The people in the suits that write things on paper have the "right" to kidnap you because they have more guns and weapons at their disposal than you do.
That is the only thing that matters.
Absolutely. But these people have actually managed to convince us that their doing so is somehow legitimate/acceptable, simply by calling themselves "authority"! If I force you to do something at gunpoint, that's wrong, but if I'm "authorized" by other people who call themselves "government," then it's OK!
Can someone who believes Shrem got what he deserved explain what he did wrong, morally?
What Shrem deserve is up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else. Moreover, he did not made anything morally wrong. This is not about his moral views, this is about the agreement he made with the authorities. He promised to comply with certain requirements and failed to keep up with the promise. In other words, he agreed to play by certain rules and was caught cheating. Now a court of justice will decide what punishment he will receive. I personally think he will not be jailed. He is going to be offered the opportunity to help the authorities collect evidence to build other cases. The authorities know that is much better having him around to help them rather than having he locked in a jail for the next decades.
Your argument is premised in the idea that it's OK for "the authorities" (i.e. people who believe they have the right to initiate violent action against others who don't have that right) to kidnap anyone they want and THEN put them through a trial to decide their fate. Imagine that YOU were kidnapped for failure to comply with some bullshit regulation, and people then say "it's up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else, what Augusto Croppo deserves."
Also implicit in your argument is the idea of a fair trial in the American "justice system," a preposterous notion on numerous levels.
If they allow him, Shrem will pay much of his earned money for his freedom. He'll probably accept a plea bargain rather than face 25 years in a cage. You seem to think they will turn Shrem into a rat, so that he can help them hurt other innocent people. I would hope Shrem has more integrity than that.
If Nike shoes were illegal to purchase, then yes I would say hunt the "shoe buyers" down. But it isn't illegal.
Is there no other consideration in your thinking? No morality, right or wrong, that kind of thing? Just what the government father figure says? Please answer this question, BCX.
I don't think any of us would say that Shrem wasn't being irresponsible by risking his company. He also could have avoided this. However, that's not to say that it's his FAULT this happened. If someone from the mafia comes and says you'll do what they say or die, and you disobey and are killed as a result, you could have avoided it. The point where you start being stupid is when you start praising the oppressor, basically saying he had it coming. Just because you're warned that doing something that harms absolutely no one will get you thrown in a rape cage for a long time does not make it okay that it's being done.
+1
Shrem underestimated the evil of the system he was getting himself into, as can be seen by his unencrypted emails giving a pass to the activities of BTCKing. He could not have imagined facing 25 years in a cage for "failing to submit a suspicious activity report."