zlacker

It's interesting. On one hand, if a leader of a traditional drug distribution network landed a life in prison sentence, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. With Silkroad though, I'm actually convinced by the defendants argument: that it provided safer, more trustworthy drugs to users.

I've had friends who've died from purchasing bad drugs at raves from people who were looking to make money and run. In one situation it ended up being rat poison. The guy had other drugs in his system, and combined with the poison his body went into shock. With darknet markets and independent lab testing networks, this type of thing doesn't happen.

People are still going to use drugs. I'd rather law enforcement go after the guys who are selling rat poison at raves than the guys who are setting up safe distribution networks.

>>jjcm+(OP)
Though I agree with you about the "safer drugs" argument, Ross' site was the worst possible thing that could happen to the supporters of safe, anonymous marketplaces- The evidence that he was willing to use brutal mob-style violence to support his business has yet to be disputed by anyone in a credible way.

>>jjcm+(OP)
Harm reduction is a reasonable argument for a Country to make for changing its drug policies, or for a person to make in an effort to advocate for a change to a Country's laws.

It is not a reasonable argument for an individual to make to try to justify their illegal get-rich scheme.

>>drcode+e1
Given that he was creating jurisdiction from scratch, it makes sense to compare him to other such entities. USG, for example, will often murder people (overt wars and covert actions) for them simply not wanting to do business.

>>cjense+c2
This.

Whether true or not, the intention behind drug laws is physical harm and addiction. Additional harms like risk of violence or overdoses due to impurities are secondary at best.

Unless there's judicial activism going on, making that admission is pretty much just handing the keys to freedom over. Why even bother with a trial? Should have done a plea bargain.

>>jjcm+(OP)
Well, I'm glad you're convinced, because I'm certainly not nor does it appear that the judge was either.

"Forrest rejected arguments that Silk Road had reduced harm among drug users by taking illegal activities off the street. “No drug dealer from the Bronx has ever made this argument to the court. It’s a privileged argument and it’s an argument made by one of the privileged,” she said"

>>jjcm+(OP)

  With darknet markets and independent lab testing networks, this type of thing doesn't happen.

I agree that darknet markets are safer than traditional drug markets, but the poisoning risks can still apply. There was recently a huge flux of PMA being distributed as molly on Agora and other markets from sellers who have known to be reputable in the past. If you know anyone that is purchasing this stuff, encourage them to always test it themselves before using.

>>jjcm+(OP)
How do Darknet networks solve contamination and false labeling issues? You are buying from an anonymous seller.

>>jjcm+(OP)
Maybe I've watched Scarface one too many times, but I think the reason leaders of traditional drug distribution networks get life sentences is because they frequently resort to brutally violent means of running and defending their drug operations. Because they hold the supply of drugs rather than simply being a two-sided marketplace like the Silk Road, they have to physically defend that supply and the locations which house it (from rival organizations, the Police, etc). In a way, not only were the drugs being sold on the Silk Road safer, but the process of selling drugs was probably safer.

EDIT: This argument would probably hold up a lot better if Ulbricht hadn't tried to have people killed. sigh

>>cjense+c2
It really is.

If the law is hurting people, and breaking the law helps people, it's completely reasonable to use that argument to morally justify your illegal behavior. I'd be interested to hear your argument why it is not.

Edit: Though to be clear that wouldn't work to justify all your illegal behavior, if that included like hypothetically trying to have someone killed.

>>Cushma+G7
Since you specifically requested my argument...

I'd agree that lawbreaking is a reasonable moral choice, but not in this case. Moral lawbreaking, in my view, is done when there is a clear benefit or reason to the lawbreaking. And by clear I mean clear to a reasonable and moral person, and not just a speculative personal opinion.

Given that frame of reference, I would argue that (1) the notion that online drug dealing would lead to harm reduction for a drug addict is speculative rather than clear; (2) the harm caused by improved access to hard drugs by more potential addicts would be tremendous and therefore likely exceed any potential harm reduction; (3) given Ulbrict's apparent willingness to hire hitmen, I find it impossible to believe he was in any way motivated by concern for others.

>>cjense+x9
So then, you don't believe that harm reduction doesn't justify illegal activity, you just think what Silk Road specifically did doesn't qualify as "harm reduction"?

That's fine; I disagree, but I'm not interested in litigating it here. But your original parent actually was arguing along those lines, cf. "rat poison" et cetera, so perhaps you'd like to retroactively not reject that as "not a reasonable argument".

>>Rhapsh+f5
No drug dealer from the Bronx was reviewed by buyers for all to see before making a deal with them. Arguably, a dealer from the Bronx would be on the streets so couldn't make that defense in the first place... so the comparison doesn't hold up.

>It’s a privileged argument and it’s an argument made by one of the privileged

I'm unsure what this is even supposed to mean. I tried searching for a definition of "privileged argument" and found nothing. My search phrase was:

"privileged argument" -white -race -racial -feminist

If someone can explain what was meant by this statement, that would be nice and I'd appreciate it.

>>rhino3+q6
The sellers aren't anonymous, they have identities and buyers select sellers based on their reputations. There is a power law distribution in sales with reputable sellers capturing a large part of the market.

>>drcode+e1
His mistake was shitty opsec - he should not have allowed any third parties into a position where they could extort him. However, after the fact, if you're facing someone threatening to imprison and destroy the lives of many vendors and patients, then what is the lesser evil? The extortionist choose to attempt to endanger people. You can't use the state. What other ethical choice is there?

I'm not saying this is the case for Ross, but it's a possibility, at least for one of the contracts. Using violence to protect innocents is not something bad. It's just unfortunate he created the situation in the first place - instead of an extortionist, he may have confided in a LEO, thus hurting his users. (Which is apparently what happened.)

Anyways, the big lesson is that when your startup has major security requirements, go slow and don't break things. There's no real reason he shouldn't be retired now, enjoying his life while enhancing others. Just technical incompetence.

>>Cushma+8c
In the original, "not a reasonable argument" was specific to this instance. I try to avoid generalizations as one can almost always manage to find a corner case exception.

>>jjcm+(OP)
An important thing to remember is that SR did NOT just sell drugs. They also sold hacking tools, identity theft kits, credit card fraud kits, and weapons.

It was not a harm-free marketplace. It was basically 'whichever criminal shit made him money' marketplace and drugs happened to top the list.

LOL @ getting down voted by Libertarians for a COMPLETELY TRUE statement that they wish wasn't true because it fucks up their bullshit narrative.

>>Nadya+md
I think she meant that we're used to having our drug dealers dark skinned and underprivileged from the Bronx, and it would be much easier to deal with according to precedence if we kept it that way. A sophisticated (though not enough, as it turns out) technological attempt to subvert the status quo is inconceivable.

>>Nadya+md
More quotes from the Judge on this issue:

>“Silk Road created [users] who hadn’t tried drugs before,” Forrest said, adding that Silk Road “expands the market” and places demand on drug-producing (and violent) areas in Afghanistan and Mexico that grow the poppies used for heroin.

>“The idea that it is harm-reducing is so narrow, and aimed at such a privileged group of people who are using drugs in the privacy of their own homes using their personal internet connections”, she said.

Through its drug market Silk Road incentivized (horrific) drug violence across the US and other countries. The best you could say is that they had no effect on it.

The privilege criticism is that Ulbricht wants leniency despite the overall harm reduction being marginal. It might have been safer for him and for the dealers, but not significantly for any other group.

>>Michae+Hg
Can't the exact same argument be made by the mob or any other organized crime that uses violence?

>>Touche+0U
Sorta. But one difference is that Silk Road wasn't out robbing or murdering anyone. So there's no justification in extorting it or informing on it. Where for a gang, an informant might be trying to overall save lives.

Another difference is scale. The extortionist that was after Ross was threatening to leak data on hundreds or thousands of innocent people. Do gangs usually find themselves in such situations?

If a gang is just selling drugs, not otherwise robbing or killing or hurting others, then I'm not very troubled by them killing extortionists, no. I just doubt that scenario makes up a notable portion of gang violence.

>>armada+Fj
Did SR actively promote these specific categories of goods you are talking about or just freely allow sellers to sell whatever they wanted?