3 ms·

Don't marginalize people by their age. That's not an argument.

by tempeh 13y ago

aric 13y ago
Ageism is never good. However, it perhaps helps to explain his or her mentality. Conflating law with ethics is probably more likely in younger people given the dynamics of authority, or so it seems to me. There's obviously no shortage of people of all ages who are prone to equating [an authority that commands obedience] with [an authority of subjective moral validity]. As any struggle for freedom and liberation movement throughout history will attest, the dynamics of law vs. ethics are often in deep conflict. Time after time, subservient people who "just follow orders" obey cruelty. Heroes resist and are sacrificed. I digress. In the context of the drug war and voluntary interactions among consenting people, [illegal] markets are the logical way to maintain liberation and resistance to [legal] tyranny.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > Conflating law with ethics is probably more likely in younger people given the dynamics of authority, or so it seems to me. Assuming that somebody progresses through Lawrence Kohlberg's 'stages of moral development' in order as they develop, that seems reasonable. However, the development of this system seems to be evidence that the author does not conflate ethics and the law. Trading drugs is presumably illegal in the authors jurisdiction, yet the author presumably believes themself to be acting ethically in the development of a system that facilitates the trade of drugs. If the author were conflating the law and morality, then he likely would not develop this system because it would facilitate illegal(therefore immoral) behavior. This does not seem to be the case; the author seems to be capable of separating morality and legality.
  - aric 13y ago
    I'm not sure if you're mistaken about who I'm referring to. My reply was in continued reference to the poster who called the mere act of posting about SR 2.0 "inappropriate." > pfraze: "This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. ... Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law. Otherwise, expect to be treated as a criminal." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947 Equating resistance of tyranny, and even the discussion surrounding it, as being "inappropriate" alone exemplifies, at least partially, the conflation of authority with a moral imperative. Then he or she makes this clear by blatantly suggesting that the only [appropriate] method of resistance is limited to the context of authority. That's patently absurd, of course. In any real-world application of people attempting to liberate themselves conscientiously, wherever law is oppressing them, usually they cannot attempt to do so without serious action, resistance, and cultural pressure: not remaining shackled. Free action breaks barriers. It creates a social impetus for the increase of people to follow and change to occur (culturally or legally).
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > "I'm not sure if you're mistaken about who I'm referring to." Yes, I was mistaken.
      - aric 13y ago
        I was mistaken too. I didn't realize the person was referring to the OP/author of the article.
    - pfraze 13y ago
      Ok. I think it's very unwise to do this given it's how DPR just got busted. You can disagree or not, but this is a question of consequence, not political theory. If you don't think publishing a project called Silk Road 2.0 will get you on a watch list, then ok. If you think this is the way to organize against the state, then good luck. But if you think this is just the comments section, and nothing's really going to come of it, then here's what I have to say: DPR doesn't have millions of people rallying for him-- because he was a drug dealer. He put a hit out on an employee, and he made $80million by taking a cut. There is no more clear way to flaunt the law than to do it for a large profit, and that's what he did. Whether he used Tor and Bitcoin or kept a notebook ledger and walked between houses, his message would be the same: that'll be 5%, please. Free action does indeed break barriers, and new technologies change the world, but if there were ever an industry that got better treatment by a government, US Tech would be it. I don't have a problem with fighting oppression. I have a problem with squandering privilege while tying yourself to the oppressed. If you are in this conversation and you're not afraid of ramifications, yes, you have a privilege. Sorry to be rough about it. Just how I feel.
      - aric 13y ago
        Privilege? People of "privilege" are often in the class doing the destroying. Our opinions may be diametrically opposite. The only people "squandering" anything are the ones who enjoy parts of liberation, and agree with it, yet aren't even willing to at least stand in vocal solidarity with those who actually fight for it. The only ones who "squander" anything squeeze as much opportunity as they can out of freedoms and stand silent, from complacency or from fear, while civil liberties are destroyed. People rejecting oppression and acting upon what they know is right are doing the opposite of squandering. One of the great lessons to nurture a skeptical mind is to learn to question everything. Question everything. Question everything especially when it's in the face of those who stake a claim to authority. Often the people who seize authority are people most eager to dominate and objectify others, and to blindly follow abusive orders. The DoJ and state entities, as it happens, are motivated by political victory, increased funding, and indirect monetary backing from corporate entities with ulterior motives. Impartiality doesn't exist, and is near nonexistent without a lot of money. "Truth" is rarely a motivating factor unless it's convenient. The US justice system is rotten in countless aspects. This especially includes the FBI. We can agree that it's good to not become a useless pawn or useless martyr to them when wise options exist. However, a voluntary market is a peaceful, wise option for many people. Yes, the system is still primed to threaten, cage, and destroy people who engage in it. It is that system and appeasers who should be vilified, not peaceful people. They are not "squandering." They are merely trying to live their lives. You assume that DPR "put a hit on someone." Very little of what was chatted about makes sense whether or not the transcripts are accurate and attributable to him (and not someone else). To my distant vantage, the transcript suggests the person thought he was talking to a fake and was essentially toying with the fake; on the internet, we're all super heroes and can say anything extreme, facetiously. Who knows... Wise is the one who continually perceives and questions. Ignorant and careless is the one who swiftly reaches judgment.

Don't marginalize people by their age. That's not an argument.

by tempeh 13y ago

Don't marginalize people by their age. That's not an argument.

aric 13y ago

Ageism is never good. However, it perhaps helps to explain his or her mentality. Conflating law with ethics is probably more likely in younger people given the dynamics of authority, or so it seems to me. There's obviously no shortage of people of all ages who are prone to equating [an authority that commands obedience] with [an authority of subjective moral validity]. As any struggle for freedom and liberation movement throughout history will attest, the dynamics of law vs. ethics are often in deep conflict. Time after time, subservient people who "just follow orders" obey cruelty. Heroes resist and are sacrificed. I digress. In the context of the drug war and voluntary interactions among consenting people, [illegal] markets are the logical way to maintain liberation and resistance to [legal] tyranny.

jlgreco 13y ago
> Conflating law with ethics is probably more likely in younger people given the dynamics of authority, or so it seems to me. Assuming that somebody progresses through Lawrence Kohlberg's 'stages of moral development' in order as they develop, that seems reasonable. However, the development of this system seems to be evidence that the author does not conflate ethics and the law. Trading drugs is presumably illegal in the authors jurisdiction, yet the author presumably believes themself to be acting ethically in the development of a system that facilitates the trade of drugs. If the author were conflating the law and morality, then he likely would not develop this system because it would facilitate illegal(therefore immoral) behavior. This does not seem to be the case; the author seems to be capable of separating morality and legality.
- aric 13y ago
  I'm not sure if you're mistaken about who I'm referring to. My reply was in continued reference to the poster who called the mere act of posting about SR 2.0 "inappropriate." > pfraze: "This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. ... Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law. Otherwise, expect to be treated as a criminal." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947 Equating resistance of tyranny, and even the discussion surrounding it, as being "inappropriate" alone exemplifies, at least partially, the conflation of authority with a moral imperative. Then he or she makes this clear by blatantly suggesting that the only [appropriate] method of resistance is limited to the context of authority. That's patently absurd, of course. In any real-world application of people attempting to liberate themselves conscientiously, wherever law is oppressing them, usually they cannot attempt to do so without serious action, resistance, and cultural pressure: not remaining shackled. Free action breaks barriers. It creates a social impetus for the increase of people to follow and change to occur (culturally or legally).
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > "I'm not sure if you're mistaken about who I'm referring to." Yes, I was mistaken.
    - aric 13y ago
      I was mistaken too. I didn't realize the person was referring to the OP/author of the article.
  - pfraze 13y ago
    Ok. I think it's very unwise to do this given it's how DPR just got busted. You can disagree or not, but this is a question of consequence, not political theory. If you don't think publishing a project called Silk Road 2.0 will get you on a watch list, then ok. If you think this is the way to organize against the state, then good luck. But if you think this is just the comments section, and nothing's really going to come of it, then here's what I have to say: DPR doesn't have millions of people rallying for him-- because he was a drug dealer. He put a hit out on an employee, and he made $80million by taking a cut. There is no more clear way to flaunt the law than to do it for a large profit, and that's what he did. Whether he used Tor and Bitcoin or kept a notebook ledger and walked between houses, his message would be the same: that'll be 5%, please. Free action does indeed break barriers, and new technologies change the world, but if there were ever an industry that got better treatment by a government, US Tech would be it. I don't have a problem with fighting oppression. I have a problem with squandering privilege while tying yourself to the oppressed. If you are in this conversation and you're not afraid of ramifications, yes, you have a privilege. Sorry to be rough about it. Just how I feel.
    - aric 13y ago
      Privilege? People of "privilege" are often in the class doing the destroying. Our opinions may be diametrically opposite. The only people "squandering" anything are the ones who enjoy parts of liberation, and agree with it, yet aren't even willing to at least stand in vocal solidarity with those who actually fight for it. The only ones who "squander" anything squeeze as much opportunity as they can out of freedoms and stand silent, from complacency or from fear, while civil liberties are destroyed. People rejecting oppression and acting upon what they know is right are doing the opposite of squandering. One of the great lessons to nurture a skeptical mind is to learn to question everything. Question everything. Question everything especially when it's in the face of those who stake a claim to authority. Often the people who seize authority are people most eager to dominate and objectify others, and to blindly follow abusive orders. The DoJ and state entities, as it happens, are motivated by political victory, increased funding, and indirect monetary backing from corporate entities with ulterior motives. Impartiality doesn't exist, and is near nonexistent without a lot of money. "Truth" is rarely a motivating factor unless it's convenient. The US justice system is rotten in countless aspects. This especially includes the FBI. We can agree that it's good to not become a useless pawn or useless martyr to them when wise options exist. However, a voluntary market is a peaceful, wise option for many people. Yes, the system is still primed to threaten, cage, and destroy people who engage in it. It is that system and appeasers who should be vilified, not peaceful people. They are not "squandering." They are merely trying to live their lives. You assume that DPR "put a hit on someone." Very little of what was chatted about makes sense whether or not the transcripts are accurate and attributable to him (and not someone else). To my distant vantage, the transcript suggests the person thought he was talking to a fake and was essentially toying with the fake; on the internet, we're all super heroes and can say anything extreme, facetiously. Who knows... Wise is the one who continually perceives and questions. Ignorant and careless is the one who swiftly reaches judgment.