Nostr Web Client

The amount of bullshit being spewed here today is incredible.

I love you guys but.

Why am I not buying that Ross Ulbritch is the hero you all think, say, believe, are selling as, or pretend to be.

More often than not, I root for the little guy. More often than not I believe the government plays games with people’s freedoms, money and dreams.

While I still have much to read and learn about the man’s full story, what I’ve learned so far is that he helped create systems and protocols that were extensively used for bad dealings in the dark net.

What am I missing ?

A pardon by donal trunk is nothing but a stamp of approval that asserts you possibly were in fact on the wrong side of goodness to humanity…

Yeah this is a big L and frankly embarrassing. You have to divorce your brain from reality to believe giving people heroine and meth is a good idea.

He didn’t “give” them heroine. He created a system that gave them the choice to buy it if they want.

There is good reason why he didn’t use dollars or the regular internet. He knew it was fully illegal to facilitate drug trafficking. It’s illegal because drugs ruin people’s lives and kill them. Go talk to someone who works at a medical examiner’s office and runs toxicology. All day everyday they deal with adults and children who are dead thanks to the substances sold on the site. Go check out skid row and see what they’re smoking. Go visit the psych wards and check out the people who are completely incapable of living a normal life due to a benzo dependency.

Drugs have an enormous, almost unbearable cost to society. California specifically has spent billions to solve a homelessness problem. A sizable portion of the chronically homeless have substance abuse issues. It’s almost impossible to help someone shooting up heroine or smoking meth and fentanyl. Trust me, they’re trying and it’s not working.

Maybe you don’t have to face the realities of the things I’ve mentioned in your daily life. Perhaps you’re sheltered and naive to extreme suffering and destruction of addiction.

However, you’re not going to weasel him out of his very real involvement and responsibility from a moral perspective. His site trafficked a metric shit ton of drugs. People know what he did and they are not thrilled.

Deny, deny, deny all you want, but he was a pivotal and essential participant in the entire operation.

Shouldn’t people be given the freedom to choose what they want to consume at their own risk?

I want to understand the underlying principle you are operating on - is it the assumption that you know better than some people about what’s good for them so you deny them the freedom to choose for themselves?

It’s a reasonable stance, just own it

Fentanyl, meth, heroine and benzos specifically are extremely destructive. People with those specific addictions are not acting in a rational fashion. EVERYONE knows you shouldn’t use this stuff, but people still do. Even the addicts know they shouldn’t use it, but they still do. They actually can’t stop. That’s how addictions work. Then they die. You clearly do not understand addiction and have no firsthand experience with it.

You’re arguing an insane position because you do not understand pragmatism. If I wanted to destroy a nation from within, I’d encourage them to adopt your public health policy around drugs.

I have a homework assignment for you. Go to your local narcotics anonymous meeting. Talk to some people. Ask them if they wish they never had access to drugs to begin with. Actually listen to them and what they have to say.

You are avoiding my question.

A person decides he wants to use meth -

is it the assumption that you know better than him about what’s good for him so you deny him the freedom to choose for himself ?

Asked and answered, like a week ago. I support existing laws in my local jurisdiction banning meth.

If you are curious on what drug laws are, how they are formed, how they can be changed, or why they exist, there’s plenty of material available. Try looking into the opium wars if you’re curious on why drug laws are important.

Again- is it the assumption that you know better than him about what’s good for him so you deny him the freedom to choose for him? Can you answer this directly for once?

My guy, you seem to fail to understand how a functioning society works at its most basic level. There are these things, called laws. They exist because usually those with wisdom and experience from running previous generations of surviving families, towns, cities, and nations understood a basic set of rules leads to a survivable and desirable outcome. People who wish to live in lawless areas of our earth tend not to survive. You can move to the middle of the jungle and nobody is gonna enforce any laws. You’re also not going to benefit from a group of cooperating humans working to keep you alive. So take your pick.

Your position tends to be there should be no laws, specifically around drugs, because you perceive that as one individual telling another what they can and cannot do. In your concocted scenario, it’s me specifically telling the entire world what they can or cannot do. What you’re failing to comprehend is laws are a shared set of customs among a group of people. They ensure this group is one you want to live in. Different groups have different laws.

I already answered your question. The laws I adhere to in this specific case are clearly for the better and I support them. If there were no laws, I would lobby those I live around to agree to establish some for the benefit of my neighbors and their families. In that fictitious scenario, it’s me and the other people I live and work with coming to some sort of agreement on what the laws are. This is known as “politics.”

If you cannot comprehend the concept of laws, I do not know what to tell you.

Ok, so if Ross’ Silk Road customers would move to a different state in which they declare drug exchange and consumption legal, would you want to jail them too?

What if they just move to an isolated town, would you want to jail them then?

What if they stay in their homes but exchange privately through the internet?

That is where I conclude that this experiment is still a work in progress. Technologies can exist and they can be developed. They simply cannot and must not, be used to break laws. Simple.

I don’t understand. Can you answer the questions I asked more directly

We create laws to protect societies and no technology should simply hide people’s doings from the law. Simple.

Still hasn’t answered my questions. That’s some talent

I tried.

No freely willie for all Vincent.

There are rules everywhere and they must be followed.

Why they must be followed? At any situation?

Yes you do Vincent.

The freedoms you and I aspire to are the same Vincent. The difference to get there comes with great responsibility. It takes maturity to understand its blessings and its curses. It takes unwritten codes of conduct and rules of respect to what is harmful to society and its chances to thrive and prosper.

Children for example, ought to get protected by us adults, agree?

There are plenty of bad adults in this crazy world of ours and they want to use our freedoms for harm. Agree?

That is where the guardrails come for our working societies. Can you understand that?

Not every child is born with protecting adults by their side and that is why we work as communities looking out for each other. That is why we set boundaries and jurisdictions. Because everyone needs to be able to see where the line is before they can cross it without consequences.

Bitcoin and the blockchain too can serve as a set of guardrails for the likes of lunatic and potentially tyrannic leaders, like donal dunk, for whom check and balances are not enough, and they need to see the world can go on and operate on alternative networks that are civil and respectful of the principles by which humans prosper and thrive.

I want freedom of choice, as long as there is a world that can provide the options. Not the freedom that destroys it.

Yes you do what? Know better than him what’s best for him? Yes, I guess that’s possible.

Where do you draw the line about deciding what’s good for other people?