Silk Road: anonymous marketplace. Feedback requested :) - page 20.

ene

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: BitterTea on June 06, 2011, 01:10:52 PM

It's none of your business or mine, only that of the child and guardian.

In exactly the same way, I consider religious indoctrination to be a form of child abuse, but its none of my business if others indoctrinate their children into their choice of religion.

So you support people's right to abuse their children? I think you're exaggerating when you say you consider religious indoctrination to be a form of child abuse.

Phenomenon

newbie

Activity: 29

Merit: 0

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 12:33:17 PM

Note about eliminating govt, it's often a choice of evils. Shall we surrender civil society to blood-thirsty thugs, as is happening right now in parts of Mexico and Latin America? Is that our future? Somebody is going to control (and profit) from drugs no matter what. Perhaps SR is something of a stepping-stone out of this quagmire. I'd be interested on what, if any, role they envision for govt. if there were to be significant changes to current laws. Or, does Silk Road consider itself above the law?

First of all I do not speak for Silk Road or for Bitcoin, as I am not affiliated directly with either.

Second of all, I reject as false your assertion that eliminating government is "often a choice of evils" and would involve "surrender[ing] civil society to blood-thirsty thugs". What is happening in Mexico and Latin America is a direct result of the government attempting to regulate something and being completely ineffective at it, which is causing mayhem. Furthermore, if you think up all of the worst oppressions and "blood-thirsty thugs" that have plagued humanity over the course of history, you will find that the majority of them were governments. In fact the most prosperous and happy societies in history were those with the most limited forms of government.

This has proceeded sufficiently off-topic now however that I will no longer reply to this train of thought in this thread, however if you wish to discuss how you think that government is necessary to save us all from the "blood-thirsty thugs", please feel free to create another thread and PM me the link. I'd love to stop by.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 01:02:32 PM

While I don't suggest SR or Bitcoin would actively participate in acts of overt violence. I still think we need to ask if selling tar heroin to a young teen isn't a from of violence in and of itself?

It's none of your business or mine, only that of the child and guardian.

In exactly the same way, I consider religious indoctrination to be a form of child abuse, but its none of my business if others indoctrinate their children into their choice of religion.

greenfloyd

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: BitterTea on June 06, 2011, 12:28:23 PM

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 11:39:19 AM

Seems to me government has already abandoned drug control

In what sense?

From Federal drug control spending by agency:

Quote

(Budget Authority in Millions) [...] FY 2010 Request [...] $15,069.1

15 billion FEDERAL dollars spent on drug control in the United States.

From FBI arrest statistics:

Quote

The highest arrest counts among the Part I and Part II offenses were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1,663,582 arrests), driving under the influence (estimated at 1,440,409), and larceny-theft (estimated at 1,334,933).

The arrest rate was 4,478.0 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants of the total estimated United States population. The arrest rate for violent crime (including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) was 191.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, and the arrest rate for property crime (including burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) was 571.1 per 100,000 inhabitants.

That second point isn't specifically drug related, but it's interesting to see that violent and property crimes account for a very small portion of the number of arrests (17%). Wonder what the rest were from...

Quote

the actual number of people caught and drugs interdicted are but a small fraction of the total consumer market.

That just means that their enforcement is not effective as per their stated goal. They can still be effective at ruining the lives of a significant percentage of the population simply for choosing to attain an altered state of consciousness or helping others do so.

Quote

A market SR and Bitcoin seem to embrace, despite the low-life thugs and psychopathic killers who populate it.

Utter bullshit. Using Silk Road dramatically lowers the chance of having a drug trade turn violent. Furthermore, its use of reputation, escrow, and arbitration dramatically lowers the chance of fraudulent behavior by either party.

I should have better qualified my comment. Yes the spending is outrageous, it's now over a trillion since Nixon first declared this stupid "war" back in 1972. Most of it a complete waste. Bear in mind the vast majority of drug users, manufactures and distributors go undetected and thus render the law unenforceable by any legitimate measure. That's not to suggest enforcement and imprisonment has not effected many, many people, with a disproportionate number being poor and minorities. This part is, of course, by design.

While I don't suggest SR or Bitcoin would actively participate in acts of overt violence. I still think we need to ask if selling tar heroin to a young teen isn't a from of violence in and of itself?

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 12:33:17 PM

Yes! That's exactly why I am seeking clarification from Silk Road, Bitcoin and anyone involved in the illegal drug market today. No one appears to be stepping forward, at least not yet, to give us an idea of where SR, etc. stand on the moral and ethical issues I and others have raised.

We are not Silk Road. Try talking to them. Bitcoin is not related to Silk Road, beyond being an enabling technology. None of us take any responsibility for what they are doing, nor are we responsible for trying to defend their position on anything.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 12:33:17 PM

Note about eliminating govt, it's often a choice of evils. Shall we surrender civil society to blood-thirsty thugs, as is happening right now in parts of Mexico and Latin America? Is that our future?

You seem to lack a basic understanding of the cause of the cartels' rise to power. Let me give you a hint: they love the war on drugs. Governments around the world (urged/coerced by the U.S.) have made drugs illegal, essentially handing a monopoly of drug production and distribution to violent individuals.

Quote

Somebody is going to control (and profit) from drugs no matter what.

If the production, distribution, and use of all drugs is legal, legitimate businesses will form to fill these roles. They will be protected by police and/or private security. Look at alcohol prohibition and the end of the same in order to see how a market run by thugs is transitioned to a peaceful one once it is no longer forced underground.

Quote

Perhaps SR is something of a stepping-stone out of this quagmire. I'd be interested on what, if any, role they envision for govt. if there were to be significant changes to current laws. Or, does Silk Road consider itself above the law?

It is a stepping stone. The government will either end the prohibition of drugs or go bankrupt trying to fight against sites like Silk Road.

greenfloyd

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Phenomenon on June 06, 2011, 11:38:16 AM

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 11:16:09 AM

I don't want to encourage off-topic discussion here, although I think it's important that both Bitcoin and Silk Road deal with the legal and moral implications of their current business model. However, if it's an act of defiance against our screwed-up drug laws and NOT actually engaged in any transactions, I wholeheartedly support it. Yet, from what I've learned so far, that does not appear to be the case.

If you, Phenomenon, eliminate government's role in drug policy aren't you then simply advocating the status quo and encouraging the prison-industrial complex along with a host of other serious social, economic and humanitarian problems? Somebody is going to control the drugs. Who or what do you recommend?

By eliminating the government's role in drug policy I would be changing the current situation. By definition this would be the opposite of advocating the status quo, so i'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say.

As far as "encouraging the prison-industrial complex along with a host of other serious social, economic, and humanitarian problems", again, I am unsure of what you are trying to say. By removing government from the equation I am definitely not encouraging prisons of any sort. To the contrary, I am discouraging people from being sent to prison as observed by BitterTea. I am proposing that each person must bear the responsibility of deciding for themselves if they wish to consume drugs, alcohol, or other mind altering or even hazardous materials. Obviously parents would be responsible for their children. You are going to have to be more specific about all these "serious social, economic, and humanitarian problems" you foresee, because I don't see any except that people must take responsibility for their own persons and their own actions.

Yes! That's exactly why I am seeking clarification from Silk Road, Bitcoin and anyone involved in the illegal drug market today. No one appears to be stepping forward, at least not yet, to give us an idea of where SR, etc. stand on the moral and ethical issues I and others have raised.
It's a great item for debate, that much is for sure judging by recent events and this lively thread.

Note about eliminating govt, it's often a choice of evils. Shall we surrender civil society to blood-thirsty thugs, as is happening right now in parts of Mexico and Latin America? Is that our future? Somebody is going to control (and profit) from drugs no matter what. Perhaps SR is something of a stepping-stone out of this quagmire. I'd be interested on what, if any, role they envision for govt. if there were to be significant changes to current laws. Or, does Silk Road consider itself above the law?

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 11:39:19 AM

Seems to me government has already abandoned drug control

In what sense?

From Federal drug control spending by agency:

Quote

(Budget Authority in Millions) [...] FY 2010 Request [...] $15,069.1

15 billion FEDERAL dollars spent on drug control in the United States.

From FBI arrest statistics:

Quote

The highest arrest counts among the Part I and Part II offenses were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1,663,582 arrests), driving under the influence (estimated at 1,440,409), and larceny-theft (estimated at 1,334,933).

The arrest rate was 4,478.0 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants of the total estimated United States population. The arrest rate for violent crime (including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) was 191.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, and the arrest rate for property crime (including burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) was 571.1 per 100,000 inhabitants.

That second point isn't specifically drug related, but it's interesting to see that violent and property crimes account for a very small portion of the number of arrests (17%). Wonder what the rest were from...

Quote

the actual number of people caught and drugs interdicted are but a small fraction of the total consumer market.

That just means that their enforcement is not effective as per their stated goal. They can still be effective at ruining the lives of a significant percentage of the population simply for choosing to attain an altered state of consciousness or helping others do so.

Quote

A market SR and Bitcoin seem to embrace, despite the low-life thugs and psychopathic killers who populate it.

Utter bullshit. Using Silk Road dramatically lowers the chance of having a drug trade turn violent. Furthermore, its use of reputation, escrow, and arbitration dramatically lowers the chance of fraudulent behavior by either party.

FatherMcGruder

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitterTea on June 06, 2011, 11:19:07 AM

‽‽‽

The interrobang: I love it. However, you should only ever put one at the end of a sentence lest, as I understand it, you defeat part of its purpose, to reduce punctuation. That is, a single interrobang serves the purpose of a question mark followed by an exclamation point, halving the punctuation you'd otherwise require to convey such a tone.

But, I digress...

greenfloyd

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: BitterTea on June 06, 2011, 11:19:07 AM

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 11:16:09 AM

If you, Phenomenon, eliminate government's role in drug policy aren't you then simply advocating the status quo and encouraging the prison-industrial complex along with a host of other serious social, economic and humanitarian problems? Somebody is going to control the drugs. Who or what do you recommend?

What? If the government abandoned its drug control policy, who would be arresting people and putting them in jail for drug manufacture/distribution/use‽‽‽

That's a fair point. Although we are getting off-topic, i.e. Silk Road and Bitcoin. Seems to me government has already abandoned drug control, the actual number of people caught and drugs interdicted are but a small fraction of the total consumer market. A market SR and Bitcoin seem to embrace, despite the low-life thugs and psychopathic killers who populate it. You are known by the company you keep, my mother use to tell me.

Phenomenon

newbie

Activity: 29

Merit: 0

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 11:16:09 AM

I don't want to encourage off-topic discussion here, although I think it's important that both Bitcoin and Silk Road deal with the legal and moral implications of their current business model. However, if it's an act of defiance against our screwed-up drug laws and NOT actually engaged in any transactions, I wholeheartedly support it. Yet, from what I've learned so far, that does not appear to be the case.

If you, Phenomenon, eliminate government's role in drug policy aren't you then simply advocating the status quo and encouraging the prison-industrial complex along with a host of other serious social, economic and humanitarian problems? Somebody is going to control the drugs. Who or what do you recommend?

By eliminating the government's role in drug policy I would be changing the current situation. By definition this would be the opposite of advocating the status quo, so i'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say.

As far as "encouraging the prison-industrial complex along with a host of other serious social, economic, and humanitarian problems", again, I am unsure of what you are trying to say. By removing government from the equation I am definitely not encouraging prisons of any sort. To the contrary, I am discouraging people from being sent to prison as observed by BitterTea. I am proposing that each person must bear the responsibility of deciding for themselves if they wish to consume drugs, alcohol, or other mind altering or even hazardous materials. Obviously parents would be responsible for their children. You are going to have to be more specific about all these "serious social, economic, and humanitarian problems" you foresee, because I don't see any except that people must take responsibility for their own persons and their own actions.

hans030390

newbie

Activity: 8

Merit: 0

Now that government officials have publically mentioned their knowledge of Silk Road, what can they actually do about it, the people running it, and the people that use it? This isn't an area I have much knowledge in, so I'm interested to hear thoughts on this given that I think Silk Road is an excellent idea.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: greenfloyd on June 06, 2011, 11:16:09 AM

If you, Phenomenon, eliminate government's role in drug policy aren't you then simply advocating the status quo and encouraging the prison-industrial complex along with a host of other serious social, economic and humanitarian problems? Somebody is going to control the drugs. Who or what do you recommend?

What? If the government abandoned its drug control policy, who would be arresting people and putting them in jail for drug manufacture/distribution/use‽‽‽

greenfloyd

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Phenomenon on June 06, 2011, 09:39:10 AM

Quote from: Drifter on June 06, 2011, 09:29:45 AM

Guess what? There's parents like that out there arleady Shocked

. Ever see those vids of parents giving their kids weed or chain smoking cigarettes? I've seen one or two where the parents gave them ecstasy. The kid seems to slightly enjoy himself even, besides his eyes shooting back and forth. Uncommon, but it happens, and in those situations the child doesn't have options to say no. I guess some would say the courts have to decide if the child is mature enough or not to make the decision for himself? Hm. Tricky.

I don't believe anyone claimed that parents and children never make the wrong decision. However if your proposal is that the Government is more likely to make the correct decision then I will have to disagree wholeheartedly.

I don't want to encourage off-topic discussion here, although I think it's important that both Bitcoin and Silk Road deal with the legal and moral implications of their current business model. However, if it's an act of defiance against our screwed-up drug laws and NOT actually engaged in any transactions, I wholeheartedly support it. Yet, from what I've learned so far, that does not appear to be the case.

If you, Phenomenon, eliminate government's role in drug policy aren't you then simply advocating the status quo and encouraging the prison-industrial complex along with a host of other serious social, economic and humanitarian problems? Somebody is going to control the drugs. Who or what do you recommend?

greenfloyd

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: AllYourBase on June 06, 2011, 08:06:34 AM

I find your statement to be pretty offensive to so called "children". You are implying that they are completely helpless and have no ability to make decisions with consequences. In my book, if they can figure out how to use the internet, tor encryption, bitcoin, order something through SR, all without it being detected by anyone who cares to stop them, they are certainly mature enough to comprehend the consequences. Please consider that you are turning kids into bubble boy (if you've seen that movie).

Kids are often offended by restrictions imposed on them by parents and other adults. Kids also often think they are indestructible and know everything. Maturity, in many ways, is the awareness of your own mortality, and ignorance. Plenty of "smart" people, young and old, remain very immature. Especially when it comes to drugs.

Drifter

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 252

Quote from: Phenomenon on June 06, 2011, 09:39:10 AM

I don't believe anyone claimed that parents and children never make the wrong decision. However if your proposal is that the Government is more likely to make the correct decision then I will have to disagree wholeheartedly.

Point taken.

And sorry for the OT discussion. Carry on Grin

FatherMcGruder

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

I think we're getting a little OT up in here.

Phenomenon

newbie

Activity: 29

Merit: 0

Quote from: Drifter on June 06, 2011, 09:29:45 AM

Guess what? There's parents like that out there arleady Shocked

. Ever see those vids of parents giving their kids weed or chain smoking cigarettes? I've seen one or two where the parents gave them ecstasy. The kid seems to slightly enjoy himself even, besides his eyes shooting back and forth. Uncommon, but it happens, and in those situations the child doesn't have options to say no. I guess some would say the courts have to decide if the child is mature enough or not to make the decision for himself? Hm. Tricky.

I don't believe anyone claimed that parents and children never make the wrong decision. However if your proposal is that the Government is more likely to make the correct decision then I will have to disagree wholeheartedly.

Drifter

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 252

Quote from: Prze_koles on June 06, 2011, 09:23:16 AM

If you don't know such things, you shouldn't have children.

Guess what? There's parents like that out there arleady Shocked

. Ever see those vids of parents giving their kids weed or chain smoking cigarettes? I've seen one or two where the parents gave them ecstasy. The kid seems to slightly enjoy himself even, besides his eyes shooting back and forth. Uncommon, but it happens, and in those situations the child doesn't have options to say no. I guess some would say the courts have to decide if the child is mature enough or not to make the decision for himself? Hm. Tricky.

Phenomenon

newbie

Activity: 29

Merit: 0

Quote from: Drifter on June 06, 2011, 09:21:29 AM

How do you decide when they are mature enough?
Edit: To be more specific. How do I decide if a 7 year old is mature enough if they seem to want to do a certain drug?

Well if you are uncomfortable in deciding if a child is mature enough then why should you be pushing an agenda for a specific age? Perhaps you should let parents and children make their own decisions.

Topic: Silk Road: anonymous marketplace. Feedback requested :) - page 20. (Read 152817 times)