10 ms·

"he took it a bridge too far" is a massive trivialization. The guy operated a marketplace for illegal goods in order to enrich himself. The illegality wasn't j

"he took it a bridge too far" is a massive trivialization. The guy operated a marketplace for illegal goods in order to enrich himself. The illegality wasn't just incidental, it was literally his business model -- by flouting the law, he enjoyed massive market benefit (minimal competition, lack of regulation, high margins etc) by exploiting the arbitrage that the rest of us follow the rules. Said a different way, he knowingly pursued enormous risk in order to achieve outsized benefits, and ultimately his bet blew up on him -- we shouldn't have bailed him out.

celticninja 2y ago
Not sure it was high margin as much as it was low fees on a large number of transactions, coupled with bitcoin appreciation this meant he made a lot of money.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  It was a very high RoI. The cost to run it was negligible compared to the income it generated.
ty6853 2y ago
Trump is a bit of an agorist is well. It's part of the American wild west mythical psyche, to the point America made a sport from moonshine running cars. Not hard for me to see how he half won and walked away with an unconditional pardon.
- ssl232 2y ago
  > to the point America made a sport from moonshine running cars Huh, is that NASCAR?
  - ty6853 2y ago
    I believe so
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Yes, but the moonshine part wasn’t part of the sport or its celebration. It was about racing cars regular people could buy: “stock cars”.
  - paulgb 2y ago
    TIL! > In the 1920s, moonshine runners during the Prohibition era would often have to outrun the authorities. To do so, they had to upgrade their vehicles—while leaving them looking ordinary, so as not to attract attention. Eventually, runners started getting together with fellow runners and making runs together. They would challenge one another and eventually progressed to organized events in the early 1930s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_car_racing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_car_racing
silver_silver 2y ago
His sentence was excessive and cruel to make an example out of him. There’s a serial child rapist in the same prison serving less time.
- ty6853 2y ago
  The state hates more than anything someone who operates on first principles that the empire is wrong. A serial rapist, even one that would happily do it again, will often repent and quickly admit guilt. They have no interest in undermining the philosophical basis of the state. They will posture themselves as bound but imperfect citizens under the law. Ross violated the only remaining national holy religion, the rule of law. He was sentenced for being a heretic.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > Ross violated the only remaining national holy religion, the rule of law. He was sentenced for being a heretic. Good. Let's keep in mind that the shared faith in this "holy religion, the rule of law" is the only thing holding together your country, my country, everyone's countries, and civilized society in general. Take that away, and everything around us will collapse, regressing the few survivors of that event to the prehistorical lifestyle of small tribes slaughtering each other for what little scraps the land has to give.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - formerly_proven 2y ago
        Yes, Ross Ulbricht is basically a revolutionary.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - 2y ago
pixxel 2y ago
> he enjoyed massive market benefit Life imprisonment, no parole. You have to be a complete and utter wanker to think his punishment was justified.
sneak 2y ago
There were no victims of his conduct. The idea that possession of drugs is or should be illegal is purely arbitrary, and is used thus to justify massive violations of human rights. It is literally insane that the state claims authority over what you are allowed to do to your own body. No victim, no crime.
- mirpa 2y ago
  While you might argue which drug is dangerous and which isn't, ban on drugs is not arbitrary decision. You can't do whatever you want with your body, because you might loose control and hurt others. Drug abuse affects others as well (financially, mentally, physically...). I am victim of someone's drug abuse. I never took any drugs. So if you are looking for victims of drug abuse, here I am.
  - tallanvor 2y ago
    Some of the decisions were rather arbitrary at best, and racist at worst, though. The sentence disparities regarding, for example, cocaine depending on how you are using it was designed to punish black people more harshly. Opium bans had as much to do with anti-Chinese sentiment than anything. I'm not arguing that drugs should be legal, but we do have to be clear that the reasons for banning them and the punishment are not necessarily rational.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      That’s pure historical revision. The sentencing difference was created in 1986 based on the belief that it was more addictive. It wasn’t until a decade later that research showed the causation had been reversed (more addicted people were more likely to use crack). If you look at the timing, there was a huge increase in drug crime that occurred as a result of the crack epidemic: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct18/lingering-lethal-toll-americas-crack-crisis https://www.nber.org/digest/oct18/lingering-lethal-toll-amer.... The recent change in policy simply reflects the prevailing trend of reducing disparities in sentencing for criminals while increasing disparities in crime victimization by failing to enforce the law.
agumonkey 2y ago
I'm afraid that the current administration is fond on this business model. Borderline criminal business models behind curtains.
- fbfactchecker 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ofrzeta 2y ago
    wtf is your problem? why no go troll somewhere else?
glerk 2y ago
> he knowingly pursued enormous risk in order to achieve outsized benefits Like it or not, this makes him a heroic figure in the eyes of many people. > we shouldn't have bailed him out Bailing him out comes at no cost. Letting him rot in prison provides no benefit to anyone.
- sirbutters 2y ago
  Bailing him out comes at no cost? That's one way to see it. In my opinion, it sends a message that as long as you can provide value to this new administration, you get preferential treatment - no matter how shady and unethical your business ventures are.
potato3732842 2y ago
>minimal competition, lack of regulation, high margins etc Those benefits don't come from nowhere. You're basically getting compensated to take on the risk, same as any other business. The difference in this case is that the risk is that a bunch of thugs with guns will show up and either kill you or put you in a cage in addition to the usual financial ruin.
cluckindan 2y ago
Many criminal gangs from biker groups to foreign cartels are doing the same thing and reaping profits in the $100Bs scale annually. Your argument is not an argument for incarceration, it is an argument for abolition of prohibition and regulating the sales of some psychoactives. The same stone would hit the fentanyl epidemic, it would hit the pushers of ”zombie drug” laced cocktails, it would hit cross-border trafficking, to name only a few. Society would massively benefit. So would the economy.
- sobellian 2y ago
  > Many criminal gangs from biker groups to foreign cartels are doing the same thing and reaping profits in the $100Bs scale annually. That comparison does not flatter Ross Ulbricht.
  - JUNGLEISMASSIVE 2y ago
    [dead]
- krupan 2y ago
  "Society would massively benefit" Yes. Just like San Francisco and Seattle did when they legalized drugs
  - cluckindan 2y ago
    ”Legalized drugs” as in ”buy and use whatever legally” is not what is being suggested here.
pooper 2y ago
》 we shouldn't have bailed him out. I don't have a horse in this race but the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear "we shouldn't have bailed him out" is silicon valley bank and its depositors. That to me was the biggest show of hypocrisy by silicon valley.
paulddraper 2y ago
"Exploiting arbitrage" is not high on my list of concerns. The rest of it is.
gloosx 2y ago
>The illegality wasn't just incidental The illegality of drugs is a government reaction, since governance failed to do anything with the problem by action. No-one deserves a life-long sentence in prison for that. This market, as well as minimal competition, lack of regulation, and high margins was created by the same power which sends people to jail.

celticninja 2y ago

Not sure it was high margin as much as it was low fees on a large number of transactions, coupled with bitcoin appreciation this meant he made a lot of money.

rbanffy 2y ago
It was a very high RoI. The cost to run it was negligible compared to the income it generated.

ty6853 2y ago

Trump is a bit of an agorist is well. It's part of the American wild west mythical psyche, to the point America made a sport from moonshine running cars. Not hard for me to see how he half won and walked away with an unconditional pardon.

ssl232 2y ago
> to the point America made a sport from moonshine running cars Huh, is that NASCAR?
- ty6853 2y ago
  I believe so
- kortilla 2y ago
  Yes, but the moonshine part wasn’t part of the sport or its celebration. It was about racing cars regular people could buy: “stock cars”.
- paulgb 2y ago
  TIL! > In the 1920s, moonshine runners during the Prohibition era would often have to outrun the authorities. To do so, they had to upgrade their vehicles—while leaving them looking ordinary, so as not to attract attention. Eventually, runners started getting together with fellow runners and making runs together. They would challenge one another and eventually progressed to organized events in the early 1930s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_car_racing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_car_racing

silver_silver 2y ago

His sentence was excessive and cruel to make an example out of him. There’s a serial child rapist in the same prison serving less time.

ty6853 2y ago
The state hates more than anything someone who operates on first principles that the empire is wrong. A serial rapist, even one that would happily do it again, will often repent and quickly admit guilt. They have no interest in undermining the philosophical basis of the state. They will posture themselves as bound but imperfect citizens under the law. Ross violated the only remaining national holy religion, the rule of law. He was sentenced for being a heretic.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Ross violated the only remaining national holy religion, the rule of law. He was sentenced for being a heretic. Good. Let's keep in mind that the shared faith in this "holy religion, the rule of law" is the only thing holding together your country, my country, everyone's countries, and civilized society in general. Take that away, and everything around us will collapse, regressing the few survivors of that event to the prehistorical lifestyle of small tribes slaughtering each other for what little scraps the land has to give.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - formerly_proven 2y ago
      Yes, Ross Ulbricht is basically a revolutionary.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - 2y ago

pixxel 2y ago

> he enjoyed massive market benefit Life imprisonment, no parole. You have to be a complete and utter wanker to think his punishment was justified.

sneak 2y ago

There were no victims of his conduct. The idea that possession of drugs is or should be illegal is purely arbitrary, and is used thus to justify massive violations of human rights. It is literally insane that the state claims authority over what you are allowed to do to your own body. No victim, no crime.

mirpa 2y ago
While you might argue which drug is dangerous and which isn't, ban on drugs is not arbitrary decision. You can't do whatever you want with your body, because you might loose control and hurt others. Drug abuse affects others as well (financially, mentally, physically...). I am victim of someone's drug abuse. I never took any drugs. So if you are looking for victims of drug abuse, here I am.
- tallanvor 2y ago
  Some of the decisions were rather arbitrary at best, and racist at worst, though. The sentence disparities regarding, for example, cocaine depending on how you are using it was designed to punish black people more harshly. Opium bans had as much to do with anti-Chinese sentiment than anything. I'm not arguing that drugs should be legal, but we do have to be clear that the reasons for banning them and the punishment are not necessarily rational.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That’s pure historical revision. The sentencing difference was created in 1986 based on the belief that it was more addictive. It wasn’t until a decade later that research showed the causation had been reversed (more addicted people were more likely to use crack). If you look at the timing, there was a huge increase in drug crime that occurred as a result of the crack epidemic: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct18/lingering-lethal-toll-americas-crack-crisis https://www.nber.org/digest/oct18/lingering-lethal-toll-amer.... The recent change in policy simply reflects the prevailing trend of reducing disparities in sentencing for criminals while increasing disparities in crime victimization by failing to enforce the law.

agumonkey 2y ago

I'm afraid that the current administration is fond on this business model. Borderline criminal business models behind curtains.

fbfactchecker 2y ago
[flagged]
- ofrzeta 2y ago
  wtf is your problem? why no go troll somewhere else?

glerk 2y ago

> he knowingly pursued enormous risk in order to achieve outsized benefits Like it or not, this makes him a heroic figure in the eyes of many people. > we shouldn't have bailed him out Bailing him out comes at no cost. Letting him rot in prison provides no benefit to anyone.

sirbutters 2y ago
Bailing him out comes at no cost? That's one way to see it. In my opinion, it sends a message that as long as you can provide value to this new administration, you get preferential treatment - no matter how shady and unethical your business ventures are.

potato3732842 2y ago

>minimal competition, lack of regulation, high margins etc Those benefits don't come from nowhere. You're basically getting compensated to take on the risk, same as any other business. The difference in this case is that the risk is that a bunch of thugs with guns will show up and either kill you or put you in a cage in addition to the usual financial ruin.

cluckindan 2y ago

Many criminal gangs from biker groups to foreign cartels are doing the same thing and reaping profits in the $100Bs scale annually. Your argument is not an argument for incarceration, it is an argument for abolition of prohibition and regulating the sales of some psychoactives. The same stone would hit the fentanyl epidemic, it would hit the pushers of ”zombie drug” laced cocktails, it would hit cross-border trafficking, to name only a few. Society would massively benefit. So would the economy.

sobellian 2y ago
> Many criminal gangs from biker groups to foreign cartels are doing the same thing and reaping profits in the $100Bs scale annually. That comparison does not flatter Ross Ulbricht.
- JUNGLEISMASSIVE 2y ago
  [dead]
krupan 2y ago
"Society would massively benefit" Yes. Just like San Francisco and Seattle did when they legalized drugs
- cluckindan 2y ago
  ”Legalized drugs” as in ”buy and use whatever legally” is not what is being suggested here.

pooper 2y ago

》 we shouldn't have bailed him out. I don't have a horse in this race but the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear "we shouldn't have bailed him out" is silicon valley bank and its depositors. That to me was the biggest show of hypocrisy by silicon valley.

paulddraper 2y ago

"Exploiting arbitrage" is not high on my list of concerns. The rest of it is.

gloosx 2y ago

>The illegality wasn't just incidental The illegality of drugs is a government reaction, since governance failed to do anything with the problem by action. No-one deserves a life-long sentence in prison for that. This market, as well as minimal competition, lack of regulation, and high margins was created by the same power which sends people to jail.