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

Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#131

Post by manicbovine »

smacktoward wrote: post #122
manicbovine wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the Silk Road wasn't truly anonymous because buyers had to disclose their address to at least one person. It's surprising that so many people were willing to send their addresses to anonymous criminals who could, at any time, turn into DEA informants. Furthermore, vendors must mail the package; seeing as how it's not terribly hard to see where packages come from, many vendors are probably vulnerable to simple sur…

> the Silk Road wasn't truly anonymous because buyers had to disclose their address to at least one person. Did they really? I never used Silk Road so I can't say from experience, but it seems like it'd be more likely that they had to disclose an address, not necessarily their address. Like, "ship it to this P.O. Box" would qualify as disclosing an address, without necessarily giving up their actual place of residenc…

I misstated that.

For whatever reason, that community generally believes that it's a liability to have the drugs sent to a false address or PO Box. I think they're relying on being able to plausibly deny that the drugs were mailed to their house by mistake, which doesn't hold up if you're observed collecting drugs from some other location.

Regarding your question about the mailbox services, I don't think there is any mailbox service that escapes the reaches of the DEA. I've actually been wondering what the next evolution of the Silk Road would look like if law enforcement decides to target the mail. I think this is interesting because whatever method the SR community works out has the potential to lower the cost of fairly normal economic behavior in totalitarian regimes by introducing the threat of a cheap black market, thereby undermining the government's power to tax. It will be fascinating to see mechanisms and effects of a technologically coordinated black market, delivery and all.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#132

Post by dragonwriter »

ferdo wrote: post #129
chc wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. You seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of either "liberty" or "criminal," because this seems to be tautological by the normal definitions. Something being criminal means your liberty to indulge in that thing has been taken away. So you could say this about any behavior — if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and i…

> if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it. I perceive it elsewise. If someone abuses their liberty to commit fraud or violence, then they're a criminal. Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way. Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's if they have an interest in regulating so…

> Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way.

No, criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law.

> Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's

Nothing is criminal except in regard to a particular code of law. That's what "criminal" means.

Criminal neither implies, nor is implied by, "morally wrong".

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#133

Post by VladRussian2 »

rayiner wrote: post #111
VladRussian2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The concept of "natural rights" is motivated by protection against the government. yes, there is no natural rights in Nature, except may be the right to run as fast as one able to away from the next up in the food chain. The current stage of human society is akin to a situation when a pack of predators and a herd of prey make an agreement that the prey willn't be hunted as long as it stays withing specified bounds.…

I think your predator/herd dichotomy creates a needless dichotomy, and also goes outside the bounds of its own analogy (predators and prey obviously don't agree in the state of nature, and in the presence of a fat herd the predators would multiply out of control until the herd thinned). I don't think it captures the relevant dynamics. How I tend to view things is that humans are inherently pack animals. We are indivi…

>predator/herd dichotomy creates a needless dichotomy

"predator" is a role, it is the one who uses force/violence as a tool.

>predators and prey obviously don't agree in the state of nature

exactly. It took about million years of evolution for humans to get to the state where they became able to produce current agreement between predators and prey (i.e. some kind of government and society). Once they did, the humans took over the planet.

>the natural state of our existence is a very bloody anarchy

nope. At least during last hundred thousand of years (and well before), humans (the Cro-Magnon we're as well as other humans) have pretty much always had tribal organization. As you said yourself: "How I tend to view things is that humans are inherently pack animals. " Pack/tribe isn't anarchy. It is first and explicit step away from it.

>See, e.g., the French Revolution.

that isn't natural state. That is exactly what happens when predators transgress beyond the patience limit of the herd and the herd gets angry enough to throw out the agreement. It is also shows that such unnatural for humans situation wouldn't go for long, and the new pack would naturally emerge and the herd would rush into new agreement.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#134

Post by tptacek »

ferdo wrote: post #128
tptacek wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's not liberty, that's criminal behavior" is a no-true-scotsman argument.

No, it's thinking based in classic American political philosophy[1], not a worn-out internet meme. [1] "Vices Are Not Crimes" by Lysander Spooner http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

Lysander Spooner is not a mainstream American political philosopher, except to the extent that you consider anarcho-capitalism mainstream. And your citation does the same thing you just tried to do, which was to define away the liberties you don't care to defend as "crimes". Spooner does so more rigorously, and isn't deploying his arguments as a superficial attempt to deflect an argument, but I don't see how your citation is particularly helpful.

I'm also going to raise my hand, declare ancap philosophy to itself be a worn-out Internet meme, duck, and run away.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#135

Post by jmilloy »

karzeem wrote: post #110
pak wrote: post #35

Here's a question for the techno-libertarians stepping up to say the government has no right to shut down sites like Silk Road. Where do you derive this supposed natural right for anonymity on the internet? Life, liberty, freedom from discrimination, due process--these things I understand, and there are well supported philosophical frameworks (rule utilitarian, Kantian, libertarian etc.) for deriving them from first…

The other responses to this would probably be agreeable to most "techno-libertarians", but I don't think they're quite correct as to how this natural right is derived. They don't actually posit a natural right to anonymity specifically. The core idea is that the only moral use of force is self-defense. Therefore, it would be immoral for people to use force against you (in this system, laws are considered force becaus…

My first reaction is that fallacies and double standards abound, in this brief description. Can you point me to a more in depth reference, so I can inform myself before trying to reply?

For example: Is it moral to aid someone in their self defense? How are groups of people treated in relation to individual people? Under what circumstances, if any, is responsibility transferable? At what point are my actions no longer force (even though the results of my actions might be)?

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#136

Post by manicbovine »

ferdo wrote: post #130
manicbovine wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators. I think you're missing a fine point here. You've already said that contaminated meat is criminal, presumably because it's very dangerous. Are bath salts very dangerous? Meth? Low quality meth with contaminants? How should we p…

> Do you want to live in a world where buying a simple OTC sleep pill at Walgreen's exposes you to the risk of ingesting heroin or some other decidedly narcotic substance? I'd prefer to live in a world where I could choose to use any medicine I wish to use. It's the liberty/security thing all over again. I prefer the insecurity of liberty to the security of having an overseer. My opinion has always been in the minori…

Replace the words "drug" and "medicine" by "chemical" or "bioactive substance". You see, that's what we must talk about if we talk about legalizing "drugs". One person's drug or medicine is another's poison (Datura is a good example, interesting for discussion because it's legal to own as a plant). If you're fine with criminalizing the sale of contaminated meat, then you are implicitly relying on the government to protect against certain bioactive substances. You're clearly willing to make the security/liberty sacrifice, as are most reasonable people.

EDIT: You'd better serve your interests by advocating for a well-regulated narcotics market with proper safety controls and the distinct possibility that certain substances will just have to be illegal. That's much sounder than saying "legalize drugs because I prefer liberty over safety, except sometimes".

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#137

Post by ferdo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
ferdo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it. I perceive it elsewise. If someone abuses their liberty to commit fraud or violence, then they're a criminal. Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way. Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's if they have an interest in regulating so…

> Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way. No, criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law. > Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's Nothing is criminal except in regard to a particular code of law. That's what "criminal" means. Criminal neither implies, nor is implied by, "morally wrong".

> criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law.

This is only true if one takes the State's part in these discussions. The State can claim that certain forms of agriculture are illegal but that doesn't magically make those forms of agriculture criminal endeavors in anyone's eyes but those with an interest in the State's narrative.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#138

Post by jlgreco »

MichaelGG wrote: post #103
GhotiFish wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well. I'm not convinced it did, myself. If prohibition didn't happen 1920s for the americans, would Al Capone never of being born? Really these prohibition laws give lowlifes something to fight over, and the fightings dangerous, but who says they wouldn't be fighting anyway? Does it make life more dangerous. Maybe not. Does it make it more dangerous for me? Maybe. edit: Ouch. Looking forward to that rebuttal.

Seriously? Giving monopolies to cartels drives massive profits. Cartels maintain actual military troops. It's hard to believe they'd have any source of crime remotely as lucrative without artificial monopolies making huge margins. Sure, they would do kidnapping, extortion, and so on, but that's not anywhere nearly the amount of easy money. If the government granted Monsanto a license for weed, cocaine and poppy, the…

> the cartels would be cleared out in a month.

I fear they could coast on their cash reserves longer than that (and would desire to, instead of merely dissolve, to protect their remaining cash and avoid arrest), but otherwise I think you are exactly right. Kidnapping may be profitable, but it is nowhere near profitable enough to feed that beast.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#139

Post by dragonwriter »

ferdo wrote: post #137
dragonwriter wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way. No, criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law. > Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's Nothing is criminal except in regard to a particular code of law. That's what "criminal" means. Criminal neither implies, nor is implied by, "morally wrong".

> criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law. This is only true if one takes the State's part in these discussions. The State can claim that certain forms of agriculture are illegal but that doesn't magically make those forms of agriculture criminal endeavors in anyone's eyes but those with an interest in the State's narrative.

> This is only true if one takes the State's part in these discussions.

No, the definition of what "criminals" means is independent of the value judgement of the correctness of the state's laws.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#140

Post by karzeem »

jmilloy wrote: post #135
karzeem wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other responses to this would probably be agreeable to most "techno-libertarians", but I don't think they're quite correct as to how this natural right is derived. They don't actually posit a natural right to anonymity specifically. The core idea is that the only moral use of force is self-defense. Therefore, it would be immoral for people to use force against you (in this system, laws are considered force becaus…

My first reaction is that fallacies and double standards abound, in this brief description. Can you point me to a more in depth reference, so I can inform myself before trying to reply? For example: Is it moral to aid someone in their self defense? How are groups of people treated in relation to individual people? Under what circumstances, if any, is responsibility transferable? At what point are my actions no longer…

Good questions, there are disagreements on those points even among libertarians. It's tough to name a single digestible reference because this is such a broad subject. But this one is pretty comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Post reply on HN