5 ms·

> "No. And if you come after me, I will just turn you in to the feds." Ok so you're going to turn the other guy in to the feds for what exactly? How do you kn

> "No. And if you come after me, I will just turn you in to the feds." Ok so you're going to turn the other guy in to the feds for what exactly? How do you know this other guy? Why would him turning you in to the feds be a problem, unless you're doing something illegal? DPR: He this guy is doing something bad, arrest him! Feds: How do you know he's doing something bad? DPR: Well I run the Silk Road and he told me that if we didn't do something about this other guy, that HE was going to turn us in to you! Feds: Oh, okay well now you're definitely going to jail. So your clever arrangement whereby you're going to use the feds to get the guy threatening you to go to jail has now fallen flat on its face, because now you're both going to jail. Which is the thing that you were both trying to avoid in the first place. Why is the drug trade so violent? Because it exists outside the law and thus there's no one to arbitrate disputes (legally) and so people have to find their own resolution. Hence killing.

Retra 12y ago
It's not a clever argument, it's just the better of two options. If we are killing the guy because he might turn us in, then I should also just kill you because you've threatened to turn me in. There is no way that is a winning proposition for anybody, so it doesn't guarantee any safety for anyone. If you're willing to kill someone to avoid jail, you better believe I would be willing to turn you in if you've already decided to turn me in because I don't want to kill someone. If we DO kill them, then by the same logic, I should have you killed to. Threatening the person you are working with to "deal with threats" is just stupid. It just means you have to be dealt with as well.
s73v3r 12y ago
I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. They choose to employ violence, and as such, they are completely and 100% responsible for their actions.
- msandford 12y ago
  > I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. I'm not saying violence in the ONLY answer, but it's definitely the only one that I can think of that doesn't involve them going to jail. They can't sue because the thing under dispute is an ill-gotten-gain and thus the court wouldn't adjudicate the issue that is for them at hand but instead put them both in jail for stealing. What are their other choices? Just suck it up and deal with the fact that they got screwed? Sure, but then the next time a robbery comes around, everyone knows that they can screw you and you'll just suck it up. Yay, free labor! That won't end badly for you will it? Maybe they can pre-negotiate a contract that specifies how a certain sum of money will be distributed but which doesn't specify how it comes to be? Why would a law-abiding person write such a contract? Take them to court and you might win, but the police might investigate and again you're both in jail. I'm not saying that there is no possible alternative ever, but your simply asserting that something is true and then providing absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim isn't terribly convincing.
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    "Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. " I never said they had recourse through the courts. I said they're adults, and are perfectly capable of settling disputes among themselves without resorting to violence. If they choose to resort to violence, that's entirely their fault, and no one else can be blamed for that.
    - msandford 12y ago
      According to that logic we don't need courts, police, government, etc at all. I think it's a great idea, but practically speaking it's not awesome. I like the idea of a microkernel government better than the monolithic thing that we currently have, where you can subscribe to police and fire and whatever. I'd prefer that the government mostly provide courts and a system by which other areas of natural monopoly are better managed (like roads, utilities, etc). But to suggest that we don't need a government at all is pretty radical. If you can't see that "I said they're adults, and are perfectly capable of settling disputes among themselves without resorting to violence" leads DIRECTLY to the government isn't really necessary, then I don't know what to say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Retra 12y ago

It's not a clever argument, it's just the better of two options. If we are killing the guy because he might turn us in, then I should also just kill you because you've threatened to turn me in. There is no way that is a winning proposition for anybody, so it doesn't guarantee any safety for anyone. If you're willing to kill someone to avoid jail, you better believe I would be willing to turn you in if you've already decided to turn me in because I don't want to kill someone. If we DO kill them, then by the same logic, I should have you killed to. Threatening the person you are working with to "deal with threats" is just stupid. It just means you have to be dealt with as well.

s73v3r 12y ago

I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. They choose to employ violence, and as such, they are completely and 100% responsible for their actions.

msandford 12y ago
> I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. I'm not saying violence in the ONLY answer, but it's definitely the only one that I can think of that doesn't involve them going to jail. They can't sue because the thing under dispute is an ill-gotten-gain and thus the court wouldn't adjudicate the issue that is for them at hand but instead put them both in jail for stealing. What are their other choices? Just suck it up and deal with the fact that they got screwed? Sure, but then the next time a robbery comes around, everyone knows that they can screw you and you'll just suck it up. Yay, free labor! That won't end badly for you will it? Maybe they can pre-negotiate a contract that specifies how a certain sum of money will be distributed but which doesn't specify how it comes to be? Why would a law-abiding person write such a contract? Take them to court and you might win, but the police might investigate and again you're both in jail. I'm not saying that there is no possible alternative ever, but your simply asserting that something is true and then providing absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim isn't terribly convincing.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  "Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. " I never said they had recourse through the courts. I said they're adults, and are perfectly capable of settling disputes among themselves without resorting to violence. If they choose to resort to violence, that's entirely their fault, and no one else can be blamed for that.
  - msandford 12y ago
    According to that logic we don't need courts, police, government, etc at all. I think it's a great idea, but practically speaking it's not awesome. I like the idea of a microkernel government better than the monolithic thing that we currently have, where you can subscribe to police and fire and whatever. I'd prefer that the government mostly provide courts and a system by which other areas of natural monopoly are better managed (like roads, utilities, etc). But to suggest that we don't need a government at all is pretty radical. If you can't see that "I said they're adults, and are perfectly capable of settling disputes among themselves without resorting to violence" leads DIRECTLY to the government isn't really necessary, then I don't know what to say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence