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

I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

words.motel.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#121

Post by emodendroket »

EdHominem wrote: post #117
emodendroket wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he wasn't just smoking pot (and it's hard to imagine anyone really caring about unsubstantiated allegations of some guy smoking pot), he was running a massive drug dealing enterprise.

Right, which existed to let people buy things they wanted, like pot. He didn't sell near schools, or fight turf wars, etc. Our silly laws, and the greed of the blackmailer, created this situation. The person attempting to pull the trigger is nearly blameless.

> Our silly laws, and the greed of the blackmailer, created this situation. The person attempting to pull the trigger is nearly blameless.

lmao. OK dude

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#122

Post by meowface »

emodendroket wrote: post #120
meowface wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd suspect they likely do reduce drug deaths and fraud, though. Their escrow and reputation systems guarantee that the vast majority of drug sales are pure products and at the correct dosage listed.

I don't know about that. I think it's pretty common for people to build up a strong rep and then at the end pull off a big scam before re-registering as someone else.

Depending on how common, that could still leave you with a much lower risk than being scammed IRL. "Strong rep" isn't easy.

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#123

Post by EdHominem »

emodendroket wrote: post #121
EdHominem wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, which existed to let people buy things they wanted, like pot. He didn't sell near schools, or fight turf wars, etc. Our silly laws, and the greed of the blackmailer, created this situation. The person attempting to pull the trigger is nearly blameless.

> Our silly laws, and the greed of the blackmailer, created this situation. The person attempting to pull the trigger is nearly blameless. lmao. OK dude

If the laws were even slightly focused on harm reduction instead of stocking private prisons then maybe they wouldn't be ridiculous. And obviously the blackmailer, turning someone in for something that isn't an actual harm to society, is more of a harm than the "criminal" is.

Your whole argument is "law enforcement is good", with as much proof as you'd supply for the existence of Santa. That's a stupidly naive view to have. Yes, kidnapping is bad and stopping kidnappers is good. But very little of what law enforcement does is in our best interests, as individuals or as a society.

Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. With bad law backing them up...

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#124

Post by emodendroket »

EdHominem wrote: post #123
emodendroket wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our silly laws, and the greed of the blackmailer, created this situation. The person attempting to pull the trigger is nearly blameless. lmao. OK dude

If the laws were even slightly focused on harm reduction instead of stocking private prisons then maybe they wouldn't be ridiculous. And obviously the blackmailer, turning someone in for something that isn't an actual harm to society, is more of a harm than the "criminal" is. Your whole argument is "law enforcement is good", with as much proof as you'd supply for the existence of Santa. That's a stupidly naive view t…

It's not that "law enforcement is good" or even "drug laws are good" but "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong."

> Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. With bad law backing them up...

That's not exactly clear, no. In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near the same moral level as "evading law enforcement."

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#125

Post by emodendroket »

meowface wrote: post #122
emodendroket wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about that. I think it's pretty common for people to build up a strong rep and then at the end pull off a big scam before re-registering as someone else.

Depending on how common, that could still leave you with a much lower risk than being scammed IRL. "Strong rep" isn't easy.

The risk to scamming people is also much lower to the scammer.

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#126

Post by EdHominem »

emodendroket wrote: post #124
EdHominem wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the laws were even slightly focused on harm reduction instead of stocking private prisons then maybe they wouldn't be ridiculous. And obviously the blackmailer, turning someone in for something that isn't an actual harm to society, is more of a harm than the "criminal" is. Your whole argument is "law enforcement is good", with as much proof as you'd supply for the existence of Santa. That's a stupidly naive view t…

It's not that "law enforcement is good" or even "drug laws are good" but "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. With bad law backing them up... That's not exactly clear, no. In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near th…

> "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong."

No, unjustifiably murdering people is wrong. Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right.

> > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing.

> That's not exactly clear, no.

Sure it is. You never taken a history class, or watched current events on TV, if you think all laws are equal and that all rulers have a right to be obeyed. Without recognizing a bad law you can't recognize good law.

> In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near the same moral level as "evading law enforcement."

Soldiers are hit men. Sending them some places results in war crimes, sending them other places prevents war crimes. Overall, I'd rather have and use soldiers than not.

For a meaningful comparison with "law enforcement", first specify which legal system and which laws.

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#127

Post by emodendroket »

EdHominem wrote: post #126
emodendroket wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that "law enforcement is good" or even "drug laws are good" but "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. With bad law backing them up... That's not exactly clear, no. In fact it's less than clear, to me, that hiring a hitman is anywhere near th…

> "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." No, unjustifiably murdering people is wrong. Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. > > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. > That's not exactly clear, no. Sure it is. You never taken a history cl…

> Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right.

Avoiding the consequences for running your large criminal enterprise, through which you are enriching yourself, doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#128

Post by EdHominem »

emodendroket wrote: post #127
EdHominem wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "hiring people to commit murder on your behalf is morally wrong." No, unjustifiably murdering people is wrong. Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. > > Clearly the rightness of evading law enforcement and shooting blackmailers depends on the rightness of the law the enforcers are enforcing. > That's not exactly clear, no. Sure it is. You never taken a history cl…

> Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. Avoiding the consequences for running your large criminal enterprise, through which you are enriching yourself, doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.

> through which you are enriching yourself

Red Herring.

> Avoiding the consequences

The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king.

> doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.

Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions that don't hurt anyone actually seems like the only reasonable justification for killing someone. Especially in the case of a blackmailer where they aren't attempting to right any (theoretical) wrongs.

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#129

Post by emodendroket »

EdHominem wrote: post #128
emodendroket wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Killing someone for the "right" reasons, either by yourself or by proxy, is morally right. Avoiding the consequences for running your large criminal enterprise, through which you are enriching yourself, doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.

> through which you are enriching yourself Red Herring. > Avoiding the consequences The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king. > doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide. Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions tha…

I simply do not agree with you.

Re: I thought I was designing for SpaceX, it may have been for the Silk Road

#130

Post by EdHominem »

emodendroket wrote: post #129
EdHominem wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> through which you are enriching yourself Red Herring. > Avoiding the consequences The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king. > doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide. Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions tha…

I simply do not agree with you.

No, you refuse to put yourself in the shoes of someone breaking an unjust law and being persecuted for it. You may never agree with a drug dealer killing an informant, but the concept of killing your blackmailer is much broader.

The fact is that our law. (You and me. We paid for it.) Doesn't help us, and was used to hurt (blackmail) someone. You might not think the hit was "Fair" or in proportion but it was a consequence of our useless law - making someone defend themselves. As long as we have bad law we'll have its unintended consequences.

Silk Road was the best public-safety advancement in drugs in the last millennium. It was impossible for someone to stumble into unaware, it wasn't near a school, church, rehab clinic, etc. And our useless laws treated it like he was shoving crack cocaine into a toddler's mouth, and denied him the protection of the police.

And useless isn't just a term of dislike, it's that our drug laws don't increase safety for anyone, dealers, users, or bystanders.

Post reply on HN