptom of this feedback loop where priorities are shifted in pursuit of personal gain and rationalizations are made that create a dangerous disconnect between a true "agent of the law" and a predatory individual with knowledge of said law who is inherently looking for ways to use that knowledge to take advantage of you.

Frankly, I think we're all self-interested in some way and make many rationalizations in the pursuit. The point of legislation is to allow that in a healthy context, while preventing those rationalizations from substantially harming the culture and society.

If we want to see any change here, I think designing intelligent disincentives is the only path that will produce a lasting effect. "Punishment" as deterrence isn't enough. Additional "civil liberty" stipulations aren't either, as we learned with the tax code--more complexity just makes more holes to be exploited.

How do we curtail the ability for these programs to remain economically viable? Remove the incentive, and only then, perhaps the psychology will change.