4 ms·

There is a huge moral difference between the sort of victimless-crime-contraband that is on SR (especially since SR1 at least, not sure about SR2, actively filt

There is a huge moral difference between the sort of victimless-crime-contraband that is on SR (especially since SR1 at least, not sure about SR2, actively filtered out child porn, weapons, assassinations and all of the other truly scary things that you can potentially sell on an anonymous market), and stealing millions of dollars from people at least a few of whom are dependent on substances and desperately need the money to get them in time. Also, it hasn't really happened yet, but vigilantes.

Touche 13y ago
> especially since SR1 at least, not sure about SR2, actively filtered out child porn, weapons, assassinations Except for when they needed those things.
jfasi 13y ago
Notice that morality doesn't have to have anything to do with this argument. As a matter of pragmatism, the operator of a Silk Road-type site is almost certain to harbor a conviction that he can do so without getting caught (regardless of whether the authorities have morality on their side). The same same goes for stealing from your customers: of course you won't get caught, what are your victims going to do? File a police report that the money they gave to a contraband site to presumably purchase contraband was stolen? The same conviction that makes it possible for them to operate Silk Road 2 makes it possible for them to steal from their customers.
- pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
  I think what he's trying to say that it's far less likely for a libertarian "legalize drugs" type of person to screw a bunch of people over. Like, when you facilitate selling drugs, there is no victim. Hell, you probably prevented having a victim. When you facilitate selling weapons/assassinations/child porn, there is a victim. The latter type of person would be more likely to victimize his/her customers than the former.
  - mbillie1 13y ago
    > Like, when you facilitate selling drugs, there is no victim. Ah, I'm pretty sure only libertarians feel this way...
    - pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
      This does not invalidate my point. Even though it may not be true, many people think that running a drug dealing website is for the betterment of society. It's less likely for the owners to rip its customers off and be the "bad guy".
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      You'd be wrong. Plenty of people on the left say the same thing.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      Hell no! I'm far from libertarian but the drug laws are a travesty and selling restricted substances is pretty much the definition of a victimless 'crime'. The myth of the first-hit-is-free, sell-at-the-school-gates 'pusher' is mostly just that, a myth. If you buy drugs you are not a victim. You may have problems and I believe that we should make government assistance available for those that do. However right now the state and its laws criminalise whole swathes of society for no good reason - there is no victim.
  - munificent 13y ago
    > it's far less likely for a libertarian "legalize drugs" type of person to screw a bunch of people over. Why? Does being libertarian somehow grant a +3 to morality?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- twelvechairs 13y ago
  please stop with this idle speculation. 'the operator... is almost certain to..."? give me a break. you don't know them and ametur hour psychology isn't going to contribute anything to the discussion.
freshfunk 13y ago
LOL @ "victimless-crime-contraband." What a joke. Where do you think the majority of drugs come from? Some hippie's backyard? See the world's stop producers of drugs and you'll find violent, broken countries many of whom are run by drug cartels.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  I suggest you think a bit harder about the causes and effects of this situation, because you seem to have them reversed.
  - Avshalom 13y ago
    How we got here is largely irrelevant to the very real fact that the drug trade is impossible to describe as victimless.
    - awakeasleep 13y ago
      That attempt at logic could be applied to any number of otherwise harmeless situations. It doesn't really hold up imo.
    - moheeb 13y ago
      It is not impossible. Some guy grows weed in his spare room and sells to his friend. No victim there.
      - jmagoon 13y ago
        That's certainly not the reality of the cocaine and heroin trade.
- QuiteMouse 13y ago
  Take this one further, and you might ask why it's all run by cartels. We make it profitable for them with prohibition. We give them the resources to wage these wars ourselves. The only reason this violent industry exists is because the government makes it that way with unjust laws. Tax and regulate just like alcohol and it will be run by normal non-violent people. Just like liquor stores. Prohibition has never and will never work.
hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
> between the sort of victimless-crime-contraband that is on SR Are you really that naive, or was that for the sake of your argument? There's no way the drugs they sell on SR come all from some dude's dorm room, specially if it's not weed, and if they want it to be a profitable business.

Touche 13y ago

> especially since SR1 at least, not sure about SR2, actively filtered out child porn, weapons, assassinations Except for when they needed those things.

jfasi 13y ago

Notice that morality doesn't have to have anything to do with this argument. As a matter of pragmatism, the operator of a Silk Road-type site is almost certain to harbor a conviction that he can do so without getting caught (regardless of whether the authorities have morality on their side). The same same goes for stealing from your customers: of course you won't get caught, what are your victims going to do? File a police report that the money they gave to a contraband site to presumably purchase contraband was stolen? The same conviction that makes it possible for them to operate Silk Road 2 makes it possible for them to steal from their customers.

pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
I think what he's trying to say that it's far less likely for a libertarian "legalize drugs" type of person to screw a bunch of people over. Like, when you facilitate selling drugs, there is no victim. Hell, you probably prevented having a victim. When you facilitate selling weapons/assassinations/child porn, there is a victim. The latter type of person would be more likely to victimize his/her customers than the former.
- mbillie1 13y ago
  > Like, when you facilitate selling drugs, there is no victim. Ah, I'm pretty sure only libertarians feel this way...
  - pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
    This does not invalidate my point. Even though it may not be true, many people think that running a drug dealing website is for the betterment of society. It's less likely for the owners to rip its customers off and be the "bad guy".
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    You'd be wrong. Plenty of people on the left say the same thing.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Hell no! I'm far from libertarian but the drug laws are a travesty and selling restricted substances is pretty much the definition of a victimless 'crime'. The myth of the first-hit-is-free, sell-at-the-school-gates 'pusher' is mostly just that, a myth. If you buy drugs you are not a victim. You may have problems and I believe that we should make government assistance available for those that do. However right now the state and its laws criminalise whole swathes of society for no good reason - there is no victim.
- munificent 13y ago
  > it's far less likely for a libertarian "legalize drugs" type of person to screw a bunch of people over. Why? Does being libertarian somehow grant a +3 to morality?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
twelvechairs 13y ago
please stop with this idle speculation. 'the operator... is almost certain to..."? give me a break. you don't know them and ametur hour psychology isn't going to contribute anything to the discussion.

freshfunk 13y ago

LOL @ "victimless-crime-contraband." What a joke. Where do you think the majority of drugs come from? Some hippie's backyard? See the world's stop producers of drugs and you'll find violent, broken countries many of whom are run by drug cartels.

jessaustin 13y ago
I suggest you think a bit harder about the causes and effects of this situation, because you seem to have them reversed.
- Avshalom 13y ago
  How we got here is largely irrelevant to the very real fact that the drug trade is impossible to describe as victimless.
  - awakeasleep 13y ago
    That attempt at logic could be applied to any number of otherwise harmeless situations. It doesn't really hold up imo.
  - moheeb 13y ago
    It is not impossible. Some guy grows weed in his spare room and sells to his friend. No victim there.
    - jmagoon 13y ago
      That's certainly not the reality of the cocaine and heroin trade.
QuiteMouse 13y ago
Take this one further, and you might ask why it's all run by cartels. We make it profitable for them with prohibition. We give them the resources to wage these wars ourselves. The only reason this violent industry exists is because the government makes it that way with unjust laws. Tax and regulate just like alcohol and it will be run by normal non-violent people. Just like liquor stores. Prohibition has never and will never work.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago

> between the sort of victimless-crime-contraband that is on SR Are you really that naive, or was that for the sake of your argument? There's no way the drugs they sell on SR come all from some dude's dorm room, specially if it's not weed, and if they want it to be a profitable business.