5 ms·

Let's not hide behind euphemisms. [EDIT2: OK, I agree that calling it the "FreeMarket" may be a wise move, it nevertheless reminded me a bit of the same game t

Let's not hide behind euphemisms. [EDIT2: OK, I agree that calling it the "FreeMarket" may be a wise move, it nevertheless reminded me a bit of the same game that the politicians play by using words like "criminal", "illicit", etc. in reference to the War on Drugs: manipulation via the negative connotation of words. If on the other hand, like Riseed pointed out in a reply below, what you're saying is that it's simply more accurate to call it a free market, then I agree, that's a strong stance to take.] We need to turn the tables on these politicians. The truth is that they are the inhumane ones. They are responsible for millions of deaths and atrocities thanks to their support of the War on Drugs. [EDIT3: for citations see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7656095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7656095 ] "Illicit goods"? How about illicit politicians? War criminals whose face is framed in your neighborhood government office? Call a spade a spade. The War on Drugs is a War on Humanity. It is literally responsible for more collective human suffering than the Holocaust. EDIT: Unfortunate to see fellow HN'ers downvoting me on this issue. Don't want to here it from me? Maybe you'll find Richard Branson and H.L. Mencken more appealing: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-dru...

tokenadult 13y ago
Politicians just by supporting current drug regulations are responsible for "millions of deaths"? Do you have evidence to back up that extraordinary claim? AFTER EDIT: I note a downvote for disagreement. So I will ask the obvious follow-up question. With what part of the two questions I originally posted do you disagree, and what facts and reasoning should I consider to change my opinion?
- itistoday2 13y ago
  Something many folks fail to realize is that the War on Drugs has origins dating back a century ago: [1] Although Nixon declared the War on Drugs public enemy number one in 1971,[14] the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914 During this time there have been many wars fought where a principle component of the reason for the war was the War on Drugs. In Mexico, the "official count" (always an underestimate) is now over 100k. [2] In Afghanistan, Opium has played a major role in almost every war and genocide, where deaths have exceeded several million. [3][4][5] You can do your own research for the number of deaths that the War on Drugs has caused in just about every country on the planet (Russia, China, all countries in South America, especially Columbia). Summed up "millions of deaths" is easily accounted for by bad drug-related policies. And that's not even counting all the drug-related deaths that are caused thanks to illicit drugs being illicit. How many people have blamed the deaths of their loved ones on "illegal drugs" when the truth is that it is the War on Drugs that killed their son, spouse, loved one? When you don't know what you're actually ingesting/smoking/injecting (as a consequence of the substances being illegal and not regulated), again the death toll leads to the millions. And then there's the number of lives ruined (not killed)... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#History [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War [3] https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ [4] http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270611.htm [5] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175225
  - tokenadult 13y ago
    Well, if you want to include the Opium Wars of Chinese history (which I am familiar with as a student of the history of China) as part of the "war on drugs," we have to realize that in those wars, the drug-pushers were the British colonialists, and the drug-prohibitors were the conquered Chinese officials of the Manchu-led Qing dynasty. And if you include all historical wars of that nature in your count, yeah, maybe you can reach a count of "millions" of people who have been killed in "wars on drugs" over the course of history. But then that has nothing to do with online networks related to Silk Road and the comment to which I first replied here has nothing to do with the submitted article. So take your pick. On my part, I have seen no evidence in this thread that a new secret online network for drug dealers will make the world a safer place for the masses. AFTER EDIT: I'm still not seeing any historical or transnational policy comparison support from reliable sources for the proposition that the original comment to which I asked two follow-up questions is factually correct in the context of this thread, which is about a proposal for a secure online network and not specifically about legalization of the sale of currently prohibited drugs.
    - itistoday2 13y ago
      I didn't include it, and you don't have to to get to millions within the past decade (it's also something for which accurate stats don't exist, so you have to estimate and combine the externalities). The citations I included are from recent history. Nor am I saying that this "DarkMarket" will make our lives safer. We need these drugs legalized and regulated on the open market. That would make all the difference.
eternalban 13y ago
You need to take a lesson from Ghandi and adjust accordingly: In my opinion: most people incorrectly read an axiomatic nature to the "non-violence" (revolutionary) approach of Ghandi. Ghandi was not a pacifist in the lay sense. He was a pacifist in the terms of Vedic consciousness and was a daily student of Bhagavad Gita; And that would prompt the question of why did he opt for non-violence as the 'correct' approach; And per my analysis, he did so because he recognized that the British Empire motivated its political balast -- from aristocracy down to plebe; whatever held it together -- by the declared shared justification that "we are civilizing the world."; And Ghandi basically put all of his forces towards attacking that notion; And by demonstrating (beyond argument) to balast of the British Empire that Ghandi and the Indian Nationalists were in fact more civilized than the Empire, he basically demoralized the affective corps of that Empire. That is why he won. In the current situation, the fraction of 1% that truly wield global power in our world view us nearly in sub-human terms. And the corporate mirror to the world -- under their control -- pretty much paints their opinion of "us". To take your example, the motivation for the policy decisions that are accepted by the current regime's 'political balast' -- these are the bright young things furnished by the scientific, academic, cultural, and economic mills -- is their (pretty accurate) assessment that without the police force, without the governing order, the un-washed brethren would eat them up like so much cake. So here, the internalized justification is that "at least this violence is policy driven and under control". If the layer under the elite balast -- that's the middle class -- demonstrates that they are thoughtful & capable of self determination and self ordering, then this order of things will collapse, just like the British Empire. So, it is entirely appropriate to remember that "a people get the government that they deserve".
- sivers 13y ago
  eternalban, that "more civilized than the Empire" line is the most interesting thing I've heard in a long time. Please email me.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    If you don't mind, and if you two actually have a discussion upon the topic, could you make a gist of it on github or something like that? I'm very much curious about conversation such as this, and maybe others will feel the same.
Riseed 13y ago
Perhaps I was reading too much into pmorici's comment. I understood it to say not only that "FreeMarket" would be a convenient name because it sounds like "free market", but also to say that such a place/site/network actually is the free market because if someone wants to buy X for $Y, and someone wants to sell X for $Y, then a transaction happens, end of story. In other words, "FreeMarket" is simply an honest and straightforward name for what it is (or strives to be).
- itistoday2 13y ago
  Thanks, I've updated my reply to reflect this. If that's what (s)he was saying, then that's actually a very strong position.
pmorici 13y ago
Your comment demonstrates perfectly why "DarkMarket" is a horrible name. You assumed we were discussing the market in the context of only drugs and went off on a rant about how you hate government drug policy. Now imagine if you held the view that the so called war on drugs was good policy and you can see why calling this thing DarkMarket sinks it before it can even get underway. You don't have to play the politicians word games but totally disregarding their MO is playing into their hand.

tokenadult 13y ago

Politicians just by supporting current drug regulations are responsible for "millions of deaths"? Do you have evidence to back up that extraordinary claim? AFTER EDIT: I note a downvote for disagreement. So I will ask the obvious follow-up question. With what part of the two questions I originally posted do you disagree, and what facts and reasoning should I consider to change my opinion?

itistoday2 13y ago
Something many folks fail to realize is that the War on Drugs has origins dating back a century ago: [1] Although Nixon declared the War on Drugs public enemy number one in 1971,[14] the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914 During this time there have been many wars fought where a principle component of the reason for the war was the War on Drugs. In Mexico, the "official count" (always an underestimate) is now over 100k. [2] In Afghanistan, Opium has played a major role in almost every war and genocide, where deaths have exceeded several million. [3][4][5] You can do your own research for the number of deaths that the War on Drugs has caused in just about every country on the planet (Russia, China, all countries in South America, especially Columbia). Summed up "millions of deaths" is easily accounted for by bad drug-related policies. And that's not even counting all the drug-related deaths that are caused thanks to illicit drugs being illicit. How many people have blamed the deaths of their loved ones on "illegal drugs" when the truth is that it is the War on Drugs that killed their son, spouse, loved one? When you don't know what you're actually ingesting/smoking/injecting (as a consequence of the substances being illegal and not regulated), again the death toll leads to the millions. And then there's the number of lives ruined (not killed)... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#History [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War [3] https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ [4] http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270611.htm [5] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175225
- tokenadult 13y ago
  Well, if you want to include the Opium Wars of Chinese history (which I am familiar with as a student of the history of China) as part of the "war on drugs," we have to realize that in those wars, the drug-pushers were the British colonialists, and the drug-prohibitors were the conquered Chinese officials of the Manchu-led Qing dynasty. And if you include all historical wars of that nature in your count, yeah, maybe you can reach a count of "millions" of people who have been killed in "wars on drugs" over the course of history. But then that has nothing to do with online networks related to Silk Road and the comment to which I first replied here has nothing to do with the submitted article. So take your pick. On my part, I have seen no evidence in this thread that a new secret online network for drug dealers will make the world a safer place for the masses. AFTER EDIT: I'm still not seeing any historical or transnational policy comparison support from reliable sources for the proposition that the original comment to which I asked two follow-up questions is factually correct in the context of this thread, which is about a proposal for a secure online network and not specifically about legalization of the sale of currently prohibited drugs.
  - itistoday2 13y ago
    I didn't include it, and you don't have to to get to millions within the past decade (it's also something for which accurate stats don't exist, so you have to estimate and combine the externalities). The citations I included are from recent history. Nor am I saying that this "DarkMarket" will make our lives safer. We need these drugs legalized and regulated on the open market. That would make all the difference.

eternalban 13y ago

You need to take a lesson from Ghandi and adjust accordingly: In my opinion: most people incorrectly read an axiomatic nature to the "non-violence" (revolutionary) approach of Ghandi. Ghandi was not a pacifist in the lay sense. He was a pacifist in the terms of Vedic consciousness and was a daily student of Bhagavad Gita; And that would prompt the question of why did he opt for non-violence as the 'correct' approach; And per my analysis, he did so because he recognized that the British Empire motivated its political balast -- from aristocracy down to plebe; whatever held it together -- by the declared shared justification that "we are civilizing the world."; And Ghandi basically put all of his forces towards attacking that notion; And by demonstrating (beyond argument) to balast of the British Empire that Ghandi and the Indian Nationalists were in fact more civilized than the Empire, he basically demoralized the affective corps of that Empire. That is why he won. In the current situation, the fraction of 1% that truly wield global power in our world view us nearly in sub-human terms. And the corporate mirror to the world -- under their control -- pretty much paints their opinion of "us". To take your example, the motivation for the policy decisions that are accepted by the current regime's 'political balast' -- these are the bright young things furnished by the scientific, academic, cultural, and economic mills -- is their (pretty accurate) assessment that without the police force, without the governing order, the un-washed brethren would eat them up like so much cake. So here, the internalized justification is that "at least this violence is policy driven and under control". If the layer under the elite balast -- that's the middle class -- demonstrates that they are thoughtful & capable of self determination and self ordering, then this order of things will collapse, just like the British Empire. So, it is entirely appropriate to remember that "a people get the government that they deserve".

sivers 13y ago
eternalban, that "more civilized than the Empire" line is the most interesting thing I've heard in a long time. Please email me.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  If you don't mind, and if you two actually have a discussion upon the topic, could you make a gist of it on github or something like that? I'm very much curious about conversation such as this, and maybe others will feel the same.

Riseed 13y ago

Perhaps I was reading too much into pmorici's comment. I understood it to say not only that "FreeMarket" would be a convenient name because it sounds like "free market", but also to say that such a place/site/network actually is the free market because if someone wants to buy X for $Y, and someone wants to sell X for $Y, then a transaction happens, end of story. In other words, "FreeMarket" is simply an honest and straightforward name for what it is (or strives to be).

itistoday2 13y ago
Thanks, I've updated my reply to reflect this. If that's what (s)he was saying, then that's actually a very strong position.

pmorici 13y ago

Your comment demonstrates perfectly why "DarkMarket" is a horrible name. You assumed we were discussing the market in the context of only drugs and went off on a rant about how you hate government drug policy. Now imagine if you held the view that the so called war on drugs was good policy and you can see why calling this thing DarkMarket sinks it before it can even get underway. You don't have to play the politicians word games but totally disregarding their MO is playing into their hand.