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

71–80 of 161 posts

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

#71

Post by macspoofing »

slg wrote: post #62
ferdo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> governments are ultimately the overseers that permit networking infrastructure comprising the internet to be built...society depends on accountability There are two conflicting thoughts here. If we're not entitled to the same anonymity that those spying on us have, then we're servants, not members of a just society. We can have a government as overseer of communications or we can have a just society. We can't have…

> We can have Liberty or Security but if we pick Security over Liberty, we'll lose both. I hate this false dichotomy. It simply isn't true as we give up a wide range of liberties in order to live in a safer world. That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society. Whether is it preventing people from driving down a highway at 100 mph, whether they can grow and c…

>I hate this false dichotomy.

No it isn't. By and large there is actually a trade off.

>we simply need to do an analysis of the costs and benefits to figure out if a particular liberty is worth giving up to give us a particular level of safety.

The fact that there may be some worth in trading some liberty for some security, doesn't negate the fact that a trade did indeed happen. Apart from that, this is an incredibly naive statement. Humans aren't perfectly rational beings. Political decisions are emotional and driven by pressures from wide variety of stakeholders (who themselves are driven by self-interest, ideology, bias, religion etc.)

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

#72

Post by gboudrias »

ardeay wrote: post #69
smokeyj wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why did humanity create governments? The same reason "humanity" created mafias and gangs -- which is to use violence as a means of economic control.

We have a HIVE mentality, as much as we try to hide it with personalization. It is the truth. We work together. WE WORK TOGETHER.

Is that a quote or are you yelling at your monitor?

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

#75

Post by mahyarm »

jellicle wrote: post #63
revelation wrote: post #51

Earlier 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…

> History is very clear on this: the biggest enemies of justice have been governments and state sponsored entities, every single time. If that were true, which it isn't, why did humanity create governments?

Because violence exists.

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

#76

Post by Nursie »

sker wrote: post #11
venus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is anyone who believes - really believes - it has not. The war on drugs is kind of this diorama encapsulation of everything that is wrong with our politics, media, and society.

I suppose that's a rhetorical wondering. There's plenty of people who think the government can do no wrong, even here on HN.

Most of us that will argue with libertarians until we're both (all?) red/blue in the face believe that government is useful, necessary and generally a good thing (TM) for a variety of reasons.

But do no wrong? That's a massive exaggeration. YOu can believe it does a hell of a lot wrong, in fact nearly everything, without believing we'd be better off without any government at all.

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

#77

Post by jessaustin »

jellicle wrote: post #63
revelation wrote: post #51

Earlier 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…

> History is very clear on this: the biggest enemies of justice have been governments and state sponsored entities, every single time. If that were true, which it isn't, why did humanity create governments?

"Humanity" doesn't do anything. Humans do all sorts of things. Why do wolves form packs?

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

#78

Post by Nursie »

cottonseed wrote: post #33
hackerboos wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Some senior police officers here in the UK realise this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24320717

Around the world, see: leap.cc (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). However, this voice is still soundly in the minority. I remember when the pot decriminalization ballot question came up in Massachusetts. Law enforcement came out loudly against.

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.

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

#79

Post by slg »

ferdo wrote: post #67
slg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can have Liberty or Security but if we pick Security over Liberty, we'll lose both. I hate this false dichotomy. It simply isn't true as we give up a wide range of liberties in order to live in a safer world. That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society. Whether is it preventing people from driving down a highway at 100 mph, whether they can grow and c…

> That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society. Not to be unkind, but this is a simplistic view of law and realpolitiks. As an example, can you honestly say that arresting hundreds of thousands of peaceful weed smokers annually is a "greater good"?

I should have thrown the word perceived in there. I don't necessarily think it is for the greater good, but I am not sure if that is the overall perception today and certainly wasn't when those laws were created.

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

#80

Post by ufmace »

GhotiFish wrote: post #22
venus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is anyone who believes - really believes - it has not. The war on drugs is kind of this diorama encapsulation of everything that is wrong with our politics, media, and society.

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.

It's all about the money. There will always be a certain number of violent, power-hungry assholes out there, true. Banning drugs and thus enabling a black market in them means that people like that have a way to make money and create organizations dedicated to enforcing their will. Yeah, if we legalize drugs, they'll try to switch to something else to maintain their gangs and lifestyle, but nothing is as profitable as drugs, so there will be much less money available to such organizations, and they'll all either shrink dramatically or fall apart entirely.

It's also about how money influences people. Some people are irredeemably criminal/violent, but I think they're a minority. Most of the people in the market are probably following the money. They're doing it to make money, and they'll use violence if needed to preserve their market, but they probably don't have any desire in general to hurt people. Take away the need for violence by making it legal, and thus delegating violence to the police, and they'd probably be perfectly happy to be relatively normal businessmen.

Then again, maybe they'll just get involved in the Government instead :-/

Post reply on HN