I think the author seems to believe in the techno-libertarian (I like that phrasing) idea of rights as absolute technical guarantees against government action i

I think the author seems to believe in the techno-libertarian (I like that phrasing) idea of rights as absolute technical guarantees against government action instead of legal ones. There is a significant difference between saying "No government should shut down..." and saying "No government should BE ABLE to shut down..." If you believe the former, then the shutdown of the Silk Road doesn't threaten the right to anonymous exchanges or communication any more than the police getting a warrant and searching the house of a murder suspect threatens my right to be secure in my house. But if you believe the latter, the shutdown of Silk Road IS a problem because it demonstrates that being able to technically and absolutely guarantee your ability to engage in anonymous exchanges might not be possible. In the same way that the police searching a suspect's house might trouble you if you believe that the right to be secure in your home means you should be able to physically prevent the police from getting in. It's an interesting concept, but one that becomes a little hard to justify when you look at what some people do with those absolute rights. The author's defense, that he doesn't support what they did but supports their right do it comes across, at least to me, like a cheap cop out (not to mention a bit nonsensical). I'm not so sure you can easily shrug off your Utopia leading to the Wild West by saying, "Well, I don't support the Wild West".