6 ms·

It's kinda funny to notice that in the article the writer is describing the stereotype of a drug dealer being untrusted, yet based on my experience and what I'v

It's kinda funny to notice that in the article the writer is describing the stereotype of a drug dealer being untrusted, yet based on my experience and what I've seen, I would rather trust an online drug dealer than for example my bank or the people running our government. That's kinda fucked up right there, won't you say ?

TeMPOraL 9y ago
It's because the incentives of your drug dealer are more aligned with your well-being than the incentives of your bank or government. That's not always the case, but when it happens, even the worst criminal can be a better friend than a legit operation, for which the only reason not to screw you over completely is the potential legal fuss.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  This is one argument against capitalism as a whole, and it's worth taking seriously. Capitalism is still the best tool we have, but it's not without downsides. Example: open source is the communist model, and it works very well. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. No one owns anything, and you're free to fork or vote with your feet. Ditto for illegal drug markets. If you're unhappy as a merchant, you have a number of options. No one owns you. You can switch to a different market, or start your own (if you're suicidally ambitious). The interesting part is that the drug markets end up combining the best of both capitalism and communism in that sense. But only in that sense. Obviously, unregulated drugs are risky. Yet even without regulations, it's remarkable how rare it is to hear about unhappy customers.
  - auggierose 9y ago
    Unhappy = Dead might be an explanation for that.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      In places with an established drug scene I'd expect that unhappy customer == dead dealer, because other parties will work to protect their commons (reputation of the market) against random defectors looking for quick buck.
  - rubicon33 9y ago
    Really? It's remarkable that we don't hear regularly how dissatisfied people are with their drug dealer? Think about that for just a second...
  - criloz2 9y ago
    I don't see how open source is a communist model, nobody is coerced to publish their code, they do because they want to, even several companies are making some of their source code public for improving the trust that their client has in their product and increase their sales.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      It's not capitalism either, because open source developers don't sell code, or write code under pressure of earning a living. They just write it and give it away. Not sure what the right word is, but textbook-definition communism fits - open-source code isn't really owned in practical sense.
      - dukeflukem 9y ago
        My understanding is you have an automatic copyright on the code you create. When you share you can optionally grant a license BSD etc. to let people use that code subject to X. So the code subject is owned.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        That's an implementation detail, not the way people in Open Source think of it day-to-day.
        dukeflukem 9y ago
        I'm not sure how copyright and licensing is an implementation detail. Its fairly important to consider.
    - rosser 9y ago
      "Communism" — the leading capital due to its being the first word in the sentence — is an economic model. "Communism", the Soviet-style phenomenon is not "communism", either in principle, or in practice. Yet we insist on conflating them, and argue against the one whenever the other is mentioned, as if it's synonymous with both.
cgh 9y ago
It's having "skin in the game", in the sense that Nassim Taleb uses the phrase. The trust goes both ways and both of your reputations are more or less equally at stake. With a bank, the stakes are not symmetrical.
valj 9y ago
You're comparing apples with oranges. A drug dealer is a peon, someone at the very bottom of an enormous multinational pyramid who sells a commodity product in a market where every disgruntled customer has the ability to put them behind bars, rather than just leave a bad review online. This is actually the most prime example of an 'untrusted' relationship. If it weren't for the total imbalance of power you have to bring the full force of the government down on a drug dealer without any need for a reason, you wouldn't do business with them at all. If, on the other hand, you had to do business with the head of one of these multinational drug syndicates, you would start to understand this power dynamic more completely, as the power balance would flip. All of a sudden, the person you are dealing with no longer fears law enforcement. They are no longer a peon - they have bought off people in the government, acquired arms, trained a small army of their own, and now have to power to kill you or your associates without fear of reprisal. Would you still describe doing business with these people as a 'trusted' transaction? Of course not. You would start showing up to all your business dealings with your own goons, weapons, and armored vehicles. There would be zero trust that each transaction wouldn't end in a firefight. Compare this to walking into your local bank branch, where with the correct documentation a typical local branch manager can give you a loan for over $1M without having ever done business with you before. That is the definition of a trusted transaction. You've just become so desensitized to the marvel of it all that you might not be aware of what the alternative looks like.
- icebraining 9y ago
  This is actually the most prime example of an 'untrusted' relationship. If it weren't for the total imbalance of power you have to bring the full force of the government down on a drug dealer without any need for a reason, you wouldn't do business with them at all. How does a buyer do that on the darknet? Hell, how does the buyer do that on dealer that's part of a well set up network? Do you think cops don't know who many of the dealers are already? They can't or won't touch them, and as a buyer you have zero power to make that happen. I don't know how's the market where you are, but I can assure you that nobody I know who buys or bought drugs ever even considered going to the cops - even when they got robbed and smacked around by a dealer.
- nostrademons 9y ago
slavik81 9y ago
The people I knew who dealt drugs had terrible judgement and repeatedly ended up in jail for stupid shit like getting in fights or trying to intimidate a police officer. I would not put my life in the hands of a person like that. It's not even that their actions are immoral, it's that their judgement is so poor that you cannot depend on them behaving in their own long-term interest. Maybe online dealers are different, but I would always worry it's just the same idiots behind a new anonymous account.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

It's because the incentives of your drug dealer are more aligned with your well-being than the incentives of your bank or government. That's not always the case, but when it happens, even the worst criminal can be a better friend than a legit operation, for which the only reason not to screw you over completely is the potential legal fuss.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
This is one argument against capitalism as a whole, and it's worth taking seriously. Capitalism is still the best tool we have, but it's not without downsides. Example: open source is the communist model, and it works very well. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. No one owns anything, and you're free to fork or vote with your feet. Ditto for illegal drug markets. If you're unhappy as a merchant, you have a number of options. No one owns you. You can switch to a different market, or start your own (if you're suicidally ambitious). The interesting part is that the drug markets end up combining the best of both capitalism and communism in that sense. But only in that sense. Obviously, unregulated drugs are risky. Yet even without regulations, it's remarkable how rare it is to hear about unhappy customers.
- auggierose 9y ago
  Unhappy = Dead might be an explanation for that.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    In places with an established drug scene I'd expect that unhappy customer == dead dealer, because other parties will work to protect their commons (reputation of the market) against random defectors looking for quick buck.
- rubicon33 9y ago
  Really? It's remarkable that we don't hear regularly how dissatisfied people are with their drug dealer? Think about that for just a second...
- criloz2 9y ago
  I don't see how open source is a communist model, nobody is coerced to publish their code, they do because they want to, even several companies are making some of their source code public for improving the trust that their client has in their product and increase their sales.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    It's not capitalism either, because open source developers don't sell code, or write code under pressure of earning a living. They just write it and give it away. Not sure what the right word is, but textbook-definition communism fits - open-source code isn't really owned in practical sense.
    - dukeflukem 9y ago
      My understanding is you have an automatic copyright on the code you create. When you share you can optionally grant a license BSD etc. to let people use that code subject to X. So the code subject is owned.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        That's an implementation detail, not the way people in Open Source think of it day-to-day.
        dukeflukem 9y ago
        I'm not sure how copyright and licensing is an implementation detail. Its fairly important to consider.
  - rosser 9y ago
    "Communism" — the leading capital due to its being the first word in the sentence — is an economic model. "Communism", the Soviet-style phenomenon is not "communism", either in principle, or in practice. Yet we insist on conflating them, and argue against the one whenever the other is mentioned, as if it's synonymous with both.

cgh 9y ago

It's having "skin in the game", in the sense that Nassim Taleb uses the phrase. The trust goes both ways and both of your reputations are more or less equally at stake. With a bank, the stakes are not symmetrical.

valj 9y ago

You're comparing apples with oranges. A drug dealer is a peon, someone at the very bottom of an enormous multinational pyramid who sells a commodity product in a market where every disgruntled customer has the ability to put them behind bars, rather than just leave a bad review online. This is actually the most prime example of an 'untrusted' relationship. If it weren't for the total imbalance of power you have to bring the full force of the government down on a drug dealer without any need for a reason, you wouldn't do business with them at all. If, on the other hand, you had to do business with the head of one of these multinational drug syndicates, you would start to understand this power dynamic more completely, as the power balance would flip. All of a sudden, the person you are dealing with no longer fears law enforcement. They are no longer a peon - they have bought off people in the government, acquired arms, trained a small army of their own, and now have to power to kill you or your associates without fear of reprisal. Would you still describe doing business with these people as a 'trusted' transaction? Of course not. You would start showing up to all your business dealings with your own goons, weapons, and armored vehicles. There would be zero trust that each transaction wouldn't end in a firefight. Compare this to walking into your local bank branch, where with the correct documentation a typical local branch manager can give you a loan for over $1M without having ever done business with you before. That is the definition of a trusted transaction. You've just become so desensitized to the marvel of it all that you might not be aware of what the alternative looks like.

icebraining 9y ago
This is actually the most prime example of an 'untrusted' relationship. If it weren't for the total imbalance of power you have to bring the full force of the government down on a drug dealer without any need for a reason, you wouldn't do business with them at all. How does a buyer do that on the darknet? Hell, how does the buyer do that on dealer that's part of a well set up network? Do you think cops don't know who many of the dealers are already? They can't or won't touch them, and as a buyer you have zero power to make that happen. I don't know how's the market where you are, but I can assure you that nobody I know who buys or bought drugs ever even considered going to the cops - even when they got robbed and smacked around by a dealer.
nostrademons 9y ago

slavik81 9y ago

The people I knew who dealt drugs had terrible judgement and repeatedly ended up in jail for stupid shit like getting in fights or trying to intimidate a police officer. I would not put my life in the hands of a person like that. It's not even that their actions are immoral, it's that their judgement is so poor that you cannot depend on them behaving in their own long-term interest. Maybe online dealers are different, but I would always worry it's just the same idiots behind a new anonymous account.