4 ms·

I'm not an individualist and I'm a strong supporter of the Silk Road. Drug prohibition is just dumb policy; it doesn't work, it's expensive, it makes drugs more

I'm not an individualist and I'm a strong supporter of the Silk Road. Drug prohibition is just dumb policy; it doesn't work, it's expensive, it makes drugs more desirable for teenagers and it ends up causing more suffering than if they were completely legal. I'm hoping these anonymous marketplaces go mainstream to force politicians to start thinking about better ways to reduce drug use, such as education and rehab.

atmosx 13y ago
It's still an illegal non-taxed market-place. The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them. Of course his applies to the financial market also, regulating Wall Street would be a far better good (morally and financially) for the US than any SR clone out there. The right way to go, is to fight for your policies and vote for them when time comes. Not evading the law or hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it. On a positive note though, in countries like Netherlands iirc where many drugs are legal, people don't die on the street and drug (as in heroin) addicts have proper med-care if they chose to do so.
- a3voices 13y ago
  >The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them. That's a very controversial opinion. Do you disagree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics in the civil rights movement? "King was arrested and jailed early in the campaign—his 13th arrest[74] out of 29.[75]" - Wikipedia
- noarchy 13y ago
  Breaking/disregarding bad laws has sometimes been a very good way to see said laws changed or abandoned. It is probably a safe bet that millions in North America are disregarding drug laws, possibly every day. The black market in controlled substances is a thriving one, showing that many will accept the risks imposed by the State, and participate in that economy regardless. Since those in power are still to some extent at the mercy of needing the consent of those they rule, the people can make a powerful statement by refusing to comply.
- MarcusVorenus 13y ago
  Moderation in the pursuit of a better world is no virtue. As a consequentialist, I disagree with your premise that subverting bad laws is unethical behavior.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    Weirdly enough, or maybe not so weirdly enough, I agree with most of the assertions made here: It's unethical to subdue to a bad law. Ghandi and Marx supported this Thesis too. But then, we need to define what is a bad law. In this case I don't considering selling drugs, guns and illegal substances online ethical by any means. Not to mention the tax evasion which hurts all of us. So, what does "unethical" mean in this context? Can be universally measured somehow?
- VMG 13y ago
  > The right way to go, is to fight for your policies and vote for them when time comes. Why?
  - atmosx 13y ago
    Because prevents chaos from happening and chaos in my cosmo-theory is a bad thing for the human species.
- ksrm 13y ago
  >The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them. On the contrary, the mere fact that something is illegal does not make it unethical.
- blahbl4hblah 13y ago
  Other commenters have made the case very well...it is often been necessary to defy the law in order to force Government to accept responsibility for an unacceptable situation. I'm not really saying that this particular case is like the civil rights movement...just pointing out that your "law = ethical" statement just doesn't jive with history.
- zamryok 13y ago
  Different approaches to the question of "HOW to bring about change" (as opposed to just "WHAT change is needed") are the reason so many political tendencies exist. Your approach can be described as reformist, and it surely hasn't always proven to be the "right way to go" (other commenters have mentioned the civil rights movement). On the other hand, "hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it" is a strategy frequently adopted by anarchist, libertarian or autonomist trends that hope to create pockets of resistance outside the "system" and try to expand them to bring about change from the outside. I doubt that there is only one "right way to go" that applies to any situation, but I think that any tactic that can bring about a powerful long-term mass movement is more likely to succeed: for example in the case of the Civil rights movement mentioned, civil disobedience was only one of the methods used, along with discussions, massive marches, boycotts, threatening escalation, and alliances with certain people within the system who have more access to power and who supported the movement. Which brings me back to the OP's point: individualism vs. authority. Since I personally believe that building mass movements that support freedoms is the most effective way to protect them, individualism (as a method of organising) seems to be another obstacle to building a strong opposition to authority, and thus indirectly serving it.
- scottjad 13y ago
  MLKJr: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"

atmosx 13y ago

It's still an illegal non-taxed market-place. The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them. Of course his applies to the financial market also, regulating Wall Street would be a far better good (morally and financially) for the US than any SR clone out there. The right way to go, is to fight for your policies and vote for them when time comes. Not evading the law or hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it. On a positive note though, in countries like Netherlands iirc where many drugs are legal, people don't die on the street and drug (as in heroin) addicts have proper med-care if they chose to do so.

a3voices 13y ago
>The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them. That's a very controversial opinion. Do you disagree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics in the civil rights movement? "King was arrested and jailed early in the campaign—his 13th arrest[74] out of 29.[75]" - Wikipedia
noarchy 13y ago
Breaking/disregarding bad laws has sometimes been a very good way to see said laws changed or abandoned. It is probably a safe bet that millions in North America are disregarding drug laws, possibly every day. The black market in controlled substances is a thriving one, showing that many will accept the risks imposed by the State, and participate in that economy regardless. Since those in power are still to some extent at the mercy of needing the consent of those they rule, the people can make a powerful statement by refusing to comply.
MarcusVorenus 13y ago
Moderation in the pursuit of a better world is no virtue. As a consequentialist, I disagree with your premise that subverting bad laws is unethical behavior.
- atmosx 13y ago
  Weirdly enough, or maybe not so weirdly enough, I agree with most of the assertions made here: It's unethical to subdue to a bad law. Ghandi and Marx supported this Thesis too. But then, we need to define what is a bad law. In this case I don't considering selling drugs, guns and illegal substances online ethical by any means. Not to mention the tax evasion which hurts all of us. So, what does "unethical" mean in this context? Can be universally measured somehow?
VMG 13y ago
> The right way to go, is to fight for your policies and vote for them when time comes. Why?
- atmosx 13y ago
  Because prevents chaos from happening and chaos in my cosmo-theory is a bad thing for the human species.
ksrm 13y ago
>The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them. On the contrary, the mere fact that something is illegal does not make it unethical.
blahbl4hblah 13y ago
Other commenters have made the case very well...it is often been necessary to defy the law in order to force Government to accept responsibility for an unacceptable situation. I'm not really saying that this particular case is like the civil rights movement...just pointing out that your "law = ethical" statement just doesn't jive with history.
zamryok 13y ago
Different approaches to the question of "HOW to bring about change" (as opposed to just "WHAT change is needed") are the reason so many political tendencies exist. Your approach can be described as reformist, and it surely hasn't always proven to be the "right way to go" (other commenters have mentioned the civil rights movement). On the other hand, "hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it" is a strategy frequently adopted by anarchist, libertarian or autonomist trends that hope to create pockets of resistance outside the "system" and try to expand them to bring about change from the outside. I doubt that there is only one "right way to go" that applies to any situation, but I think that any tactic that can bring about a powerful long-term mass movement is more likely to succeed: for example in the case of the Civil rights movement mentioned, civil disobedience was only one of the methods used, along with discussions, massive marches, boycotts, threatening escalation, and alliances with certain people within the system who have more access to power and who supported the movement. Which brings me back to the OP's point: individualism vs. authority. Since I personally believe that building mass movements that support freedoms is the most effective way to protect them, individualism (as a method of organising) seems to be another obstacle to building a strong opposition to authority, and thus indirectly serving it.
scottjad 13y ago
MLKJr: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"