Topic: Why didn't the government leave Silk Road open... - page 2. (Read 3642 times)

Im not thinking drugs are the main reason Russia china clipped BTC wings.
Decentralization global movement of assets more a probability

Anything that government is doing isn't really helping or wasn't intended to help anyone at all. The drug war and war on terrorism is pretty much pointless. But this comes down to the same subject, and we keep going in circles.

Yes they have. It's been banned more or less. What did they achieve with this ban? Pretty much nothing. No amount of drugs was left unsold due to Bitcoin not being available in Russia.

Why would they want people to withdraw their coins?  They made plenty of money by STEALING the coins and reselling them to Second Market and Tim Draper lol

Yes because while Silk Road was open for business, all drug crime on our streets stopped didn't it.

because those bitcoin were used for illegal stuff too and also the amount of money was too high, i don't see other reasons


isn't russia already out of bitcoin, i heard it got banned there

anyway they can't "close" bitcoin, bitcoin is decentralized...this is one of the beauty about bitcoin...ineluctable

Their opinions don't matter regardless, but if someone in the government doesn't have a lot of drug use experience, it's sort of amusing that their opinions on the topic should matter. I'm less likely to trust anyone who doesn't acknowledge that getting fucked up is super badass.

Lets ask George Osborn THE UK CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER the second most powerful man in the UK his opinions on new laws

1, legalize all drugs
2, tax all drugs
3, tax prostitution

lol line them up George  
http://atrueindependentscotland.com/george-osborne-chancellor-exchequer-drug-addict/

This thread is ending WAY too often, guys. It's already ended twice and we're only on the second page. 

All sellers knowingly supported the Silk Road with their money therefore all of them are criminals regardless of their products.

/thread

I don't really support the idea of widespread private property outdoors in the trespassing sense. I find it to be a value that the offshoots of Europe (e.g. Canada, U.S., Australia, New Zealand, etc.) value more than the Europeans themselves. They are more likely to just freely roam around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

The nudity part doesn't even register with me as being worthy of discussion. But even if they were having a heroin-fueled orgy on the sidewalk, I would just walk around them and that would be that. I grew up around sex, sex toys, drugs, etc. and don't feel psychologically damaged or anything due to having that exposure. The urine you speak of would be concerning. Perhaps a decentralized urine-related ordinance in which people get allowances of x amount of emergency peeing outdoors in y amount of time? And/or perhaps allow unlimited public peeing provided that pee-collection devices are used. But private businesses could set their own rules concerning that.

Stomping out imagined bad behavior before it even exists is interfering with people's lives. If someone's imagination goes wild, that's their own personal issue and they shouldn't drag others into it (and people they don't even know at that). Pattern recognition can be a helpful tool to make sense of the world, but when it's used for making laws, that's called discrimination.

Nicely said. It is a illusion, but not a good one. It's quite obvious what they are doing. The people are ignorant, weak, foolish. I'm not surprised at all.

Let's say I hold money on Bitstamp. The agencies find out that Bitstamp was doing illegal things with the money, where do they get the right to take away my money just because I was holding it there? On the other hand, were there any legal items on Silk Road?

What do you think about a person who strips naked in the middle of a busy area and pees in public? Should they be allowed to do whatever they want if they're not in someone else's private property?

Doing drugs not only affects their immediate family, it affects the whole community, and a lot of drugs cause the air to stink for hours, as I've mentioned in an earlier post. Even if it didn't affect others I'd still think it's wrong, but to call it interfering with people's lives is quite simply ad hominem and red herring at the same time.

You're forgiven, but maybe just smoke a joint and chill with the whole interfering with people's lives thing.

Would you like to bold the other 3 words you left out?

Now, as I said in my previous post, morality/ethics isn't something you can prove with logic, there's no real objective truth in it. People have a different sense of morality, and I guess some people simply don't think that doing drugs is immoral. Perhaps some people don't think murder is wrong either, people have been killing each other for thousands of years. Personally I really can't accept either, and feel this way very strongly. But I guess my comments were overly provocative, for which I am sorry.

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

These drug laws are actually a hidden in plain sight revenue generating confiscation excuse.  Laws are thus created to pay the those who confiscate property.  

Your argument is akin to saying the government is forcing terrorists to resort to underground activities in order to build bombs for suicide bombings, etc. No they're not. They're saying you shouldn't be a terrorist.

Governments do their fair share of shameless activities, but this isn't one of them. It's too bad ethics can not be determined by logic alone, so I can't argue against your point that people can put whatever they want in their bodies, except to say that I disagree. It's extremely irresponsible and selfish. For example, you have to think about how it affects your children and family.

And besides that, it certainly affects others. The smell of marijuana lingers for hours and is absolutely disgusting. Well, I think it's marijuana, I'm not really sure since I know nothing about that kind of stuff. And the areas where there are many drug addicts are quite unpleasant. It really affects the community in a negative way.

Uh, no. My moral principle is to not support criminals harming people and their families. Just because my morals differ from yours doesn't mean I'm confusing legislation with morality.

I simply feel that it's wrong both in terms of being illegal and immoral. Too much freedom is a bad thing.

I think this may apply under "civil forfeiture", basically any asset you use or intend to use on illegal activity may be seized and taken away from you
in order to prevent misuse of goods.
It is funny however that they act concerned about individual funds of users "Funds held by users of the site, however, were not so well-protected" since im sure they dont care about
user safety in any way.

cheers

It's amazing how so many people confuse legislation with morality.

Ghandi's "Be the change you want to see in the world" quote comes to mind here. I'm too cheap to even buy recreational drugs, but I wouldn't be too cheap to make a donation to a nonprofit organization established to create and maintain a decentralized drug marketplace. Just on principle. For profit is fine, but I'm of course not donating to that.

What is shameless is the government forcing people to resort to the underground blackmarket for behavior which should be none of their business and certainly not a criminal matter. The government should have no authority over what adults may or may not choose to put into their bodies. The governments actually create these markets by default by dissalowing them in the first place. Clearly people want drugs and they should be able to get them.