Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 641 posts

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#301

Post by Cushman »

cjensen wrote: post #252
Cushman wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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".

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#302

Post by psykovsky »

drfuchs wrote: post #277
Alupis wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people supposedly "murdered" never existed... the names did not belong to real people, nor did the photo id's match anyone of record, etc. It's a rumor that they were Fed baiting him... and likely why the Fed never tried to charge him on the murder-for-hire counts.

Curtis Green is a real person, who really worked for Ross, who really was afraid Ross would have him killed, and who in fact Ross did try to have killed. See the very beginning of Joshuah Bearman's "The Rise and Fall of Silk Road" in Wired.

You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of USD$350,000.00 in Bitcoin commited by the dirty undercover DEA agent who he then hired to murder Curtis Green.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#303

Post by gburt »

lfuller wrote: post #274
mmanfrin wrote: post #22

> and that at least six deaths were attributable to drugs bought on the site. The government recommended a sentence “substantially above” the 20-year minimum. Man, that is a bit of a mental stretch to blame drug ODs on the runner of a forum. He did not make the drugs, sell the drugs, or transfer the drugs, but the prosecutors faulted him in the OD of people who used those drugs?

I agree. By that logic, the directors of the country's top liquor producers should get the death penalty.

Not to mention liquor stores, Walmart, Bayer AG, anyone who's ever manufactured a gun or a knife, ...

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#304

Post by MadrugadaEterna »

jMyles wrote: post #242
Spooky23 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He ordered the killings of 6 people. Even by the bloodiest of bleeding heart standards, contract killing isn't some victimless crime.

Not everyone is convinced this happened.

I can't upvote you for some retarded reason. But you're correct as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#305

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #133
thornofmight wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person Ross hired as a hitman was an undercover agent who had been befriending Ross online for over a year.

This may have qualified as entrapment which could be why he was not brought up on charges for this. Still, IMO it is reasonable to bring that up as a character issue.

[deleted]

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#306

Post by dreamdu5t »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #226
iblaine wrote: post #16

Life without parole seems excessive. I think they're trying to make an example out of him due to how hard it is to detect and prosecute this type of crime.

It's life, not life without parole. He'll get paroled, eventually. People should read some of the background, including haggling over the cost of a murder for hire. - http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-2/ Truth is, it's hard to run this sort of thing without getting ripped off, and then violence is the only way to discourage people from ripping you off. Watch Godfather movies, esp. part 2... Mafias arise out of h…

> One of the many ironies of libertarian extremists is that actions which are considered illegitimate when taken by a democratic government become OK when taken by concentrated private power to protect private property.

Huh? Libertarian extremists do not condone murder or murder-for-hire. Most libertarian extremists also support proportional self-defense and damages doctrine (Rothbard et al) so would not consider murdering someone who steals from you acceptable.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#307

Post by tomelders »

benihana wrote: post #237
gr8b8m8-88 wrote: post #86

So let's get this straight for the justice system: 1. misleading the American public into going to a series of costly wars through lies about WMDs -> not punishable 2. Weakening Glass-Stegal and encouraging questionable and irresponsible risk-taking at major banking institutions -> not punishable 3. Fraudulent evaluation of risk-ratings by trusted agencies for the sake of profit leading to worst financial disaster si…

Also let's not forget: 5. Apples are red 6. Oranges are orange You're comparing facts: "Ulbricht ran The Silk Road," with your own conjecture: "Banks encouraged 'questionable' risk taking." You're making a lot of extraordinary claims that are very very difficult to prove with no evidence to back them up. And you're using this conjecture as evidence of... something? You don't really make a point. You just repeat popul…

I think the deeper point is that people feel there's a disconnect from the perceived damage an action incurs and the punishment assigned to it. Rightly or wrongly that's how people feel, and what is the law for in the end?

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#308

Post by fleitz »

tzs wrote: post #285
zanny wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the key point. He is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, pretty much, for running a website. Not for hurting anyone, not for even threatening to kill anyone - those charges weren't a part of his conviction - but simply by enabling the exchange of drugs he apparently should be locked away forever. Go Team 'Murica....

Are you implying drugs don't hurt anyone? Even the most ardent proponent of full legalization usually acknowledges that many drugs are very harmful--they just believe the people should be free to do things even if they are harmful to themselves. I generally support decriminalization or even legalization, but I would be reluctant to allow internet sales. I'd require sales to be through licensed dealers and in person,…

No more than water does.

Even as a proponent of full legalization I know that as little as a few minutes spent in water can kill someone, and often does.

Why people are allowed to casually dive into this toxic substance is beyond me. No licenses, no regulations, practically any body of water you can find you're allowed to jump into totally unsupervised.

Most places don't even have signs warning people of the danger, and worst yet, many children practice a dangerous activity called 'swimming' in this substance often daring each other as to who can drop the highest from a rope into a potentially fatal body of water.

Also, once you start drinking it you need to find at least 4 litres of this a day to keep from going into water withdrawl, commonly known as dehydration, this can happen in as little as 3 days with out your daily fix.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#309

Post by hebdo »

ebspelman wrote: post #297
hebdo wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of rationalizations may ruin your entire life one day. You cannot and do not know where will any experimentation with drugs bring you to. Remember that the first step of the twelve steps is "admitting that one cannot control one's alcoholism, addiction or compulsion". Finding reasons why you are more privileged than others makes this step even harder.

I really appreciate this comment, even though I personally don't agree with it. You can't take drugs 100% safely, but their safety level does vary, and it definitely varies with wealth. Amphetamines, for example. Rich Americans get prescriptions for Adderall. Poor Americans make meth. Or take opiates. Vicodin vs. heroin.

The amount of prescription opioids being sold in the US is insane, this is my opinion on the subject. It cannot end well in the long run.

There are already millions of Americans that started their opioid adventure with oxycodone or hydrocodone, often coming from the "upper spheres". Addiction does not discriminate. Changing the name from amphetamine to Adderal will not give you more control over your addiction. You will have none, regardless of your income level.

You are right about the safety level though, this is about potential short-term complications. Prescription stuff is not contaminated, a doctor can give you some good advice, or a vial of emergency Naloxone.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#310

Post by civilian »

tzs wrote: post #285
zanny wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the key point. He is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, pretty much, for running a website. Not for hurting anyone, not for even threatening to kill anyone - those charges weren't a part of his conviction - but simply by enabling the exchange of drugs he apparently should be locked away forever. Go Team 'Murica....

Are you implying drugs don't hurt anyone? Even the most ardent proponent of full legalization usually acknowledges that many drugs are very harmful--they just believe the people should be free to do things even if they are harmful to themselves. I generally support decriminalization or even legalization, but I would be reluctant to allow internet sales. I'd require sales to be through licensed dealers and in person,…

Licensed & regulated dealers (aka pharmacies) would be great.

In regards to the harm from drugs-- I'd add the obvious point that prohibition comes with a really high cost.

I recently did dry-january and I was really happy with the results of cutting back on my drinking. I wake up more rested, and had more energy in the evenings. I've been thinking that going totally dry might be a good thing to do in my life.

But would I make alcohol, one of the top killers in america, illegal? (ref: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm ) Absolutely not. If you went to US high school you know why--- alcohol-dealing gangs took over. People turned to bad products (wood alcohol, that potentially included methanol) to get their alcohol fix. I imagine we needlessly jailed a lot of alcohol drinkers and pushers.

A more indepth analysis of alcohol prohibition: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Why does the general public consider drug prohibition to be that much different than alcohol prohibition??

Post reply on HN