6 ms·
Gross miscarriage of justice. People have a right to buy drugs. Every single government actor involved in this case is far more guilty than Ross and, frankly,
by javert 11y ago
Gross miscarriage of justice. People have a right to buy drugs.
Every single government actor involved in this case is far more guilty than Ross and, frankly, they are the ones that deserve prison.
Yes, Ross should have realized you can't massively break the law and get away with it. He made a big mistake.
But the mistake he made was assuming that other people were more benevolent than they really are.
This young man viewed the world with a child-like, rosy-eyed perspective, and for that, he gets crushed by the boot of government brutality.
Disclaimer: I have no involvement with any dark nets or online drug trade.
edit: I don't know if he hired hitmen and if he did, I suspect it was in his own defense.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Gross miscarriage of justice. People have a right to buy drugs. Legally, they do not. If you have a problem with that, take it up with (relevant to the federal laws at issue here) the Congress.
- murbard2 11y agoThat's very unlikely to work, now what?
- Touche 11y agoNext step is probably not starting a drug empire.
- peeters 11y agoNow you continue to not have the legal right to buy illegal drugs.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> That's very unlikely to work, now what? Try harder, like by working to convince the public that such a right should exist, so that other people join you in your effort to convince Congress to change the law.
- murbard2 11y agoAlso very unlikely to work unless you happen to be extremely talented at this and spend your life doing it. And even then, it could take decades.
- dragonwriter 11y agoYes, radically changing everyone's idea about what rights should exist is hard. Of course, you haven't provided any argument here for your position on rights, just a bald statement that the right you would like to exist does, as if that were some kind of uncontroversial, universally-accepted thing that required no justification.
- murbard2 11y agoAnd you've made a bald statement equivocating between the morality of legality of something. Would you like a list of examples where extremely illegal actions are clearly and controversially moral, or can you think of historical examples yourself?
- dragonwriter 11y ago> And you've made a bald statement equivocating between the morality of legality of something. No, I haven't. "Equivocating" is, you know, pretty exactly the opposite of "expressly disambiguating". > Would you like a list of examples where extremely illegal actions are clearly and controversially moral Presuming you mean "clearly and uncontroversially", no. Though if you are arguing that "the right to buy drugs" is in that category, I'd like to see an argument for that.
- Cushman 11y agoThis comment defines the middlebrow dismissal. Unless you live in a jurisdiction where the purchase of narcotics is legal (Mars?) the meaning of "People have a right to buy drugs" is quite clear. In a world where the laws you invoke are responsible for so much suffering and death, to come in with a "Well, legally" and pretend the moral dimension does not exist is... well, I've already said what that is.
- mindslight 11y agoI'd say that people have the right to partake in whatever mind altering substances they'd like even if 95% of others disagree. Your appeal to democratic collectivism is fallacious. The rule of law and courts were supposed to protect such minorities (ie drug legalization through generalized privacy of Roe v Wade, and trade via the right to free speech). It's pretty fucked up that the legal system has rotted so thoroughly that the courts are harshly persecuting them while the majority of interested people dissent. Then again, much of that rot is due to the "war on drugs" and its underlying philosophy that people exist to serve their government.
- yarou 11y agoLegally, certain people were considered less equal than others. That doesn't make the law just in and of itself. As for having a right to drugs, every man has a right to do what they please with their body.
- dllthomas 11y agoOften times breaking a bad law, and helping others to break it, is an important step in moving public opinion, which is how you take it up with the Congress.
- wvenable 11y ago> People have a right to buy drugs. Actually they don't, which is kind of the point.
- javert 11y agoYes, they do, you just don't understand rights. Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it. So they're a human construct, but they're still objective.
- harryh 11y agoAnd of course you are perfectly rational and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong...
- argonaut 11y agoIronically, that definition of "rights" is subjective (most people would agree with you, but not all). And what you define as a "right" is also very subjective.
- eropple 11y agoIsn't it funny how the people who appeal to rationalism are the ones who happen to not manage it themselves? I mean, I'm not saying I'm rational, but I'm also not fronting about it. What "rational", of course, usually means, is "agreeing with me", and so there are so very many false Scotsmen in attendance.
- wvenable 11y ago> Yes, they do, you just don't understand rights. No, I think you're the one who doesn't seem to understand them. > Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it. We, as a society, have a system in place to work out this sort of thing. That system has already decided that we don't have this right. If you were in fact able to convince enough people that your position is the most rational then your available rights can be changed. Your argument is valid but your conclusion is wrong based on the available facts.
- 11y ago
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoHe hired a hitman. He's a sociopath, and a suitable candidate for life in prison.
- civilian 11y agoWhat makes him a sociopath?
- nemo44x 11y agoIf you are willing to consider murdering your business competition, you are probably a sociopath.
- mordocai 11y agoActually, considering something has nothing to do with being a sociopath. Neither does doing something. A lack of conscience is a hallmark of a sociopath. Killing someone does not make you a sociopath. Showing no signs of conscience over the killing points toward you being a sociopath.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoHe was sentenced to the maximum for consistently showing no remorse for any of his actions. Thus, sociopath.
- rudolf0 11y agoHe doesn't seem like a sociopath. More like a power-hungry narcissist. He expressed regret and hesitation multiple times over (what he thought were) the murders, but simply insisted "it had to be done". Not to detract from your point. I think he deserves life without parole for the attempted hits by themselves, ignoring every other charge. (Despite the fact that's not what he was convicted of.)