COMMENTS:"DPR was an idealist and a hero, and people knew he would never scam them or hurt them" - er except if he decided he wanted you murdered, in which case he'd pay someone to kill you. Initiation of force indeed.
He is a scumbag and should be in jail. Yesterday 6:42pm
ShaunKennedyUstoat77101L
I had some dumbass reply to me calling him a hero and a freedom fighter or some shit and saying he doesn't deserve to rot in jail for the rest of his life, etc., etc.
And I don't really care about/for the War on Drugs. I don't use drugs, but as long as you're not endangering anyone else, I don't care if you do.
But DPR was a common drug dealer with a talent for running a website. Nothing more. Yesterday 6:46pm
NobodyUstoat7751L
that was self defense, the man he wanted dead was threatening him and others with state violence. Yesterday 6:52pm
stoat77UNobody241L
oh for fucks sakes don't use your libertarianism to justify paid murder Yesterday 6:56pm
A. Nonie MeusUstoat7751L
Funny how someone essentially advocating for an anarchist dystopia can be thought of as an idealist. Yesterday 6:57pm
MM2Ustoat7731L
That's not even most strains of libertarianism. It's no more self-defense to murder a blackmailer than it is self defense to light the neighbor kid on fire for TPing your house. Yesterday 7:01pm
CockadoodooUstoat7751L
He's also undoubtedly coughing up all the information he has to the Feds to barter for a lighter sentence. Luckily, it sounds like he's a bit of a poser. Yesterday 7:03pm
I'm here mostly for the chicks.UShaunKennedy91L
Thank you. I literally laughed aloud when I read that someone had applied the moniker "hero" to this guy.
Skeevy drug dealer, drunk on his own hubris and convinced of the Randian righteousness of his cause, is skeevy drug dealer. Nothing more.
And if someone thinks the NSA can't break Tor, I have some beachfront property in Niger they might be interested in. Yesterday 7:04pm
statelyplumpbuckmulliganUstoat7751L
I have a feeling most people who are still calling him that don't believe the FBI's version of events, including the failed hit, and are convinced that they're just espousing the view that he doesn't belong in jail for facilitating the sale of illicit drugs on the internet. I'd be inclined to agree with that statement, except that, you know, it sure seems like he tried to pay someone to kill a guy on the internet. Yesterday 7:07pm
ShaunKennedyUI'm here mostly for the chicks.151L
A guy who runs into a burning building to save his grandma/an orphan/his dog is a hero.
A guy who makes it easy to get weed/pills/shrooms/speed/heroin/etc. delivered to your door is a guy you might really like, but he's not a fucking hero. Calling him one really just outs you as an addict. Yesterday 7:09pm
stoat77Ustatelyplumpbuckmulligan121L
TWICE. He tried to pay someone to kill a guy TWICE. Yesterday 7:09pm
BzatUstoat771L
I'm sorry, but I don't know why it's wrong to kill someone who's about to rat out a hundred people. We really need to have a much stronger ethic against snitching in our culture and our generation. Toughen up. Yesterday 7:12pm
BzatUI'm here mostly for the chicks.11L
Really? Because which one of Snowden's revelations have been wrong so far? Do you think the NSA is comprised of omniscient beings? Yesterday 7:13pm
BeastisFed1UNobody21L
I'm not a libertarian (although in the current world state, I think that some stances of the libertarians are an extremely helpful force in shifting the discourse on global politics and particularly how the US is viewed within the greater world system) and I would never advocate violence against the state or state informants, but the war on drugs has both created a massive criminal underworld rife with violence and caused millions to be locked away for non-violent offenses as well as directly resulted in the deaths of thousands (and the best part is the state itself has been/is involved in the smuggling by some parties). So when the agents of this war are killed, I find it very hard to be particularly moved and bring out the world's smallest violin. Yesterday 7:13pm
BzatUstatelyplumpbuckmulligan11L
I don't care about the hit. If there was someone out there threatening to snitch out a hundred people, he had to go. I don't know why people have a hard time understanding this. "OMG there should be no violence, like, everrrr unless it's the POLICE obvi!!"
That's what you sound like, man. Yesterday 7:14pm
BzatUShaunKennedy1L
hahaha that's fair - he was a great outlaw and a "guy I really like." I wouldn't call him "hero." I don't even like his political philosophy. Yesterday 7:15pm
ShaunKennedyUBzat21L
Good on you. For real. Yesterday 7:17pm
HorseUI'm here mostly for the chicks.11L
With the exception of some issues with hidden services, no one to date has been able to "beat" a Tor user who is using the service correctly. Not even the NSA. It's not impossible, but it's damned hard to break distributed cryptography. Yesterday 7:18pm
stoat77UBzat271L
I can't believe I have to take a stance against MURDERING PEOPLE but I guess I'll have to be that guy! Yesterday 7:19pm
SneakysUBzat221L
Most people tend to value human life. The attitude you're espousing that snitches need to die is frankly moronic, repugnant, and the sign of a mentally and emotionally stunted individual. If you feel the need to have someone killed over spilling a secret, you probably need to reevaluate your life choices. Yesterday 7:19pm
statelyplumpbuckmulliganUBzat81L
Calm down, Whitey. Yesterday 7:20pm
BzatUstatelyplumpbuckmulligan1L
Touche.
Still.
Stop snitching. Yesterday 7:21pm
BzatUstoat7711L
What's the appropriate response to someone threatening to out 100 people? Just say "Oh, okay...that's unfortunate but we'll just let it go"?
Sorry, but as I say to my two year old..."CONSEQUENCES" Yesterday 7:21pm
stoat77UBzat81L
Okay Paulie, see you at the Bada Bing later with Christopher and Tony. Yesterday 7:23pm
NobodyUBeastisFed121L
Firstly, nobody died, the man he hired and the man he wanted dead were both govt agents.
Secondly, it wasn't that he was trying to pay to have a state agent killed ( he did not know it was an FBI agent) he thought it was just some guy threatening to reveal his and others identity to the govt.
if that DID happen then he and many others would have been kidnapped and imprisoned for victimless crimes.
using violence against people who are threatening you with violence (in a serious manner) is not aggression, it is not the initiation of force, it is self defense. Yesterday 7:24pm
SneakysUstoat7791L
It's kind of amazing that there are people who would actually defend this idiot, isn't it? But yeah no, sure, murder is totally justified to keep someone from snitching. Totally. Yesterday 7:26pm
NobodyUstoat7721L
self defense is self defense, if a cop 'murders' someone who is using aggression against you, is that ALSO paid murder?
does this mean all cops who have ever killed someone and all tax payers should go to jail for murder and paid murder, or do you have a concept of self defense? Yesterday 7:26pm
NobodyUMM21L
he was threatening to have DPR and many innocent vendors kidnapped by the state.
that's a threat. Yesterday 7:27pm
GemmabetaUNobody131L
Oh is that what we are calling arrest now?
No one make all these people go online to sell drugs. Yesterday 7:29pm
NobodyUI'm here mostly for the chicks.11L
hey fucktard...
not every libertarian is randian, like this is the most over used, ignorant strawman ever when it comes to libertarians.
rand was not an anarchist, mises.org is not 'randian' or objectivist, if you're going to pick a libertarian and and ian to the end and call it an ideology to attribute to DPR it's Rothbardian.
he's a rothbardian. Why don't you pick on rothbard for once instead of rand. Yesterday 7:29pm
NobodyUstatelyplumpbuckmulligan1L
that was self defense. Yesterday 7:29pm
QwertyLadyI know right, and he will haggle down your hitman for you too...disgusting.
GemmabetaUNobody21L
Well, for one thing, cops tend to shoot second. Yesterday 7:29pm
BzatUstoat771L
I don't know why what I'm saying isn't common sense. Do you really think that people can do essentially whatever they want without fear of violent reprisals? Do you truly believe that only the police (protecting, as they do, primarily property and the propertied classes) have the monopoly on the use of force, and those who are willing to cooperate with the modern-day Pinkertons should be just allowed to do so?
Why are people who take away the freedom of others to save their own skin defensible but those who strive to stop this practice are not? Better to go to jail than open your mouth. Yesterday 7:30pm
Nobodyit's not murder it's self defense.
NobodyUGemmabeta11L
yes, when it is unjust.
If I see you smoking pot in your back yard and I walk in there and take you by force and put you in a cage.
any reasonable person calls that kidnapping.
but If I do that while wearing a magic blue suit and a shiny badge it's 'arrest'.
like wise if I go to the home of whoever runs gawker, take them by force and put them in a cage because they run a website any sane person calls that, kidnapping.
but the FBI does it to the guy running the silk road and it's 'arrest'. Yesterday 7:33pm
NobodyUGemmabeta1L
Bullshit they do, even so, if someone is THREATENING YOU with violence, you have a right to defend yourself.
The man he paid to have killed was threatening him with violence. Yesterday 7:34pm
SneakysUGemmabeta71L
Yeah, it's always a shame when people are held responsible for their actions, isn't it? Wait, isn't personal responsibility one of the core tenets of libertarian philosophy? Yesterday 7:35pm
BeastisFed1UNobody1L
I'm sorry if I came out the wrong way... I was agreeing with you (and basically saying even if it wasn't a FBI honeypot, I wouldn't give a fuck if he did). And also that anybody who either takes up the flag of the war on drugs by willingly engaging in anti-drug policing which destroys lives, and ESPECIALLY those who have not put on a uniform in its service (I consider them just as much agents of the state, probably more important to the war even than anybody who dons a uniform) and particularly those who think they can make a profit by threatening to bring its weight upon innocent people has kind of given up any claims of being an innocent victim.
I just wanted to throw in support so its not just the 'loony libertarians' (not my view, its the view of the centrists who really believe everything the media tells them and that the war on drugs is a flawed but generally good idea protecting society, like I said I'm not a libertarian, but consider them in many ways to be the only truly growing force that are friends in the west in defense against the current state/corporate menace) who are saying it. And again I don't advocate violence against any agents of the state (I hope, with the fact you see that the war on drugs and other state measures to observe/police thought, that you can see what I'm doing here
there are many unwelcome audiences) Yesterday 7:35pm
GemmabetaUNobody81L
Someone really slept through Civics class. Yesterday 7:38pm
NobodyUGemmabeta21L
Explain to me why it is okay for the police to kidnap you but not okay for me to kidnap you.
here, maybe we need to get fucking gradeschool level in here because you're an idiot.
Yesterday 7:40pm
stoat77UNobody81L
there is a little concept called a state monopoly on force. YES the police can use force when needed. And yes they do fuck up, in which case they should get in trouble.
there is a name for a condition where anyone who feels they need to can murder anyone for whatever reason they deem fit, and that's anarchy Yesterday 7:42pm
stoat77UNobody81L
whatever, potayto potato. It's all justifications for selfishness and in this case, murdering "snitches" like some kind of mafioso. Yesterday 7:43pm
QwertyLadyUBzat61L
Morality....., anyone? Don't argue right and wrong. I can't believe people are even arguing about this. It's just silly. Yesterday 7:45pm
NobodyUstoat7711L
firstly, you don't even understand what anarchy is that is quite clear.
secondly, explain why it is an 'arrest' and okay for a cop to take someone who smokes pot and put them in a cage.
but if I do the exact same thing for the exact same reason it's 'kidnapping'.
Thirdly, Yes, I'm aware the state has a socially granted monopoly on the initiation of force. My position is simply that nobody should be allowed to initiate force for any reason. Yesterday 7:45pm
NobodyUstoat771L
the 'snitch' was threatening DPR and other innocent people with violence.
thats like saying it's "selfishness" if you kill someone while they break into your home intending to kill you.
"nah man you should just LET them kill you, what are you, the mafia?"
and speaking of mafias, the state is more akin to the mafia than Dread Pirate Roberts.
Dread Pirate Roberts defended himself and made money through voluntary interaction
the mafia and the state are aggressors who make their money by extortion. AT least the mafia doesnt have a 12 year brain washing program and cant print money though. Yesterday 7:47pm
SneakysUstoat7781L
It's really amazing. I was under the impression that the "anarchists" who were in class with me got over their "hard core ideas about the world, man" when they turned 16. It's equal parts entertaining and deeply depressing that there are individuals who actually believe this crap. Yesterday 7:47pm
stoat77UNobody61L
because we have laws. why is this so hard for you to grasp
Please, move to Somalia where they don't have these laws to get in your way all the time. Yesterday 7:53pm
BeastisFed1UNobody1L
I'd say give it up trying to defend it here honestly, because you aren't going to make anybody see the light and might end up saying some statements that fly into the 'fire in a crowded theater' area (as an aside that phrase was originally used as some bullshit nonsequitur 'metric' to say it was ok to arrest agitators against involvement in WWI, it is itself a ridiculous tactic used by the state to control speech, assuming of course you live in the US)... You'd be better off trying to speak in esperanto since most people are set in their view of the world and cannot conceive how it could be seen any other way, that the war on drugs is pretty much an actual war against the poor/ method of violent social control instead of some fancy PR name for a legitimate (if flawed) push to protect people against themselves and evil shady drug men. Yesterday 7:54pm
NobodyUBeastisFed11L
Yeah but shouting freedom in a crowded echo chamber is my hobby.
you really want to take that away from me bro? :3 Yesterday 7:55pm
NobodyUstoat771L
anarchy =/= lawless, if you're going to talk out your ass at least use an enema first bro.
it's about non initiation of violence, it's about abolishing coercive hierarchies, it's about smashing the state. you have no idea what you're talking about. Yesterday 7:56pm
BeastisFed1UNobody1L
I'd never try to take that away from you. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think you could legitimately hijack the narrative. Good luck, godspeed and good hunting
Just be careful where you tread because the ice can get thin in areas Yesterday 7:57pm
statelyplumpbuckmulliganUNobody61L
You can keep repeating that as much as you want - it's still not true. Self-defense, in both the legal and moral sense, requires an equivalent measure of force. Someone threatens to kill you and you have reason to believe they can and will do so? That's self-defense on some level, even if the law disagrees. Someone threatens to expose your illegal operations and send you and many others to prison? That scenario doesn't end in death, and thus does not justify it. Hell, if we're playing the gritty crime fantasy internet bad-ass game, bribe the guy. Negotiate the terms of his silence. Or batten down the hatches and weather the storm.
Look, I'm against the War on Drugs. Completely, 100% against it. I approve of an anonymous marketplace. I don't think either users or dealers should go to prison. I even fall into one of the categories listed in that last sentence. In simplest terms, I feel you, bro. But if you're honestly of the opinion that anyone on "the other side" deserves to die regardless of equivalence and that if it happens, it makes the person responsible for that death a "fucking hero"...that doesn't make you an activist or a freedom-fighter; it just makes you a sociopath, or an asshole, or both. Yesterday 7:58pm
NobodyUstatelyplumpbuckmulligan1L
first of all, fuck illegal just because the state says something is a crime doesn't mean it is.
Where there is no victim there is no crime.
I dont think anyone who disagrees with me should die, I think if you're going to threaten hundreds of people with kidnapping and criminal detainment for YEARS in an attempt to extort $500,000 from someone and you get shot you kinda dont have grounds to stand on for claiming you're a victim.
and no the law nor morality require "equivalent force" how would you even measure that, is one bullet to the head equivalent to 100+ kidnappings and detainment for years? how is that math done because i'd like to see it.
secondly, if you break into my house to rob me and I shoot you, thats totally justified even though the 'force' is not 'equivalent'.
and the bribe he was asking for was 500,000 and there were people who were not DPR involved in the threat... so theres that...
my position is the following.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggre...the agent who DPR put the hit on was threatening many many people and using that threat in an attempt to get money from DPR, the threat was the revealing of their identities, which directly leads to them being kidnapped and put in a cage for years.
I believe that what DPR was self defense.
what DPR didnt know was that both the guy threatening him and the guy he payed for the hit were both federal agents. nobody actually got hurt.
Yesterday 8:05pm
stoat77UNobody21L
thank god you don't vote Yesterday 8:05pm
NobodyUstoat771L
Jokes on you, I vote in every single election, even the small ones. Yesterday 8:11pm
BzatUQwertyLady11L
Oh, that's right, I forgot. The Sanctity of Life, Nonviolence Over Everything, etc. Thanks for reminding me, I was busy thinking for myself for a moment. Yesterday 8:16pm
QwertyLadyUBzat71L
No. I'm more on the side of the argument that's like ... Don't Kill People?
I mean, it's really not that hard to understand. People tend to know when they're doing something wrong.
And yeah, sanctity of life and all that because you know what? Your life is no more important than your fellow man's. Worry about yourself and how you can help your society in the present. Don't waste your time on the negative, like I'm doing here. I'm out. Yesterday 8:23pm
BzatUQwertyLady1L
The reality is that neither you nor I will probably ever be in a position where we have to consider whether or not to kill anyone.
That doesn't mean that there are no circumstances under which killing is appropriate. Yesterday 8:25pm
I'm here mostly for the chicks.UNobody91L
Your simplistic philosophy is simplistic. "Fuck you. Me."
Don't try to pretend there are subtle yet distinct layers to your ethos. There aren't.
And when your philosophy is predicated on an almost childlike reverence for "the free market" that has shown, time and again, when practiced to quickly lead to that very thing (anarchy) you claim is NOT your central tenet... well, it kind of becomes a thesis, by default.
Randian. Rothbardian. You're really picking nits over what is essentially a polite way of codifying greed?
... of course you are. Yesterday 8:46pm
statelyplumpbuckmulliganUNobody21L
The thing is, I agree with you on most of those points. No one died. He was talking to federal agents. The war on drugs is intensely idiotic. Again, I'm with you. My argument, in full, is with the discussion of the death of another human being as "justified" when the equivalent force was not equal to death (and yes, that may be difficult to weigh, but fuck it, that's my stance) and the agent of that death being a "fucking hero," even in a hypothetical situation. And regardless of what you think about "the state" - if you choose to live in it, then yeah, the things they say are crimes are crimes. So I don't think someone who is knowingly participating in crimes - even if I agree they shouldn't be crimes - gets to pull the Sovereign Citizen routine and justify the death of others to that end.
Like I said, I agree with you in spirit, for the most part (although the whole "in a cage," "shiny badge" stuff treads dangerously close to self-parody). I'm just also aware that I am a willing citizen of a country with a set of laws, and that when I choose not to abide by them, I also choose to accept the consequences of that behavior and would therefore not expect (or accept) my friends, relatives, or inigos to call me a "fucking hero" for not doing so. Yesterday 8:49pm
I'm here mostly for the chicks.UHorse1L
That you know of. That we know of.
I'm not a "black NWO helicopters" kind of guy... and I realize, from a technical standpoint that it's difficult. But I also would really be shocked if government snoops hadn't discovered some exploitable cracks they're not sharing. Yesterday 8:50pm
NobodyUI'm here mostly for the chicks.11L
there is distinct differences between rand and rothbard.
like for instance, that rothbard is an anarchist, is consistent, isn't crazy or selfish actually understands economics and doesnt write shitty fiction.
and rand is well... none of the above.
also feeling entitled to my own body and the results of my labor is selfish, but you thinking my body should be regulated by you and the fruits of my labor belong to others is not?
okay.... Yesterday 8:50pm
stoat77UNobody71L
it is fucking depressing as shit that you exist. Yesterday 8:58pm
I'm here mostly for the chicks.UNobody61L
I may have been slightly mean to you.
But, yes. You are not entitled to the entirety of the "fruits of your own labor." Or the entirety "your own body." You live in a society. You have to play by the rules. Part of that includes things to make sure we don't fall into anarchy.
You get most of it, brah. But if you want to benefit from things like clean meat, medical research, passable roads, police protection, and lead-free paint... well, hate to tell ya, that means you don't get the entirety of "the fruits of your own labor." That means that, yes, for the good of society, your kid is gonna get a newborn blood screening to test for preventable, treatable illnesses that could effect society as a whole. Yeah, it's gonna happen.
You people don't seem to realize how good we have things in a post-modern, first world country. And the very reason we have things this good is because of the perpetual tug-of-war between laissez faire business scruples and "the nanny state." We have a good balance. We have a good thing going here. I don't understand why you people want to step back into the 18th century.
It's all about degrees. The level of freedom you want, however, literally spells anarchy for the modern world as we know it. The rational systems libertarian "free markets" are based on have been tried. They fail. Worse than communism, I would argue.
It's all degrees, brah. You want to share in this grand utopia the human race has built, well, you're gonna have to pay the piper.
/look at me, arguing with a libertarian on the internet
//the epitome of shouting at a brick wall Yesterday 9:02pm
BzatUSneakys11L
Neither you nor stoat77 has any idea what the political definition of "anarchy" is, but I encourage both of you to check it out sometime. Yesterday 9:06pm
ObviousProstituteIsObviousUstoat7761L
But you have to admit, this thread is entertaining as hell in a "holy fuck" kind of way. Yesterday 9:09pm
BeastisFed1UI'm here mostly for the chicks.1L
Could have fooled me, I thought we have it so well in America because our economy bustled after WWII because Europe and Asia were bombed to hell and as a result our manufacturing sector boomed (and the reorganized social contract which was created to stave off a looming revolution during the Depression, FDR's New Deal ensured that the workers got what amounted to, compared to the rest of the world, a fair shake [still exploited, but not nearly as the nations under our boot]). And our military force and aid to specific dictatorships/ use of intelligence agencies to coup or assassinate those we didn't like was applied in order to both secure vastly unfair resource trades and then after the economic rebuilding of those areas [during which, when they built new factories with new technologies, our companies which were responsible for manufacturing instead began investing into separate ventures such as banking based on interest in the short term profit instead of long-term tenability, becoming multinational, non-specialized conglomerates which led to our factories being completely non-competitive no matter what our laborers would be paid], vastly exploitative sources of cheap labor as the merging state/corporate bodies squeezed every last percentage of profit possible. When keeping this order with mostly everybody in the middle class became untenable and groups began to be cut out of this [or groups tried to point out the truth behind it all, that there was actually a man behind the curtain carrying out mass murder and the Wizard of corporate capitalism was a sham], harsher and harsher police actions began to be applied against those groups, including COINTELPRO then [some believe, I'm still on the fence] flooding the inner city with drugs and starting the drug war we are talking about right now. Yesterday 9:17pm
SneakysUObviousProstituteIsObvious81L
This thread is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. It's like being transported to a middle school social studies class and watching 14 year olds grapple with political theory. But that assessment is a bit unfair to 14 year olds. Yesterday 9:18pm
Dave GahanUBzat11L
What you say "consequences," what you're actually saying to your two year old is: "I'm going to punish you for what you did, but I'm not going to own up to it. I'm gonna pretend the universe is doing it to you and I'm just some guy who's a helpless instrument."
It's a pretty damn weaselly way to set boundaries. Yesterday 9:25pm
BzatUDave Gahan1L
It's a JOKE, dude!! WTF Yesterday 9:26pm
ObviousProstituteIsObviousUSneakys31L
I was thinking along the same lines, like that kid you knew in Jr High that was obsessed with Goodfellas somehow miraculously made it into college and just discovered objectivism. Yesterday 9:27pm
Ricky SixxUstoat771L
Not that murder is an answer but at what point were you planning on mentioning the extortion? If we didn't have laws that eliminated basic freedoms like Private Property, maybe there would have been a more logical recourse?
Two wrongs don't make a right but in this case you're being scummy for not commenting on the entire truth. Yesterday 9:28pm
stoat77URicky Sixx141L
do you know what happens if someone is trying to extort money from me? I go to the police and say "hey, this guy's trying to extort money from me." Then they handle it. I do not take out a god damned hit on someone. If my business requires me to take out hits on people to preserve its existence MAYBE ITS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.
Yesterday 9:38pm
I'm here mostly for the chicks.UBeastisFed11L
Consider yourself fooled, then. Yesterday 9:47pm
NobodyUI'm here mostly for the chicks.1L
you keep saying anarchy like its a bad thing.
society =/= the state.
all that stuff you listed could EASILY be done by the market, if the gov't monopolized shoes you'd be sitting here telling me that without taxes everyone would be barefoot, it's purely absurd.
as for the 18th century, I think you mean 19th and that was a great thing, prices were falling, standards of living were increasing for everyone, social issues like child labor and pollution were solving themselves through the market, all until government got involved.
and free markets have been tried? and they fail you say? Show me an example and I will show you why you're wrong.
and yes... the anarchist voluntary society i'm advocating for literally spells anarchy... it's weird it's almost like i'm an anarchist or something. crazy. Yesterday 9:48pm
BeastisFed1UI'm here mostly for the chicks.1L
Oh I guess I should have put a silly gif in to show that people thinking the other way were morons... That seems to be the trick around here to show how rational and smart you are....
Yesterday 9:50pm
SneakysUNobody61L
"as for the 18th century, I think you mean 19th and that was a great thing, prices were falling, standards of living were increasing for everyone, social issues like child labor and pollution were solving themselves through the market, all until government got involved."
The sound you just heard was every single person with the most basic understanding of 19th century history face palming. Hard. These issues were solved by a number of landmark pieces of legislation (championed largely by Theodore Roosevelt and his administration) that were incredibly controversial and widely denounced by business owners. The "market" was fine with allowing child labor, unsafe working conditions (google Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire) and unsanitary and unsafe food processing practices. Yesterday 10:18pm
Nobodychild labor was ended by capitalism not by the state, since the beginning of time children has been involved in labor, only until one or two of the parents could afford to provide for the entire family did it start to dwindle away, and it started to dwindle away before the state got involved.
as for unsafe working…
captain_spleenUBzat51L
A believer in the market like DPR should be willing to buy the blackmailer's silence. Yesterday 10:26pm
BigRageDaveMmmmmmm, mutton. You smell delicious.
captain_spleenUBzat31L
More snitching. Whole communities are hellholes because of attitudes like yours. Yesterday 10:27pm
captain_spleenUNobody31L
It's called "arrest" not "kidnapping". Yesterday 10:30pm
NobodyUcaptain_spleen1L
why is it kidnapping if I do it, and 'arrest' if If the state does it? Yesterday 10:32pm
captain_spleenUNobody41L
It's okay for the cops to arrest people for breaking the law because the law says they can, and the law is made by elected representatives of the people. You may not like that, in which case, get enough people to agree and you can change the law. Yesterday 10:34pm
captain_spleenUNobody1L
No, the person was demanding payment for the service of keeping the information confidential. Yesterday 10:34pm
captain_spleenUNobody21L
Smashing the state and abolishing coercive hierarchies... without initiating violence.
And will everyone get a pony? Yesterday 10:36pm
Nobodyand while that is legitimate, he knows, and everyone knows that if that information was leaked the state would arrest and imprison everyone.
that is a threat.
SneakysYeah, not so much. Rising incomes by themselves did not provide a magical solution to the issue of child labor. Rising incomes along with access to education and the passage of child labor laws largely ended the child labor practices. Saying the capitalism somehow magically solved this problem is at best an incredibly…
captain_spleenUNobody71L
"social issues like child labor and pollution were solving themselves through the market"
Well, if you think the solutions were "more child labor and more pollution" Yesterday 10:41pm
SneakysUcaptain_spleen61L
If this thread teaches me nothing else, it's that a basic understanding of history and political theory is frighteningly lacking in an alarming number of people. Yesterday 10:44pm
surlybastardUNobody21L
Stand your ground GZ style, right, you dumb fuck? Yesterday 11:13pm
arrrrr32So an appropriate response to a threat is murder? I really don't want to live in that society.
BzatUcaptain_spleen1L
To an anarcho-capitalist, is blackmail part of a free market? Yesterday 11:23pm
arrrrr32You clearly don't live in a neighborhood controlled by a criminal gang. I as an individual do not have the power to stand up to a large number of amoral well armed criminals who would not hesitate to burn my house with me inside it. This is why we have police, courts and laws, to allow people who cannot protect…
ValmontI'm pretty sure courts take a dim view of, "I had to kill him, he was going to turn me in to the cops!"
burnburnaaaaI'm not too bothered about the drugs. But he was a smug self-righteous git who was able to convince himself that he was a moral crusader while trying to order hits on people.
Valmont"kidnapped"? o.O
quickgetjesusatowelUBzat1L
Bzat: Neither you nor stoat77 has any idea what the political definition of "anarchy" is, but I encourage both of you to check it out sometime.
So is this a game of chicken, using anarchist-hipster rules? Today 12:06am
DintyUNobody11L
Jesus your dumb ass has been watching waaaay too much "Breaking Bad". If what DPR was doing in the first place was justifiable legally, than he wouldnt have to worry about ordering a hit on anybody. The justifications you use in the first place ("it's OK to sell whatever you want, the government should not be involved ") should be sufficient.
Ordering a hit simply exposed the fact that he knew he was in a position that was indefensible. If he really believed that his enterprise was ultimately legal, he should have gone with it and the hit would have been unnecessary.
This coming from a guy whose friend was murdered in a murder for hire scheme a few years ago. Today 1:15am
MB42It's worth pointing out that one of the two people DPR took a hit out on was an employee of his that was in no way affiliated with the feds. He was stealing bitcoins so DPR was going to have him tortured, he then decided to just have him killed because he was worried his employee might sell him out (note that the…
peacelovecrazyUBzat1L
There are a lot of different options between "letting it go" and murder. If you're not doing something illegal, then you can go to the police. If you're doing something illegal and someone is trying to blackmail you, maybe you're screwed. We don't live in a perfect world and some people are in horrible situations, sometimes innocently. Murder is still not the answer. It's never the answer. I also question the wisdom of advocating murder on Gawker, even if you're just trolling. Today 7:04am
INeverRememberMyBurnerKeyUNobody1L
BWAHAHAHAHA. 'State violence'. Or as we say in the real world, 'identification'.
Excuse me while I dry my eyes for the guy who made millions on the backs of kiddie porn victims, slave wage workers in fields cultivating drugs, and the like. Today 7:20am
INeverRememberMyBurnerKeyUBzat1L
Can't wait till your kid tells on you one day. His funeral will be so cute, I bet. Today 7:22am
INeverRememberMyBurnerKeyUBzat1L
"Do you really think that people can do essentially whatever they want without fear of violent reprisals?"
You mean like attempt to buy and sell kiddie porn, drugs, and guns on the Internet? Today 7:25am
HorseUI'm here mostly for the chicks.1L
Very true. That said, if the feds spend a lot of money coming up with a way to break it, wouldn't you expect them to use it? Instead they go after DPR mano-a-mano, old-fashioned sting type.
Realistically, they have no practical reason to even try to break it because they can just exploit stupid users. Most of the methods of gaining information on someone using the Tor network by actually beating the system involves exploiting nuanced issues in onion routing. These things usually require you to be operating a shitload of exit nodes. IIRC, the government has tried this without much success. In any case, it's easier to just wait for someone to screw up and catch them.
Not to say it can't be broken, but not only is it combinatorially hard, it's somewhat of a moot point. Today 7:40am
ShaunKennedyUDinty11L
Nobody's a fucking moron and providing a damn good case to the government for why some drugs should stay illegal. Look how dumb they made him. Today 9:38am
ShaunKennedyUBzat1L
Holy shit, stop watching mob movies and actually participate in society. Today 9:39am
HamnightUNobody1L
Oh, well as long as he didn't know it was a government agent I guess attempted murder is ok.
And it isn't "self defense" to try to kill a witness to your illegal activities chuckles. He's an everyday drug dealer who used the internet. If the weed dealer on your corner pays to have one of his junkies murdered because he things he's going to the police, would you call that "self defense"? Today 11:07am
HamnightUNobody1L
I love how this guy is a folk hero to you because he used the internet. He's a drug dealer who tried to murder a witness.
If your local crack dealer murders a junkie who talks to the police, is that self defense to you? Because that's what your advocating here. Today 11:09am
X
NobodyUstoat7751L
that was self defense, the man he wanted dead was threatening him and others with state violence. Yesterday 6:52pm
stoat77 and 105 others...
5 participants@
ShaunKennedyUAdrian Chen151L
Regardless of what you're accessing on the internet or how you're doing it, you are still a human being with a computer who physically exists in the real world.
People who forget or ignore that, despite it being proven true countless times, deserve what they get. Yesterday 6:34pm
BzatUShaunKennedy11L
ah come on, DPR got caught because of some really avoidable mistakes. Do they catch him without those?
What I'm really confused about is why he was based in the US. That just seems to be asking for it. Yesterday 7:03pm
ShaunKennedyUBzat11L
Well, yeah, of course he did. But yes, had he not made those mistakes, he still would have been caught eventually, in all likelihood. Yesterday 7:05pm
lesterhalfjr and 1 others...
17 participants@
lesterhalfjrUAdrian Chen11L
not coincidentally, the entire debate reminds me of Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable" which Mises Institute sells.
http://mises.org/document/3490are the crimes of Silk Road "victimless"? Does it matter? (I don't mean child porn obviously) Yesterday 7:32pm
NobodyUlesterhalfjr41L
the silk road did not sell child porn to my knowledge also
fuck yeah walter block.
the following is something I wrote up today to post on muh blog.
Narcotics trafficking.
This isn’t even a crime, selling narcotics is not a crime because there is no victim. Secondly, as far as I understand it DPR just set up a website that enabled people to sell drugs, he did not do so himself. Even if he did this is not a crime just because it breaks the edicts of tyrannical busybodies.
Computer Hacking
I’m not quite clear on what they are actually charging him with, from all the sources I’ve read it’s very vague and the official report only mentions accessing a computer without permission for profit. It seems that they are charging him with this crime because of some of the things that were sold on the silk road. If that is the case, then he is innocent on this charge because he cannot be held accountable for the actions of others.
Money Laundering Conspiracy
From the official report it seems that his ‘conspiracy’ to commit money laundering was… just running Silk Road and using bitcoins and using a bitcoin ‘tumbler’ to obscure the source of the bitcoins. If this is the case than he is innocent here too, simply hiding money and how you got it is not a crime. If a mugger walks up to you on the street and demands your money and you give him your wallet, is it a crime to not tell him you have money in your sock?
These are the three charges they are charging him with, which I find interesting because he is also accused of hiring a hitman (who was a federal agent) But even though he isn’t being charged with that crime I will address it here.
Hiring a Hitman / Conspiracy to commit ‘murder’.
If it is true that Dread Pirate Roberts hired a hitman to kill someone, he is STILL innocent because the man he had wanted to be killed was threatening not only Dread Pirate Roberts, but multiple innocent uninvolved people with state violence. By threatening to release the identities of Dread Pirate Roberts and various vendors who operated on the Silk Road he implicitly is threatening them with violence to be carried out by the state for the “crimes” they committed. In this light It isn’t a stretch at all to say that paying to have him killed was self defense and in the defense of others. Yesterday 7:54pm
lesterhalfjrUNobody21L
I get it. I don't know if I fully agree and you can imagine how baffling this is to the entirely uninitiated. Yesterday 8:01pm
surlybastard and 13 others...
7 participants@
skahammerUAdrian Chen231L
This is a damned substantive article. I learned a tremendous amount from it that I didn't know.
I realize that publishing very informative articles like this really isn't the central part of Gawker's business model. But this is amazing, and in my opinion it's exceptionally worthy of praise.
Best thing Adrian's ever written for Gawker? Anyone agree? Yesterday 7:03pm
italianatorUskahammer1L
He had to up his game for his new Vice job. Yesterday 7:24pm
James ChathamUskahammer1L
I'd really have to agree with you. I only had a cursory knowledge of the Dark Net before Adrian wrote that article on the Dark Net bust over the summer and now this. Hate to sniff his ass further, but well done, Mr. Chen. Today 10:10am
13 participants@
TheOneDaveUAdrian Chen81L
I'm fairly libertarian, and absolutely no fan of the war on drugs - but ordering people murdered doesn't seem particularly idealistic or heroic to me. Yesterday 6:43pm
NobodyUTheOneDave51L
The man he ordered the hit on was threatening to get the state to use violence on others.
he was indirectly threatening other with violence. This makes his murder (which never happened) self defense, and the defense of others.
DPR Is a fucking hero. Yesterday 6:48pm
TheOneDaveUNobody51L
I'll admit that it's all allegations at this point. However, the threat was that people's info would be posted on the web unless DPR paid him.
Presumably by "use violence" you mean the arrests that most likely would have followed such an action. However, if you think DPR was justified in ordering this man's death to prevent the violence of being arrested for drug offenses, then do you also think that just killing any police officer is justified (since basically all cops have made a drug bust at some point in their life)? Yesterday 6:58pm
Gemmabeta and 9 others...
1 participant@
akm-gpointUAdrian Chen281L
i love drugs, but god damn i hate these libertarians Yesterday 6:48pm
@
Lisa_StrataUAdrian Chen1L
There is always going to be a cyber arms race between those trying to remain anonymous and those who want to identify the former. Its an evolving process - what is secure today might not be tomorrow but there also may be a better encryption technology developed the day after tomorrow.
And I think this article gave the FBI way too much credit. Did they really hack the system? Or did they just raid the guy who left his gmail address in an open forum? And did google hand over all his e-mails to the FBI? I bet after not being able to crack tor they tried to identify the operator - which turned out to be a lot easier.
Its like when they FBI caught the unabomber - they patted themselves on the back, "The FBI always gets their man". Except that they had no idea who he was until his brother basically told them exactly where he was - even had to hire a lawyer for his claims to be taken seriously. Today 4:03am
@
ManchuCandidateUAdrian Chen21L
It's that the idea of a world famous, anonymous illegal market is fatally contradictory
This proves yet again that the first rule of "Fill-in-the-blank Club is don't talk about Fill-in-the-blank Club" especially if you don't want the Feds to bust your ass. Yesterday 7:38pm
@
dvdoffUAdrian Chen1L
Well, all you have to now is got to either Sheep or BMR and it's business as usual. In fact, the listings now feature sellers listing themselves as former SR sellers. Silk Road will be back, maybe not like the old site, but when there is that much money involved, someone will figure out a way to bring it back offshore and without an American admin. Today 8:45am
@
quickgetjesusatowelUAdrian Chen11L
"DPR was an idealist and a hero, and people knew he would never scam them or hurt them in any other way..."
He heroically and ideally got an online hit man to negotiate an assassination on a person who funded (we suppose) his own business operations. Yesterday 9:54pm
11 participants@
BzatUAdrian Chen41L
Why are all internet outlaws BS anarcho-capitalists? I mean, the fact that even Snowden is a Ron Paul guy is kind of mystifying. Yesterday 7:02pm
kevin_kancerUBzat81L
It could be said that the ideology allows them to protect the fruits of their unearned privilege. Or as it is often described: "I got mine, fuck everyone else." Yesterday 7:25pm
BzatUkevin_kancer11L
well, okay. that's another fair explanation. haha actually, that's probably why most ancaps are ancaps. Yesterday 7:37pm
@
MrTrippsUAdrian Chen1L
Don't fool yourself about Tor. It has been compromised. They will catch you if you give them reason to. Today 8:55am
3 participants@
octopedeUAdrian Chen71L
I don't care about The Dark Net so much, it's never seemed much more than a windswept ghost town for people who, like me, aren't into drugs or CP or any other illegal stuff. Tor, on the other hand…that's an important project, and I hope this doesn't spell doom for them, or for anonymous browsing as a whole. I may not need to really slip into the shadows, but it's nice to know there are means by which one can escape surveillance. Yesterday 6:43pm
2 participants@
IIIlllUAdrian Chen21L
I do find it funny that we are to accept that some errant hacker cracked their server and got user info and therefore DPR ordered a hit, but are supposed to believe that the NSA and all its numerous security experts are unable to do anything similar. I assumed from the start that they did compromise it themselves and started collecting data from there linking usage habits and creating a picture of the users.
Which goes back to the problem of TOR, which is really not its problem: Human Beings. We are creatures of habit and that is the ultimate undoing of our own anonymity. Yesterday 7:04pm
1 participant@
HorseUAdrian Chen21L
Nice writeup, Adrian. Some of the best reporting I've seen on this issue so far.
I will disagree with you on one thing, though: DPR's chief failing was, in fact, his sloppiness. He was busted because he was stupid enough to wander into the clearnet. The feds might have gotten him eventually, but if he weren't so goddamned stupid as to try to have a guy killed over what was, for him, chump change, they wouldn't have had a case. Almost everything I've seen in the charges against him was a result of him communicating directly with federal agents.
The Silk Road was an incredibly large marketplace. I find it tough to believe that everyone who became so accustomed to buying and selling drugs anonymously online give that up so easily. Hidden services with Tor really do suck at present, though. I2P supposedly has a better implementation, but it hasn't been vetted nearly as thoroughly as Tor. Yesterday 7:09pm