3 ms·

The Silk Road was bad because it circumvented the law and the ability of law enforcement to enforce the law. The law is an important thing in a democracy. The r

by mevile 7y ago

The Silk Road was bad because it circumvented the law and the ability of law enforcement to enforce the law. The law is an important thing in a democracy. The rule of law protects us, from each other and from the government. The way to change laws is through your representatives in the government, not go do your own thing. If you do go do your own thing and the law catches up to you, that is a consequence of your actions. It would be hypocritical to be upset at politicians like our president and congress for breaking laws, but then to cheer on Ross for his breaking of the law. Justice isn't a pick and choose kind of thing.

roywiggins 7y ago
> Justice isn't a pick and choose kind of thing. Not all laws are just. Not all application of law is just, though it may be lawful. The Constitution even has an escape hatch built in: the presidential pardon. The framers were quite aware that sometimes the law is not just- otherwise, why allow unilateral pardons? Sodomy laws were only overturned nationally in 2003. Was everyone involved in consensual buggery before then "hypocritical" for being "upset at politicians like our president and congress for breaking laws"? as a practical matter civil disobedience is a pretty fundamental part of how democracies function. I don't think darkweb markets are civil disobedience! but there are many, many worse things than hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is another thing that is a fundamental part of how democracies function. Without hypocrisy you can't really have a free society.
- mevile 7y ago
  You're earnestly comparing civil disobedience with profiting off of illegal drug trade. Some laws truly are unjust but that doesn't mean you or I can justify breaking whatever law we want because of it. If your conviction about the unjustness of a law is strong enough, then you'll be willing to face the consequences that comes with breaking them. That's what Ulbricht is doing, facing his consequences, and I have no sympathy for him. Notice the lack of a public outcry or a huge public movement to come to his rescue. It's because the laws he broke are not unjust. The laws he broke are reasonable, he was a drug trafficker.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Again I'm not saying that darkweb markets are civil disobedience. But first you have to determine that drug laws as we know them are just before you can be sure that shutting darknets down is in the interests of justice. For instance, drug possession is illegal, but prosecuting every single person found with small amounts to the maximum extent possible would not be just, and no appeal to the law will make it so. I am hugely sympathetic to people pulled up on minor drug crimes, even though they are technically "facing the consequences" of their actions, because they're unjust consequences. Drug possession isn't civil disobedience but that doesn't mean I'm happy when people go to jail on minor possession charges. Ditto prostitution: not civil disobedience, probably unjust to jail someone for it. People often go to jail for too long for too little, and shrugging that the consequences should just be accepted as the price of doing whatever it was does not follow. Should we just say, well, she voted illegally, I guess she (and we) should accept the eight year sentence in the interest of upholding the rule of law? https://reason.com/2018/11/28/8-years-in-prison-for-voting-illegally-i/ https://reason.com/2018/11/28/8-years-in-prison-for-voting-i... https://reason.com/2018/03/30/texas-woman-gets-sentenced-to-five-years https://reason.com/2018/03/30/texas-woman-gets-sentenced-to-... I'm not sympathetic towards him either, but neither am I particularly mad at him over his actions being illegal. Hiring a hitman is wrong regardless of the law. Profiting off drug sales, well that's a more complicated argument than simply "it's illegal." It's probably good that he's behind bars but I don't think you can just point at the statutes he broke and, without reference to anything in the outside world, say that you are certain it's a just consequence. Possibly it was. But you can't just assume that if he really is guilty (he is), the consequences are reasonable. Meanwhile, Paul le Roux is very likely to get a light sentence due to his extensive cooperation with the government. le Roux is directly responsible for several completed murders. He sold missile components to Iran! His sentence will almost certainly be much shorter than Ross Ulbricht's. Does that serve justice or not? It's not obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux
bduerst 7y ago
Owning slaves was legal and enforced by the law at one point too. Was the underground railroad an immoral drain on society? While not all of Silk Road was sunshine and rainbows, the changing attitudes towards marijuana legislature is proof that circumventing the law isn't always this drain on society because the law isn't always caught up to society.
Miner49er 7y ago
The law and justice have nothing to with eachother. In fact, the law is often used to further cement injustices into society.
homonculus1 7y ago
>It would be hypocritical to be upset at politicians like our president and congress for breaking laws, but then to cheer on Ross for his breaking of the law. There's a lot wrong in your comment but this is the most wrong by far. Citizens are not accountable to the government in the same way that the president is accountable to the country. The latter is a far stricter responsibility and not a two-way relationship. Citizens have no moral obligation other than the threat of force to obey unjust laws; in fact in many cases breaking such laws is closer to moral duty. See civil disobedience.
lzol 7y ago
>Justice isn't a pick and choose kind of thing. Yes, it is. That is the entire purpose of the executive branch; choosing what laws to enforce. We don't have the capacity to enforce every law. There are such a ridiculous amount of laws on the books over the last 250 years that enforcing them all is impossible. So, we prioritize things. There is a reason why most lawyers will suggest that you don't talk to the police without an attorney present[0]. If they want to get you for something, they will find something. Also, justice and law are not the same at all. We do not have a justice system. We have a legal system. If you have more money, you will almost always have more favorable outcomes in court. I'm not saying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need some laws and law enforcement. But legality does not equal morality. You have to weigh things on their own. [0]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by mevile 7y ago

roywiggins 7y ago

> Justice isn't a pick and choose kind of thing. Not all laws are just. Not all application of law is just, though it may be lawful. The Constitution even has an escape hatch built in: the presidential pardon. The framers were quite aware that sometimes the law is not just- otherwise, why allow unilateral pardons? Sodomy laws were only overturned nationally in 2003. Was everyone involved in consensual buggery before then "hypocritical" for being "upset at politicians like our president and congress for breaking laws"? as a practical matter civil disobedience is a pretty fundamental part of how democracies function. I don't think darkweb markets are civil disobedience! but there are many, many worse things than hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is another thing that is a fundamental part of how democracies function. Without hypocrisy you can't really have a free society.

mevile 7y ago
You're earnestly comparing civil disobedience with profiting off of illegal drug trade. Some laws truly are unjust but that doesn't mean you or I can justify breaking whatever law we want because of it. If your conviction about the unjustness of a law is strong enough, then you'll be willing to face the consequences that comes with breaking them. That's what Ulbricht is doing, facing his consequences, and I have no sympathy for him. Notice the lack of a public outcry or a huge public movement to come to his rescue. It's because the laws he broke are not unjust. The laws he broke are reasonable, he was a drug trafficker.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Again I'm not saying that darkweb markets are civil disobedience. But first you have to determine that drug laws as we know them are just before you can be sure that shutting darknets down is in the interests of justice. For instance, drug possession is illegal, but prosecuting every single person found with small amounts to the maximum extent possible would not be just, and no appeal to the law will make it so. I am hugely sympathetic to people pulled up on minor drug crimes, even though they are technically "facing the consequences" of their actions, because they're unjust consequences. Drug possession isn't civil disobedience but that doesn't mean I'm happy when people go to jail on minor possession charges. Ditto prostitution: not civil disobedience, probably unjust to jail someone for it. People often go to jail for too long for too little, and shrugging that the consequences should just be accepted as the price of doing whatever it was does not follow. Should we just say, well, she voted illegally, I guess she (and we) should accept the eight year sentence in the interest of upholding the rule of law? https://reason.com/2018/11/28/8-years-in-prison-for-voting-illegally-i/ https://reason.com/2018/11/28/8-years-in-prison-for-voting-i... https://reason.com/2018/03/30/texas-woman-gets-sentenced-to-five-years https://reason.com/2018/03/30/texas-woman-gets-sentenced-to-... I'm not sympathetic towards him either, but neither am I particularly mad at him over his actions being illegal. Hiring a hitman is wrong regardless of the law. Profiting off drug sales, well that's a more complicated argument than simply "it's illegal." It's probably good that he's behind bars but I don't think you can just point at the statutes he broke and, without reference to anything in the outside world, say that you are certain it's a just consequence. Possibly it was. But you can't just assume that if he really is guilty (he is), the consequences are reasonable. Meanwhile, Paul le Roux is very likely to get a light sentence due to his extensive cooperation with the government. le Roux is directly responsible for several completed murders. He sold missile components to Iran! His sentence will almost certainly be much shorter than Ross Ulbricht's. Does that serve justice or not? It's not obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux

bduerst 7y ago

Owning slaves was legal and enforced by the law at one point too. Was the underground railroad an immoral drain on society? While not all of Silk Road was sunshine and rainbows, the changing attitudes towards marijuana legislature is proof that circumventing the law isn't always this drain on society because the law isn't always caught up to society.

Miner49er 7y ago

The law and justice have nothing to with eachother. In fact, the law is often used to further cement injustices into society.

homonculus1 7y ago

>It would be hypocritical to be upset at politicians like our president and congress for breaking laws, but then to cheer on Ross for his breaking of the law. There's a lot wrong in your comment but this is the most wrong by far. Citizens are not accountable to the government in the same way that the president is accountable to the country. The latter is a far stricter responsibility and not a two-way relationship. Citizens have no moral obligation other than the threat of force to obey unjust laws; in fact in many cases breaking such laws is closer to moral duty. See civil disobedience.

lzol 7y ago

>Justice isn't a pick and choose kind of thing. Yes, it is. That is the entire purpose of the executive branch; choosing what laws to enforce. We don't have the capacity to enforce every law. There are such a ridiculous amount of laws on the books over the last 250 years that enforcing them all is impossible. So, we prioritize things. There is a reason why most lawyers will suggest that you don't talk to the police without an attorney present[0]. If they want to get you for something, they will find something. Also, justice and law are not the same at all. We do not have a justice system. We have a legal system. If you have more money, you will almost always have more favorable outcomes in court. I'm not saying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need some laws and law enforcement. But legality does not equal morality. You have to weigh things on their own. [0]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]