81–90 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't, but it's also not a non-violent threat. The police were out to lock him in a cage for decades.
No enforcement of any law is completely non-violent. That doesn't in any way excuse or justify killing or trying to kill to avoid enforcement.
"Ver, who was himself sentenced to 10 months in federal prison for illegally shipping explosive across state lines, believes that Savaged is not only the same person who swatted Hal Finney, but also the person who gained access to Satoshi Nakamoto’s email account earlier this year." --quote from OA... Why does anyone ship explosives across state lines (or anywhere) unless they run a demolition company? Just wondering…
In the US typically its fireworks rather than bomb making material.
The “police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market,” Ver says, “while evil hackers were busy terrorizing quadriplegic Hal Finney and his family.” "voluntary trade" makes it sound like said trade wasn't actually illegal (in other words, like something the police are actually supposed to stop, pe…
"voluntary trade" makes it sound like said trade wasn't actually illegal (in
other words, like something the police are actually supposed to stop, peaceful
or otherwise.)
Left completely unmentioned, is the fact that Bitcoin is designed, and intended,
to make it infeasible to track users and enforce laws against transactors.
> police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market Um, the "operator(s) of Silk Road Market" allegedly attempted to hire a contract killer. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of peaceful, if true.
It's innocent until proven guilty isn't it?
My only point was that the Silk Road case isn't just about the big bad government rushing after innocent people that just want to do their drugs in peace while keeping to themselves, but are caught up in the War on Drugs.
That said, if the law enforcement were forced to presume that you were innocent until convicted, they would not be able to investigate you because they would no longer be presuming that you were innocent.
The statement that I commented on makes the assumption that the admin(s) of Silk Road were doing nothing but providing a marketplace for consensual (though illegal) transactions. If the admin(s) of Silk Road were engaged in a murder-for-hire plot, then I would assume you are ok with the FBI investigating such things (though maybe I shouldn't make such assumptions). Murder-for-hire goes well beyond people just minding their own business.
> police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market Um, the "operator(s) of Silk Road Market" allegedly attempted to hire a contract killer. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of peaceful, if true.
The “police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market,” Ver says The part you left out is the most context that that statement was made by Ver, someone interviewed for the article, and no real claim was being made that the Silk Road is peacefully run. You can gain additional insight into the state…
peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like
[...] the operators of the Silk Road Market
So long as that quote is being faithfully reproduced, I don't see how talking about his prison sentence has much to do with what I'm talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No enforcement of any law is completely non-violent. That doesn't in any way excuse or justify killing or trying to kill to avoid enforcement.
I think you rephrased what I just said.
The operators of Silk Road were mafioso's that ordered hits on competitors and people they didn't like. The whole, "we're just a bunch of gentle hippie libertarians and the evil police state can't handle how chill and peaceful we are" is both factually and morally false. Please stop repeating it. http://www.businessinsider.com/silk-road-boss-ordered-6-assa... I also support 90% of the drug laws out there. The argumen…
> I don't care if the meth dealer is a hip and gentle guy. He's empowering others to destroy their lives You do know that Paul Erdös, the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century (if not ever) was a meth addict, right? I'm not saying "meth is good"; but that blanket generalizations are bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market,” Ver says The part you left out is the most context that that statement was made by Ver, someone interviewed for the article, and no real claim was being made that the Silk Road is peacefully run. You can gain additional insight into the state…
Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I read: peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like [...] the operators of the Silk Road Market to be a claim that the Silk Road Market operators were "peaceful people" that the FBI had no business going after. I don't know anything about the case against Charlie Shrem, but that "and" groups Charlie Shrem and the Silk Road operators into the same bucket. So long as that quote is being…
I just wanted to point out the opinion of the silk road presented in the article was not an opinion belonging to wired but instead it belongs to this Ver guy, who is in fact a criminal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you rephrased what I just said.
It appeared that you were trying to minimize taking out a hit on someone because, to paraphrase, "the police started it." If that isn't what you were doing, my bad, but if it was, then my comment was as designed.
So it makes sense to blame the police for starting a commotion that set in motion a situation that would not have arisen otherwise.
Just playing devil's advocate, but the only difference I see here is that the government has a monopoly on law and they hire the police, and the killer that person allegedly hired is not working for the law the government made, but for the law that person made.
So there's no need to pontificate here. This is just the difference between an organization having a monopoly on violence and then acting surprised when others want to make contracts with rules based on violence as well.
Not to mention our current president has ordered the murder of US citizens before but no one is arresting him.