The author raises an interesting point, you could easily write a headline that says "Online Black Market The Silk Road Helps Keep More Than One Billion Dollars of Drugs Off Our Streets"
Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
151–160 of 161 posts
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#152Here'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…
"In the "state of nature," without government, we are in
no way anonymous."
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
People seem to forget this is just the internet. It's a communications medium . Anonymity in communications are certainly not a unique feature of the internet, you can hide your caller id, and a letter will still arrive without a return address. The basic idea being that you can't shoot someone in the face by merely communicating, and I'm pretty sure you can still not commit a violent crime over the internet alone. C…
Both of your points are hyperbolic claims with no warrant. > Communication mediums are the safest thing in the whole wide world. Even though this is a strawman, since my arguing to the contrary does nothing to support that anonymity is or isn't a natural right, you're still completely wrong. Perhaps I can't literally shoot someone with a computer, but all kinds of violence is inflicted by communication. You can haras…
So what you're saying is that the internet is a tool, and like all tools they can be used for both good and evil. That being said, how is it different from a knife that can be used as easily to cut food to murder someone? We don't regulate knives despite the danger they occasionally present. We value the convenience and utility of being able to acquires knives whenever, wherever and for whatever we want more than the safety afforded by regulating knives to prevent stabbings. The internet is an even more versatile tool than knives and regulating it will do more harm than good.
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it hard to see what business it is of theirs. They're there to enforce the laws passed down by legislators, not make the laws.
They're citizens of a democracy with every bit as much right to organize in support of their legislative proposals as any others, is what business it is of theirs. I may tend to disagree with their arguments, but until they try a coup, advancing those arguments is well within their rights. (Thought experiment: Would you make the same argument against LEAP, which is another organization of LEOs who take the opposite p…
I agree they have the right to organise and speak like any other group.
I just wonder why they think they ought to be given any special consideration when it comes to policy making, or be able to use their status as law-enforcement officers (a group the public give weight to) to voice such opinions.
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it hard to see what business it is of theirs. They're there to enforce the laws passed down by legislators, not make the laws.
Their argument was that weed charges gave them leverage on going up the ladder from the street-level dealers to higher-ups. Not sure if it was true but their opinion didn't play a factor in the ballot question vote.
>> Their argument was that weed charges gave them leverage on going up the ladder from the street-level dealers to higher-ups.
Very broken logic there. Could equally apply to anything that has been prohibited. About what I expected I guess :)
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cit…
> Lysander Spooner is not a mainstream American political philosopher Immaterial. He's been an large influence on American political life[1], alive and dead. > I'm also going to...duck, and run away. I always appreciate this response from people with an attachment to the government/State than the more common approach which is to call people names. Many thanks. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#America…
It is telling that you avoided the actual argument in my comment.
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lysander Spooner is not a mainstream American political philosopher Immaterial. He's been an large influence on American political life[1], alive and dead. > I'm also going to...duck, and run away. I always appreciate this response from people with an attachment to the government/State than the more common approach which is to call people names. Many thanks. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#America…
It is telling that you avoided the actual argument in my comment.
> It is telling that you avoided the actual argument in my comment.
You told me you were running away and I didn't want to waste my time. Apologies for taking you at your word.
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Okay, thanks. Some of the references from the article are good, too.
It's more or less clear how to apply the principle when two individuals interact. People form groups, however, both explicitly and implicitly. If I am part of a group that violates another's rights, am I still not accountable if I am not actually the individual(s) who does the physical act?
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're citizens of a democracy with every bit as much right to organize in support of their legislative proposals as any others, is what business it is of theirs. I may tend to disagree with their arguments, but until they try a coup, advancing those arguments is well within their rights. (Thought experiment: Would you make the same argument against LEAP, which is another organization of LEOs who take the opposite p…
I agree they have the right to organise and speak like any other group. I just wonder why they think they ought to be given any special consideration when it comes to policy making, or be able to use their status as law-enforcement officers (a group the public give weight to) to voice such opinions.
Perhaps because they have domain expertise not generally available outside their field. Do you also argue developers have no reason to think they should be given special consideration in W3C's and IETF's standards processes?
Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree they have the right to organise and speak like any other group. I just wonder why they think they ought to be given any special consideration when it comes to policy making, or be able to use their status as law-enforcement officers (a group the public give weight to) to voice such opinions.
Perhaps because they have domain expertise not generally available outside their field. Do you also argue developers have no reason to think they should be given special consideration in W3C's and IETF's standards processes?
I disagree, I think they have selection bias. I also think that they are more like a CPU than they are like a developer. The legislator is the developer. The constitution (of whichever country you are in) is the standards body. It is their job to execute the law, not to make it.