zlacker

[return to "Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison"]
1. javert+s1[view] [source] 2015-05-29 20:26:45
>>uptown+(OP)
Gross miscarriage of justice. People have a right to buy drugs.

Every single government actor involved in this case is far more guilty than Ross and, frankly, they are the ones that deserve prison.

Yes, Ross should have realized you can't massively break the law and get away with it. He made a big mistake.

But the mistake he made was assuming that other people were more benevolent than they really are.

This young man viewed the world with a child-like, rosy-eyed perspective, and for that, he gets crushed by the boot of government brutality.

Disclaimer: I have no involvement with any dark nets or online drug trade.

edit: I don't know if he hired hitmen and if he did, I suspect it was in his own defense.

◧◩
2. wvenab+g2[view] [source] 2015-05-29 20:31:13
>>javert+s1
> People have a right to buy drugs.

Actually they don't, which is kind of the point.

◧◩◪
3. civili+c3[view] [source] 2015-05-29 20:36:19
>>wvenab+g2
We're discussing rights given to us by the Laws of Nature, as understood by our founding fathers, not the meager rights dolled out by the federal government.
◧◩◪◨
4. harryh+C3[view] [source] 2015-05-29 20:38:36
>>civili+c3
What laws of nature? The laws of nature that say if I'm bigger and stronger than you I can beat you up and take all of your stuff?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. tander+q4[view] [source] 2015-05-29 20:45:05
>>harryh+C3
The poster is referring to the (often great) disparity between natural and legal rights. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. harryh+d5[view] [source] 2015-05-29 20:50:18
>>tander+q4
Of course he is.

But I think the idea of natural rights is dumb. They're made up by humans. They're enforced by humans. Their exact nature is disagreed upon and debated by humans.

The idea that there is some set of core natural rights that comes from somewhere other than humans is a tactic used to avoid debate on which rights we should and should not have by people unwilling to actually support their ideas with facts or reasoning.

You might as well just say that god told us to do it that way.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. civili+Bb[view] [source] 2015-05-29 21:50:21
>>harryh+d5
Of course I am :) but natural rights have formed the basis of most modern (english revolution and forward-- american, french, russian) revolutions. Those citizens didn't care for what was _legal_ or _illegal_, they cared for their welfare and rights, even though it was essentially illegal. Webcomic for the choir: http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=469

If humans followed the law above all else, then we would not have democracy, or even republics. We'd have totalitarian nations of smiling slaves.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. harryh+hd[view] [source] 2015-05-29 22:11:22
>>civili+Bb
Sure, humans renegotiate the law all the time. Sometimes peacefully sometimes at the point of the sword. But those are still rights as defined by humans not handed down by God/Nature.

There wasn't revolution because the people were aesthetically displeased at the fact that their natural rights were being violated. There was revolution because the people wanted something and they were willing to fight for it.

If income inequality keeps going the way it's going, one day we'll see the people revolt against the rich demanding a natural right to housing, medical care, education and who knows what else. You'll, of course, note that particular definition of natural rights far exceeds the Jeffersonian one. It'll be just as an illogical concept then as it is now. It's a nice rhetorical flourish though, and rhetoric goes a long way when you're asking people to risk their lives.

[go to top]