11 ms·

Let the character assassination of libertarians begin. To me, that's the most discouraging thing I'm seeing coming from media coverage of Ulbricht's arrest. Yes

Let the character assassination of libertarians begin. To me, that's the most discouraging thing I'm seeing coming from media coverage of Ulbricht's arrest. Yes, the site was facilitating illegal commerce; but was it immoral? Evil? These are far more difficult questions to answer specifically because people will have their own opinions. Unfortunately, this feels like the whole situation being reduced to, "those damn libertarians and their evil drugs!"

andrewcooke 13y ago
if it's any consolation i'm a pure bleeding heart liberal, but when i read that article and it went from "they said he couldn't be the killer" to "but little did they know, he was a libertarian" i did a double take in disbelief. that's terrible journalism.
- jpadkins 13y ago
  it's the washington post, what do you expect? It is a platform for influence and a method to suck up to those in power.
- bcrescimanno 13y ago
  It's the ultimate example of the two-party system's incredible stranglehold on the mainstream media. Anything outside of those two parties is treated with such derision as to suggest that they are inherently bad / wrong / evil.
mpyne 13y ago
This is just my humble opinion, but actual libertarianism is a self-assassinating concept as it's normally described and practiced. It's possible to think that the state has grown too powerful without subscribing to libertarian ideals, but it's pretty hard to introduce libertarian absolutes into the grainy gray of the real world without bending the principles... at which point it has stopped being libertarian. E.g., consider http://www.demos.org/blog/8/21/13/fun-times-libertarianism http://www.demos.org/blog/8/21/13/fun-times-libertarianism
- bcrescimanno 13y ago
  How much stock can I really put into an article that begins by stating that libertarianism exists to benefit affluent, white men? Moreover, presenting a single reductio ad absurdum argument does not identify the concept as "self-assassinating."
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The article didn't begin by saying that libertarianism was created or allowed to exist to benefit rich white men. It does imply that libertarianism benefits rich white men (which is why rich white men would predominantly support it...), but the article doesn't make the claim that libertarianism was created for that purpose. Perhaps you should try a critical analysis of what the article actually says instead of a cursory skimming of what you assume the article says, before you decide how much stock you can place in it?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Libertarianism does disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Being white only matters when you happen to live in a country where wealthy people are disproportionately white, which as it turns out is exactly the situation we have in America. It really is not that much of a stretch.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  ...actual libertarianism is a self-assassinating concept as it's normally described and practiced. No political philosophy is defensible when caricatured to its most extreme positions. The reason I'm anarchist is not that I've enjoyed my time in Somalia and I'd like the USA to become that, only more temperate. The reason is that the only changes we can make to our polity that could conceivably be good for the people are in an anarchist direction. If the nation commits to anarchism and starts the slow process of making its laws and practices more just and humanist, less total and oppressive, in twenty years I'll probably find that I've become more moderate and open to other directions for societal change. But we're in a hole here. When people advocate that we stop digging and start climbing, it is nonresponsive to point out that the air at 50,000 feet is too thin to breathe.
gojomo 13y ago
Sure, that'll be the reaction in some quarters, and in breezy superficial mainstream reports. But that's always the reaction in those places: no change here. But there will also be curiosity that leads people to other more sophisticated takes on Silk Road and DPR's philosophy. Here's an interesting one: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/10/silk_road_shutdown_be.php http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/10/silk... Silk Road was safer and cheaper than the very-violent legacy prohibited-drugs businesses. (Other smuggling cartels with $1.2B in sales likely have a lot more blood on their hands than two fake assassinations.) So here's another potential takeaway worthy of discussion: • maybe psychoactive drugs ought to be a mail-order business, as a harm-reduction policy. USPS/Fedex/UPS can check proof-of-age on delivery, and people in addiction-recovery could be put (by election or court-order) on no-delivery lists • if an online drug vendor is being blackmailed by a hacker/disgruntled-employee threatening the release of customer information, that vendor should be able to go to the cops and have the blackmailer arrested under the CFAA. Same for an embezzling employee. No extralegal "street justice" required. • the taxes on such commerce could be spent to help addicts far more than today, and have some left over for spending on other social benefits
- genwin 13y ago
  What if the more easily procured drugs create more addicts, reducing tax revenue so that the net tax benefit is negative? Then you've got less money to help more addicts.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Could happen, but it is not just the tax revenue. You also greatly reduce the tax burden of keeping so many people in prison, both for drug possession or selling and for related problems like the crimes surrounding the drug trade. You greatly reduce the money spent arresting those people. You have a businesses that benefit from a legal drug market, strengthening the larger economy. https://www.csub.edu/kej/documents/economic_rsch/2012-03-26.pdf https://www.csub.edu/kej/documents/economic_rsch/2012-03-26....
    - 13y ago
ianstallings 13y ago
What baffles me is the cognitive dissonance from some of these critics - that the libertarian stance on drugs is wrong, but also the drug war is wrong.
- mpyne 13y ago
  How is that a cognitive dissonance? People often reason similar conclusions through different logical reasoning. In fact one of my jobs as an instructor at a military training command was to identify students who had achieved an "answer by accident" to ensure that they went and studied the actual principles behind the problem they had mistakenly hit on the right answer for.
- betterunix 13y ago
  I guess it depends on what you mean by the libertarian stance on drugs. If you mean that we should establish an unregulated market for recreational drugs, then yes, it is reasonable to be opposed, just like it is reasonable to be opposed to the idea of an unregulated market on meat, automobiles, or anything else that might affect public safety. On the other hand, if you mean that people should not be imprisoned for possessing, selling, or producing drugs, then you are not talking about an idea that libertarians have a monopoly on. I am opposed to the drug war, but I think that recreational drugs should be taxed and that their production and sale should be regulated. That is not cognitive dissonance, that is just a different idea about how to approach and implement drug legalization.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > If you mean that we should established an unregulated market for recreational drugs, then yes, it is reasonable to be opposed, just like it is reasonable to be opposed to the idea of an unregulated market on meat, automobiles, or anything else that might affect public safety. I don't think either opposition is reasonable.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      Ah, but in the case of drugs, we can compare regulated and unregulated markets, both historically and present-day. At one time the market for drugs was unregulated, and the result was a hazard to the public: drugs of unknown strength and purity, false advertising, etc. Today we have points of comparison: black market methamphetamine is produced in an unregulated fashion and tends to make people sick (or at least look very sick), while pharmaceutical methamphetamine comes in regulated dosages and with assurances of its purity; similarly, black market opiates versus prescription opiates. Even with cars, we can observe the positive effect of safety regulations. The market did not put seat belts and crumple zones into our cars; laws did, and as a result of those laws many peoples lives have been saved. So if you truly believe in the power of unregulated markets, you need to answer the question of how to deal with people who buy needlessly unsafe drugs. Likewise, what is society supposed to do about needlessly unsafe cars?
sliverstorm 13y ago
We need to highlight the whole fringe part. Fringe libertarians are no more dangerous than fringe conservatives or fringe liberals.
rayiner 13y ago
I empathize on libertarians on this one, but at the same time as a statist I'm gleeful that it took no time at all for this "free" system to devolve into an amateur crime lord calling out hits on people. DPR isn't just a libertarian. He's bad in the ways that highlight the shortcomings of anarcho libertarianism. People aren't good and presented with opportunity, they act quickly to aggrandize themselves using whatever means are necessary.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  People aren't good and presented with opportunity, they act quickly to aggrandize themselves using whatever means are necessary. Fascinating. I agree completely with that statement, indeed it is the foundation of my ethical and political philosophy, and yet it is the first of yours I've seen with which I have agreed in the least. EDIT: Now I also see the "no cognitive dissonance" statement you made below. Hmmm.
- arto 13y ago
  Alledgedly calling out hits on people. Let's try and maintain at least the pretense of the principle of presumption of innocence, eh?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    People are presumed innocent in the criminal justice system. It's also important that the press be cautious about drawing conclusions. But individuals uninvolved in the case are not required to genuflect to a presumption of innocence.
    - arto 13y ago
      You're free to do as you please, but I for one believe the presumption of innocence to be a useful stance both in the courtroom as well as beyond it; particularly so when the accuser is a party known to have previously routinely lied in order to secure false convictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Laboratory#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Laboratory#Controversy
- 13y ago

andrewcooke 13y ago

if it's any consolation i'm a pure bleeding heart liberal, but when i read that article and it went from "they said he couldn't be the killer" to "but little did they know, he was a libertarian" i did a double take in disbelief. that's terrible journalism.

jpadkins 13y ago
it's the washington post, what do you expect? It is a platform for influence and a method to suck up to those in power.
bcrescimanno 13y ago
It's the ultimate example of the two-party system's incredible stranglehold on the mainstream media. Anything outside of those two parties is treated with such derision as to suggest that they are inherently bad / wrong / evil.

mpyne 13y ago

This is just my humble opinion, but actual libertarianism is a self-assassinating concept as it's normally described and practiced. It's possible to think that the state has grown too powerful without subscribing to libertarian ideals, but it's pretty hard to introduce libertarian absolutes into the grainy gray of the real world without bending the principles... at which point it has stopped being libertarian. E.g., consider http://www.demos.org/blog/8/21/13/fun-times-libertarianism http://www.demos.org/blog/8/21/13/fun-times-libertarianism

bcrescimanno 13y ago
How much stock can I really put into an article that begins by stating that libertarianism exists to benefit affluent, white men? Moreover, presenting a single reductio ad absurdum argument does not identify the concept as "self-assassinating."
- mpyne 13y ago
  The article didn't begin by saying that libertarianism was created or allowed to exist to benefit rich white men. It does imply that libertarianism benefits rich white men (which is why rich white men would predominantly support it...), but the article doesn't make the claim that libertarianism was created for that purpose. Perhaps you should try a critical analysis of what the article actually says instead of a cursory skimming of what you assume the article says, before you decide how much stock you can place in it?
- betterunix 13y ago
  Libertarianism does disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Being white only matters when you happen to live in a country where wealthy people are disproportionately white, which as it turns out is exactly the situation we have in America. It really is not that much of a stretch.
jessaustin 13y ago
...actual libertarianism is a self-assassinating concept as it's normally described and practiced. No political philosophy is defensible when caricatured to its most extreme positions. The reason I'm anarchist is not that I've enjoyed my time in Somalia and I'd like the USA to become that, only more temperate. The reason is that the only changes we can make to our polity that could conceivably be good for the people are in an anarchist direction. If the nation commits to anarchism and starts the slow process of making its laws and practices more just and humanist, less total and oppressive, in twenty years I'll probably find that I've become more moderate and open to other directions for societal change. But we're in a hole here. When people advocate that we stop digging and start climbing, it is nonresponsive to point out that the air at 50,000 feet is too thin to breathe.

gojomo 13y ago

Sure, that'll be the reaction in some quarters, and in breezy superficial mainstream reports. But that's always the reaction in those places: no change here. But there will also be curiosity that leads people to other more sophisticated takes on Silk Road and DPR's philosophy. Here's an interesting one: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/10/silk_road_shutdown_be.php http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/10/silk... Silk Road was safer and cheaper than the very-violent legacy prohibited-drugs businesses. (Other smuggling cartels with $1.2B in sales likely have a lot more blood on their hands than two fake assassinations.) So here's another potential takeaway worthy of discussion: • maybe psychoactive drugs ought to be a mail-order business, as a harm-reduction policy. USPS/Fedex/UPS can check proof-of-age on delivery, and people in addiction-recovery could be put (by election or court-order) on no-delivery lists • if an online drug vendor is being blackmailed by a hacker/disgruntled-employee threatening the release of customer information, that vendor should be able to go to the cops and have the blackmailer arrested under the CFAA. Same for an embezzling employee. No extralegal "street justice" required. • the taxes on such commerce could be spent to help addicts far more than today, and have some left over for spending on other social benefits

genwin 13y ago
What if the more easily procured drugs create more addicts, reducing tax revenue so that the net tax benefit is negative? Then you've got less money to help more addicts.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Could happen, but it is not just the tax revenue. You also greatly reduce the tax burden of keeping so many people in prison, both for drug possession or selling and for related problems like the crimes surrounding the drug trade. You greatly reduce the money spent arresting those people. You have a businesses that benefit from a legal drug market, strengthening the larger economy. https://www.csub.edu/kej/documents/economic_rsch/2012-03-26.pdf https://www.csub.edu/kej/documents/economic_rsch/2012-03-26....
  - 13y ago

ianstallings 13y ago

What baffles me is the cognitive dissonance from some of these critics - that the libertarian stance on drugs is wrong, but also the drug war is wrong.

mpyne 13y ago
How is that a cognitive dissonance? People often reason similar conclusions through different logical reasoning. In fact one of my jobs as an instructor at a military training command was to identify students who had achieved an "answer by accident" to ensure that they went and studied the actual principles behind the problem they had mistakenly hit on the right answer for.
betterunix 13y ago
I guess it depends on what you mean by the libertarian stance on drugs. If you mean that we should establish an unregulated market for recreational drugs, then yes, it is reasonable to be opposed, just like it is reasonable to be opposed to the idea of an unregulated market on meat, automobiles, or anything else that might affect public safety. On the other hand, if you mean that people should not be imprisoned for possessing, selling, or producing drugs, then you are not talking about an idea that libertarians have a monopoly on. I am opposed to the drug war, but I think that recreational drugs should be taxed and that their production and sale should be regulated. That is not cognitive dissonance, that is just a different idea about how to approach and implement drug legalization.
- baddox 13y ago
  > If you mean that we should established an unregulated market for recreational drugs, then yes, it is reasonable to be opposed, just like it is reasonable to be opposed to the idea of an unregulated market on meat, automobiles, or anything else that might affect public safety. I don't think either opposition is reasonable.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Ah, but in the case of drugs, we can compare regulated and unregulated markets, both historically and present-day. At one time the market for drugs was unregulated, and the result was a hazard to the public: drugs of unknown strength and purity, false advertising, etc. Today we have points of comparison: black market methamphetamine is produced in an unregulated fashion and tends to make people sick (or at least look very sick), while pharmaceutical methamphetamine comes in regulated dosages and with assurances of its purity; similarly, black market opiates versus prescription opiates. Even with cars, we can observe the positive effect of safety regulations. The market did not put seat belts and crumple zones into our cars; laws did, and as a result of those laws many peoples lives have been saved. So if you truly believe in the power of unregulated markets, you need to answer the question of how to deal with people who buy needlessly unsafe drugs. Likewise, what is society supposed to do about needlessly unsafe cars?

sliverstorm 13y ago

We need to highlight the whole fringe part. Fringe libertarians are no more dangerous than fringe conservatives or fringe liberals.

rayiner 13y ago

I empathize on libertarians on this one, but at the same time as a statist I'm gleeful that it took no time at all for this "free" system to devolve into an amateur crime lord calling out hits on people. DPR isn't just a libertarian. He's bad in the ways that highlight the shortcomings of anarcho libertarianism. People aren't good and presented with opportunity, they act quickly to aggrandize themselves using whatever means are necessary.

jessaustin 13y ago
People aren't good and presented with opportunity, they act quickly to aggrandize themselves using whatever means are necessary. Fascinating. I agree completely with that statement, indeed it is the foundation of my ethical and political philosophy, and yet it is the first of yours I've seen with which I have agreed in the least. EDIT: Now I also see the "no cognitive dissonance" statement you made below. Hmmm.
arto 13y ago
Alledgedly calling out hits on people. Let's try and maintain at least the pretense of the principle of presumption of innocence, eh?
- tptacek 13y ago
  People are presumed innocent in the criminal justice system. It's also important that the press be cautious about drawing conclusions. But individuals uninvolved in the case are not required to genuflect to a presumption of innocence.
  - arto 13y ago
    You're free to do as you please, but I for one believe the presumption of innocence to be a useful stance both in the courtroom as well as beyond it; particularly so when the accuser is a party known to have previously routinely lied in order to secure false convictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Laboratory#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Laboratory#Controversy
13y ago