r/Anarcho_Capitalisppm discusses the Silk Road founder's hiring of a hitman. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
137 ups - 56 downs = 81 votes
388 comments submitted at 17:29:38 on Oct 3, 2013 by jh99
r/Anarcho_Capitalisppm discusses the Silk Road founder's hiring of a hitman. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
137 ups - 56 downs = 81 votes
388 comments submitted at 17:29:38 on Oct 3, 2013 by jh99
I can't deal with that thread. The OP starts off straight away by comparing the Nazi persecution of the Jews to people buying drugs online. It's too much for me to read.
That happens for me on this sub sometimes. I'll click on some piece of drama I've enjoyed plenty of times before - Nazi comparisons, rape vs. regret, whatever - and it just hits me the wrong way and I have to tap out and cruise /r/nfl for awhile or something.
Always a good choice
>So the question is analogous to the following one - if someone in Nazi Germany gave away the location of a hundred hiding Jews, would his actions be punishable by force? Or would this be totally cool by the NAP?
I cannot can. I have never be so unable to can before.
You have lost your ability toucan!!
> No, it's definitely a threat of murder. Any time you're threatening someone (or, in this case, over a thousand someones) with the cops, it's a threat of murder.
Que?
Because cops kill all the people they arrest and we live in a police state.
/s
We literally live in GTA.
It's not really drama, per se, but it is a good read.
>allow the state to catch thousands of innocent people
....
That may as well be the best summation of what all the conspiracy oriented subs said about the Snowden revelations.
I just don't understand how you can use the words "catch" and "innocent" together like that and not have your head explode.
Because to them the government doesn't have grounds to arrest people because these people are breaking laws they don't like.
It's sort of like when /r/politics was filled with "Let Bradley (or, more accurately, Chelsea) Manning go free!" because they were upset that she had been found guilty (and plead guilty to five charges before that) instead of being let go because /r/politics thought what she revealed was good and so the law could be ignored.
The problem you are having hinges on your definition of "innocent" - you are using it in the context of law (in which case, yes, there is a contradiction) whereas the AnCaps are using it in the context of morality.
Morally innocent (because they have done no harm in their drug usage) rather than legally innocent.
I hope that clears it up and allows you to understand things a bit better.
Some people don't understand the concept of the law being wrong. Its almost like Slavery never happened. And these are supposedly those fighting for "social justice". What a riot.
Innocent in this context meaning "innocent from wrong-doing", not "innocent according to the government".
Are they seriously arguing that he was justified in hiring a hitman? Jesus, these people are terrifying.
It’s like a reductio ad absurdum, except that instead of accepting that there must be something wrong with the precepts, they’ve embraced the absurdity.
24 words that perfectly sum up why 95% of the adult population has long since abandoned Libertarianism as a valid political belief.
Can you explain this a little? I feel like it should make sense, but it's not really clicking in my head.
Reductio ad absurdum, "reducing to the absurd", is a form of argument where one argues that something is false by showing that from it follow consequences which are blatantly incorrect, morally appalling, or otherwise extremely objectionable, thus "reducing it to the absurd".
In this case the arguments linked resemble a reductio ad absurdum against the common view of libertarian stances on self-defense as permitting disproportionate retaliation even in situations which the average person would not see as justifying any sort of violence, let alone murder. However, instead of taking the absurd consequences of the premise as discrediting it, they are simply accepting it as a reasonable conclusion, which is batshit fucking insane (but not too surprising coming from ancapistan).
Thanks. I was confused by the word precepts, but it makes sense now.
Reductio ad absurdum means “reduction to absurdity”. It’s a classic argumentative technique.
The way it works is that you follow some idea to its logical extreme and end up with an absurdity, something that is obviously false. This proves that the original idea was false.
I was having trouble coming up with my own example, but here’s a good one from the Web:
>A computer scientist announces that he’s constructed a computer program that can play the perfect game of chess: he claims that this program is guaranteed to win every game it plays, whether it plays black or white, with never a loss or a draw, and against any opponent whatsoever. The computer scientist claims to have a mathematical proof that his program will always win, but the proof runs to 500 pages of dense mathematical symbols, and no one has yet been able to verify it. Still, the program has just played 20 games against Gary Kasparov and it won every game, 10 as white and 10 as black. Should you believe the computer scientist's claim that the program is so designed that it will always win against every opponent?
>No. Here’s why: Suppose for the sake of argument that a perfect chess program that always wins were possible. Then we could program two computers with that program and have them play each other. By hypothesis, the program is supposed to win every game it plays, no matter who the opponent is, and no matter whether it plays white or black. So when the program plays itself, both sides would have to win. But that’s impossible! In no chess game can both white and black be winners. So the supposition that a perfect chess program is possible leads to an absurd result. So that supposition must be false. A perfect chess program with the abilities the computer scientist claims must not be possible.
In anarcho-capitalists’ case, strictly following their principles has lead them to the conclusion that murder is okay. Most people would say that that’s absurd. There’s clearly something with anarcho‐capitalism’s priorities.
The people of \/r/Anarcho_Capitalism, however, seem totally down with murder if it means they don’t have to abandon their precious ideology.
>He's not only justified, but admirable.
The 'admirable' just pissed me off. There are some seriously disgusting people on reddit.
"Don't worry we don't need police"
Not only that but they are also saying that hackig the database was a violation of rights. So, to recap:
Hacking a private database: immoral/violation of basic human rights Murder: justifiable
AnCaps really aren't that different from a cartel, ideologically. For both, government agencies are the enemy, and so is anyone who sides with them.
"What kind of man talks to the DEA? No man."
Hacking into a private database to take identities that you then threaten to give to agents that will violently kidnap people who are harming no-one but themselves is immoral yes.
So is the hit, but they are viewing it through the lens of self defense.
All of the violence surrounding the drug trade is the direct result of the violence the state is willing to exert to stop it.
Anyone getting involved knows that they are at risk of being violently thrown in a rape cage by agents of the state; and this risk is what creates the enormous profitability of the trade to begin with.
If it were possible to trade in drugs without having to compete on incarceration risk-management, there would be no incentive for for the initial blackmail, or the subsequent "hit"; sellers would simply compete on quality and price like with any other good; and these elaborate violent adversarial games could end.
> All of the violence surrounding the drug trade is the direct result of the violence the state is willing to exert to stop it.
are you just blissfully unaware of mexico somehow?
Or you know, the inner city of most metropolitan areas of the U.S.
The problem with this argument is that protecting an illegal business from blackmail is not self defense, even in the loosest possible sense of the term 'self defense'.
It's the moral equivalent of a mafia boss putting out a hit on a witness against the mafia.
> It's the moral equivalent of a mafia boss putting out a hit on a witness against the mafia.
The blackmailer is not a mere witness created by chance.
It's more like a mafia boss putting out a hit on a rival mafioso who has strategically threatened to become a witness.
The Government is not a criminal organization, no matter how much rhetoric you throw around. What you provide is a false analogy
No, its just a murderous terrorist organization, much better than doing something Gasp ILLEGAL!
Poe's law right here. I seriously can't tell if you are a fundamentalist libertarian or somebody making fun of one
His comment history makes me think he's serious.
That's my guess
Uh, I'm running with your analogy. And I'm not implying that the government is a criminal organization, I'm implying that the guy being hit is part of a criminal organization and not a mere witness.
Very sorry, I interpreted you statement wrong. I thought you were implying that the government was the rival mafioso.
This is only true if you equate illegality and immorality.
Many would view the silk-road as perfectly moral as it was simply a forum for unrestricted voluntary trade, that if anything; reduced the risks and violence typically surrounding the drug trade.
The ancaps believe that the user threatening to hand data over to the authorities is the moral equivalent of some guy threatening to hand over the same information to a mafia boss that wants to kidnap them all.
Immoral acts to protect a moral community?
That sounds like a fallacy that Libertarians would call out, if it were the state trying to pedal that shit.
It's still a false equivalence to say that 'killing blackmailers is self defense'.
First off, it has yet to be shown that blackmail is never a moral act. If blackmail is used to prevent 'the act of aggression', is it self defense to kill someone for doing so?
I agree, but there are other circumstances that make the blackmail in this case a more aggressive action.
The fact that he was threatening to give the data to a group (the government) that would initiate violence against the site's users.
If you think that it is ok for the state to use violence and coercion to achieve societal goals (such as stemming drug trade) then this blackmail is not particularly bad and the hit is extremely abhorrent.
If you don't think that it's ok for the state to use violence and coercion to achieve societal goals, then this blackmail was clearly a means of instigating aggression, and the hit can be viewed more defensively.
There is a reason why law exists, you remove subjective moral justifications in order to provide clear standards for what normative behavior is in a larger society. I am sure, that from the lens of certain moral frameworks, that one could justify any act, no matter how abhorrent. Just because people can claim that something has moral legitimacy does not remove the fact that there are other standards in play, and those standards have merit.
And those clear standards can be and have been terribly wrong many times. Drug war in America, anti-gay laws in Russia...
AKA "I have more guns than you so I'm more right"
Not at all. It has more to do with how laws have developed over time, before even there were guns, where ideas about laws were developed.
And this is different from the property rights of a theoretical AnCap "society"... how?
The problem with morality is that it's subjective. It's why we have laws to govern. Not that I agree with criminalizing marijuana, or many drugs, but we have laws for the exact reasons you are outlining, because someone could always create a moral argument for the most heinous acts, like murder.
Your willful compliance with this bullshit results in hundreds of thousands of people having ruined lives. It results in the creation of violent criminals. It results in a wide-ranging and inequitable impediment to social mobility, as 300 million people risk losing the only meaningful source of funding for higher education if they get caught with one mind-altering substance, but not the other. It results in people fucking dying in gang shootouts, drug busts, and impure drugs that cannot be held to high purity standards by the State (or better yet, by private standards-setting organizations).
Yet, in light of all of these real world, actualized consequences of drug prohibition, you're content to wave your hand and say your empty piece, "It's why we have laws to govern" -- and top it off with all of your little buddies here claiming that I am an evil person because of my rationalized interpretation of the situation.
I'm not defending that. You are.
>All of the violence surrounding the drug trade is the direct result of the violence the state is willing to exert to stop it.
Bullshit. Have you never heard of a gang war? Wars for territory, wars for control, wars for intimidation? There is practically no law enforcement in Mexico, and yet there the cartels are more violent than anywhere else. Why? Because they fight each other for control.
To be fair, those gangs are in the business of shipping drugs primarily to the US, where they are highly profitable because of their illegality.
It's possible that, were they legal, gangs would continue to try to corner the market, but we would handle that the same way we handle gangs systematically attacking any other type of business.
Of course, that doesn't really help the anarcho-capitalist case, but then, what does?
If legal they would have access to the court system and police allowing them redress. You do not see shoot outs between legal businesses for that reason.
The fight each other for control over substances that anyone could make for themself anywhere, if they weren't illegal.
Do you make your own tylenol?
Making acetaminophen is a Chemistry 101 lab assignment.
Yes or no?
He was doing it to raise funds (blackmail funds) to save himself from the same fate. He is a desperate man, not that his actions themselves are justified. Regardless, two wrongs do not make a right.
Murder is never the moral high. Perhapse he could have hired him for security instead. Not only would it be eithical, it would have kept him out of this debacle. Maybe not, maybe this individual is too far gone to negotiate with even if the ransom was paid, but there didn't seem to be any hesitation when requesting that he be silenced.
I think the idea that the users of silkroad are innocent is hilariously deluded.
A lot of ancaps are deluded. How fucked up do you have to be to believe that the state preventing the hiring of a hit man is somehow more violent than hiring a goddamn hit man?
'Cuz duh gubmint neds 'tuh stah aweh frum mah bizznezz! /s.
Another small business owner crushed under the weight of obama!! lol
At the moment from your downvotes looks like some of them found this threwd. Speaking of which, whatever happened to alyosha?
She's still around, but the admins got tired of her spamming threads with her bots so they shadowbanned them.
Still mods /r/SRDBroke, IIRC.
Anytime they get posted here, they show up in droves. A thread that would normally get 50 comments, balloons to 600.
I think she got banned along with her bots.
Edit: /u/AlyoshaV is still going strong.
I don't think it was justified, but the reasoning goes like this:
The target of the hit had personal data on users of the SilkRoad site and was threatening to give that information to the authorities so that they could hunt down the users and throw them in jail.
Those defending this are viewing in through the lens of self defense from a violent actor (the government).
Self defense from breaking the law and going to jail? Why not just "Quit breaking the law, asshole?"
Why not just "Quit running away from slave masters, slave?"
-You from 200 years ago
Couldn't he just move to a different country and escape these so called "slave masters?"
I'm pretty sure that even going to Somalia or w/e wouldn't make it legal to hire hits in foreign countries.
Being prevented from using illegal drugs is analogous to being a slave. Okay.
You're free to leave, we won't stop you
Hell, I'd happily chip in for the plane tickets!
TIL STONERS = SLAVES! Can you feel the oppression mister crabs? can you feel it?
No, they're circle jerking over their mutual agreement that it is justified.
> Jesus, these people are ~~terrifying.~~ deluded teenagers
Yes.
Ancaps continue to be some of the worst people ever.
I wouldn't say worst simply because they have no impact.
They seem to be blind to reality which causes them to say really, really stupid shit.
I don't know, that "drown the government in the bathtub" schtick is pretty damn popular lately.
What is an ancap?
Someone who believes that absolutely ludicrous idea that a market can exist without significant government intervention.
>Someone who believes that absolutely ludicrous idea that a [free, fair, and equally-accessible] market can exist without significant government intervention.
Markets exist without government intervention all the time. They just tend to be highly exploitable or exploitative.
Really? Outside the places where the concept of 'private property' is protected by government, I don't see a whole lot of trade, beyond "I'll trade you your life for your property".
Obviously markets can exist without a government. They are called "black markets" - Silk Road was one example.
An ancap believes that the use of aggressive force cannot be justified, and that therefore governments ought not exist.
>Someone who believes that absolutely ludicrous idea that a market can exist without any government intervention.
An anarcho-capitalist (ancap for short) is basically a fundamentalist libertarian.
EDIT: Is it 'fundamentalist libertarian' or 'libertarian fundamentalist'?
The guy who ran Silk Road was an ancap. He seemed to have an impact.
On what? Certainly not governmental or social affairs.
Are you saying he didn't have an impact on the government?
If by impact you mean justification for the existence of law enforcement, I guess?
The only thing he did was make a blackmarket walmart clone for the internet (ease of use minus the reduced prices). This doesn't impact society only consumers of that market.
Now had that gone on to become the sole method for acquisition of said market then ya he made an impact. But in the end he's just another dealer who got popped.
No one will remember him in a few months (or less).
Meh. My threshold for what I consider impactful isn't as high as yours. He was a villain and hero to many people. I'm sure all of his fans will remember him. At least I know I'll never forget Silk Road.
If I can remember to do this I'll try and ask you for the guys name in a couple of months.
I know one in real life, I really want to yell at him but he's bigger than me and I don't want to get confrontational.
Anarchists are a special breed of stupid, then came the Anarcho-Capitalists.
And here comes the brigade.
Your link seems to just point back to this thread, fyi
There was a sufficient demand for his services; I don't see the problem. That guy should have chosen not to do the things that he did that made the Silk Road guy try to have him murdered. /s
At least as justified in hiring the hit-man to protect the freedom of his customers as the government going to war to protect our freedom.
Look, right, I'm just saying, if people don't like drug dealers who secretly hire contract killers, then they will take their business to the drug dealers who don't try to have people whacked.
It's pretty clear that we don't need the government telling us that drug dealers can't have people killed, because if we removed all regulation then the market would solve that problem. Because the free market is magic.
TIL that imprisoning criminals is the moral equivalent is killing thousands of innocent people.
All of the silk road threads are FILLED with people justifying the murder and saying it was necessary, and they are generally upvoted. The general seems to be our identities > some guy's life.
It really makes you think when these people talk about Silk Road being a great service to humanity, then watch them go so far as to condone murder to keep it running.
Does anyone else really not care about the hitman part? One guy blackmailed a major drug dealer, and the drug dealer hired a hit man. It's not exactly surprising. Yeah, it's a bad thing to do and all, but there's far more interesting details into the case then a massive drug dealer doing standard massive drug dealer things.
I think most of the people sitting on the sidelines laughing with glee (like me) are pointing at the people who are justifying the two attempted hirings of hitmen by this guy. Apparently you are allowed to hire a free market killer but BIG GOV'T killers are not cool.
It raises some interesting questions. Because he was working outside of the law, he was unable to use state provided services to settle a dispute. Because of this, he felt the need to resort to violence to solve his problem.
It is also worth noting that were the goods being sold on Silk Road legal, the blackmailer would hold no water; as I see it, the individuals on Silk Road were engaging in voluntary transactions, and as far I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with that.
However, the question must be asked: Does protecting the liberty of others justify taking someone's life?
I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. While the use of force as an act of aggression is a clear violation of the NAP, it boils down to how one defines 'force'. In using the might of the government and the illegality of DPR's acts as blackmail, could that itself be viewed as an act of aggression, and if so, would murder (or self defense) be justified?
He could very well have taken his $80 million and fled, but he didn't; that's why we're here.
It all stems from DPR's fuckup though.
His identity should've been kept a secret to everyone, it's a basic principle of OPSEC. 10 Crack Commandments.
He doesn't get to fuck up on that large a scale and then decide to kill everyone that knows his fuck up.
If your private enterprise depends on trade secrets, you don't go around telling people trade secrets.
>I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. While the use of force as an act of aggression is a clear violation of the NAP, it boils down to how one defines 'force'.
Nobody forced DPR to do illegal shit. Like you said earlier, if he wasn't doing illegal shit he wouldn't have been in this mess. You don't even have to split hairs on the definition of force.
>In using the might of the government and the illegality of DPR's acts as blackmail, could that itself be viewed as an act of aggression, and if so, would murder (or self defense) be justified?
What crock of shit, trusting criminals with secrets and then killing them because they've spilled the beans isn't motherfucking self defense.
A real question that could be raised is, what would have prevented DPR from offing people that run competing dark-markets?
Edit: I've given some thought to the example of what would happen to DPR if his goods were legal. A good hypothetical scenario could maybe involve a whistle blower rather than a blackmailer.
The difference is self-defence. I wouldn't object to police officers shooting a rampaging gunman. On the other hand, I cannot sympathize with the officers who do violent raids on people for selling/using drugs (non-violent crimes).
It wasn't like the guys (plural) that DPR took out hits on were actually threatening his life. They were going to leak some information, or possibly had stolen some money. Under no known theories of self defense would he have been justified in acting against them.
Drug users tend to come up with very odd rationalizations to justify their habits, ranging from the religious (see: western "Buddhists" and "enlightenment") to the medicinal, which I suppose is what happens when you center a good part of your life around putting things in your body.
>~~Drug users~~ Humans tend to come up with very odd rationalizations to justify their habits
Yes, drug users are humans--that come up with very odd rationalizations for their addictions. This is a non-trivial assertion because those rationalizations are particularly odd for those who don't share said addiction.
Why do you think that one needs to be an addict to have a positive view upon drugs?
And what kind of drugs are we even talking about? Relatively harmless ones like Cannabis, MDMA, LSD, Magic Mushrooms? Moderately dangerous ones like Cocaine, Alcohol? Or the really bad ones ranging from Nicotine to Heroin to Crystal Meth to Krokodil?
(I generally would class Alcohol in the most dangerous ones, but thats mostly due to its popularity and effect on other people.)
What about drugs who actually have (proven) medicinal uses? Like Cannabis, MDMA, LSD, Magic Mushrooms and very low doses of Alcohol?
It's always easy to say that a group of people has "odd rationalizations" for behavior, but what are these rationalizations you're talking about here?
Everyone comes up with rationalizations for their behaviour, it is human nature.
I always found hemineglect very fascinating. It's a condition where, at first, it seems that the patient can't see half of their normal visual field. But it's not that simple. If you have them stare at a dot in the middle of a bunch of circles and tell them to cross off all the circles, they'll cross off only half. However, if you tell them to erase all the circles, they'll erase all of them, because the halfway point moves as they're erased. Somewhere in their mind, the patient was always aware of the full thing, and discarded the data right before the conscious.
So how does this relate? If you ask a patient to cross out all the circles and then ask them to erase all the circles, they're not at all surprised to see that they missed half the circles in the crossing out part. When questioned about it, they tend to simply make excuses, such as misunderstanding the task.
When things are illogical at the conscious level, you end up with cognitive dissonance. But when things are illogical at the unconscious level, the brain just makes up possible explanations. Drug addicts are more likely to fall into these traps as the average person, but it happens to everyone, everyday. And we're mostly unaware of it, and it's a good thing, because it keeps us sane and keeps the world logical.
Would you mind elaborating on the "halfway point moving as [the patients] erase" bit? This is utterly fascinating to me but I'm not quite sure I understand what's going on there.
Or if you could direct me towards the study in question I'd be obliged. My Google-Fu is not proving helpful at the moment.
I think you're on to something. Non-drug users never come up with odd rationalizations, that's only a characteristic of drug users. Also kudos for random potshot at Western Buddhists with no actual info as to what you're referring to.
About the Western "Buddhist" line, I think he's referring to white people who do drugs because they think it will lead them to "enlightenment," when in reality the fifth precept pretty much forbids drugs, and the Buddha would definitely not do LSD.
Bingo. There are plenty of claims on /r/buddhism and other places about how the usage of psychedelics will help you bypass different jhanas, or achieve an enlightened state- most egregiously in Zig Zag Zen, which claims that it'll help you attain a higher level of thinking that somehow includes not being able to legally operate a motor vehicle or be left alone safely.
I'm not saying that it's exclusive to them, mind. I'm just saying that it's common among a lot of drug users I've encountered.
Your disagreement hinges on the definition of drug.
Everybody has a drug. It might be cocaine. It might fast cars. It might be sex. It might be money. It might be Reddit Karma.
Everybody has a way they act irrationally or against their own best interest or against the best interest of their community and they all seek a way to justify it.
Did you downvote yourself? Either way, props... I've compared weed addiction to trans-fat addiction for years... because both run in my family.
Yes, weed addiction is a thing, not always necessarily a negative one, but it does exist.
I totally agree.
There are also benign and even helpful addictions.
Mother Teresa was addicted to helping poor people like Willie Nelson is to pot...
But it doesn't mean that it's not acting irrationally or against her best interest or that she didn't seek an external reason for acting as she did.
Some people enjoy drugs.
Is that an odd rationalization?
I'm fine with people using drugs, mind, I just don't think they should be making excuses as to why they use it. A fifteen year-old pothead doesn't need to extoll the virtues of marijuana for cancer patients.
>I just don't think they should be making excuses as to why they use it
Why do you care about people's excuses if you mind if people use drugs?
>A fifteen year-old pothead doesn't need to extoll the virtues of marijuana for cancer patients.
Why not? Isn't it true?
He's simply saying that drug users need to cut the shit and admit the only reason they do drugs (and want them legalized) is because they want to get high. Nothing more, nothing less. Drug users simply have a tendency of making drug use into a virtue because they can't rationalize that recreational drugs are really pointless.
It's not about protecting identities, it's about protecting innocent people from being kidnapped and locked up. There are no good options here, thanks to the state and the extortionist acting immorally and backing DPR into a corner. Does that justify murder? I don't know, but it's certainly not an outrageous proposition.
It's not just identities, it's people's freedom on the line if the government gets that information. Is the government justified when it goes to war to protect freedom?
What else condone's murder to keep it running? I'm not justifying killing other humans, but this is common-place in human history.
Every government that has ever existed.
>It really makes you think when these people talk about government being a great service to humanity, then watch them go so far as to condone murder to keep it running.
All of the violence surrounding the drug trade is the direct result of the violence the state is willing to exert to stop it.
Anyone getting involved knows that they are at risk of being violently thrown in a rape cage by agents of the state; and this risk is what creates the enormous profitability of the trade to begin with.
If it were possible to trade in drugs without having to compete on incarceration risk-management, there would be no incentive for for the initial blackmail, or the subsequent "hit"; sellers would simply compete on quality and price like with any other good; and these elaborate violent adversarial games could end.
Inb4 they brigade this post
Second best.
Lol. We're literally ELS sockpuppets. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
My favorite is the guy who complains about strawmen in this thread and then goes
>> All of the silk road threads are FILLED with people justifying the murder and saying it was necessary, and they are generally upvoted. The general seems to be our identities > some guy's life.
> Not murder - self-defense or defense of another.
Not identity, but passing a hit list containing thousands of people to trained murderers and kidnappers known as the federal government.
> Mexican drug wars are the result of a lack of law enforcement
What kind of imbecile thinks criminals bands roaming and pillaging the countryside at will is due to too much law enforcement?
Our local ancap evangelist /u/go1dfish is calling in backup.
How very fuckin brave of him.
The great thing is, it's not even really drama, everyone in the thread seems to be agreeing that it's a reasonable position, but are just arguing the fine print.
> The great thing is, it's not even really drama
Then why was it posted here?
Why am I not surprised to see a guy in there that I've previously tagged as a neoconfederate apologist?
He just wants to be able to graduate to an escaped slave bounty hunter that he fantasizes about while rubbing himself in unison to his tobacco chewing. Why are you statists trying to stop him‽!‽!
Just goes to show that the Non-Aggression Principle means nothing to these people. Hell if they bothered to read Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable they would know that blackmailers are a viable part of any functioning free market.
And you know you are on the wrong side of history when Walter Block is the one telling you to reign it in.
I haven't read that book, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.
I think what these people are arguing is that since drugs are illegal, they are not a free market, it is a black market. and the state is coercive towards participants in this black market through the threat of prison. The blackmailer in question allegedly threatened to leverage the coercive force of the state in outing the participants, and DPR felt morally obligated to stop this threat.
Not the morals I would necessarily have, but in this context it seems morally consistent.
http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
It takes very little time compared to most other an-cap staples, and is an interesting look into the mindset(one which is not particularly shared with the denizens of the subreddit).
From his chapter of blackmail(starting on page 41) Block has this to say.
>Consider the nature of threats. When what is threatened is aggressive violence, the threat is condemnable. No individual has the right to initiate aggressive violence against another. In blackmail, however, what is being "threatened" is something that the blackmailer does have a right to do!---- whether it be excercising the right of free speech, or refusing to patronize certain stores, or persuading others to do likewise. What is being threatened is not in itself illegitimate; it is, therefore, not possible to call the "threat" an illegitimate threat
The act of tattletelling would no doubt fall under free speech. While the acts of the site owner were committed with the knowledge of their legality.
Furthermore Block addressing specifically the act of blackmail against criminals
>In the case of criminals, blackmail and the threat of black-mail serves as a deterrent. They add to the risks involved in criminal activity. How many of the anonymous "tips" received by the police--the value of which cannot be overestimated--can be traced, directly of indirectly, to blackmail? How many criminals are led to pursue crime on their own, eschewing the aid of fellow criminals in "jobs" that call for cooperation, out of the fear of possible blackmail? Finally, there are those individuals who are on the verge of committing crimes, or at the "margin of criminality" (as the economist would say), where the least factor will propel them one way or another. The additional fear of blackmail may be enough, in some cases, to dissuade them from crime.
I think most relevant is when he addresses blackmail targeted at homosexuals.
>The legalization of blackmail would also have a beneficial effect upon actions which do not involve aggression, but are at variance with the mores of society as a whole. On these actions, the legalization of blackmail would have a liberating effect. Even with blackmail still illegal, we are witnessing some of its beneficial effects. Homosexuality, for instance, is technically illegal in some instances, but not really criminal, since it involves no aggression. For individual homosexuals, blackmail very often causes considerable harm and can hardly be considered beneficial. But for the group as a whole, that is, for each individual as a member of the group, blackmail has helped by making the public more aware and accustomed to homosexuality. Forcing individual members of a socially oppressed group into the open, or "out of the closet," cannot, of course, be considered a service. The use of force is a violation of an individual's rights. But still, it does engender an awareness on the part of members of a group of one another's existence. In forcing this perception, blackmail can legitimately take some small share of the credit in liberating people whose only crime is a deviation from the norm in a noncriminal way.
Edit:Words
Thank you for taking the time to respond, I'm going to check that out.
I'm always amazed by this subreddit, it's grown fairly large, and has that SRS bot advertising its existence in all the major reddits and despite the fact that we're united by the common theme of misanthropy the comments here are generally intellectual.
What do you think about Rothbard's book For a New Liberty? I was recommended to read it by another AnCap and don't really have the time to trawl 400-odd pages of what I suspect to be bullshit. Is there anything rather concerning I should know about?
> When what is threatened is aggressive violence, the threat is condemnable.
The government threatens people who sell drugs with aggressive violence.
QED?
SnapShot
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
Didn't realize that Matticus was that insane.
Holy shit, I know, right? Glad there's another Civcrafter in here to witness this.
Makes you think how much we can trust Judge_Dredd's verdicts on quite a few things on the sub.
Ehhh yeah. I dunno. Isn't dredd a multi-account?
It's kind of weird to see a major Civcraft player arguing that murder is totally cool.
I mean, I know he's an AnCap, but it's weirder because I've interacted with him before.
Yeah, I'm on a competing anarchy minecraft server and enjoy it far more. Though I did wish that AnCaps would join and try out their ideas on the server; I think it would be a great learning experience.
Which server is that?
The spaceribs Aftermath server, subreddit is r/spaceribs
I think I played it once. Could you break blocks in cities?
No restrictions on block breaking and placing other than what vanilla innately had. There are ruined skyscrapers as a part of the worldgen giving the place the ruined metropolis feel. There were player run towns (I used to run one a while ago) but they've all been scattered by raiders, griefers, and time.
There are a few ways of going about seeing the world. Ideologically, methodologically or a combination of both. Most people take the combo but these ancaps are pure absolutist ideologues. There is nothing you could say or show them in data or definition to change one iota of their worldview.
Dangerous, dangerous people.
Yeah, I expressed the concern to one I know in real life that I felt that a pure free market capitalist system could and would evolve into what he concerned "crony capitalism," and he said that it wouldn't because it goes against what was written by Rothbard. He also said that war was a statist-derived construction and wouldn't exist in a free market economy. I was too tired to argue against that.
> He also said that war was a statist-derived construction and wouldn't exist in a free market economy. I was too tired to argue against that.
Simple to argue against. Physical anthropological studies have long concluded that before primitive governments -- beyond the tribal -- arose the rate of homicide among humans was extraordinary. Every time governments fall violence increases. etc.
Rule of law is a good thing.
Can I get a link to those studies? I suspected that such a thing was true to some extent, but having real papers is handy.
Especially considering I can't cite my experiences on a minecraft anarchy server as evidence.
Here is a good start with explanation and studies sprinkled throughout.
What data could you be shown to convince you that 2 + 2 was not 4?
What data could you be shown to convince you that "square circles" cannot exist?
If you want to convince an Ancap of something, point out the logical flaws. That is the only way. Data can be used to refute positive claims (eg. if an Ancap said "all dogs are male", then any data showing the existence of a female dog would refute that claim).
Whilst I am obviously biased, I try very very hard to remain purely and utterly logical in everything I do, think and believe. I would guess that most Ancaps are like me.
If you really want to show Ancaps to be wrong, use a logic checker like Agda or something. If you put together an Agda program showing flaws in Ancap thinking, I guarantee that at least I will change my mind instantly.
I don't really know how else I can be objective about my knowledge and beliefs. I am willing to submit to the verdict of an external logic source. That's about the best I can think of.
Humans are not perfectly rational beings and any society starting from that assumption is bound for failure.
First show me humans behave economically according to praxeology or rational choice theory. Hint: they don't. Rothbard was very, very wrong about human nature.
Isn't it quite similar to Civcraft's bounty system ?
Well, yeah, except virtual murder is a bit different than actual murder.
I was under the impression that the Ancaps were in fact quite serious while playing this game.
I'm not arguing that murder is totally cool. I'm arguing that killing someone in the defense of innocent people is acceptable when there are no more peaceful options.
But...they're not innocent. They were breaking the law.
This discussion is going to go nowhere because you and I have completely different opinions on laws.
Saying they're "not innocent" is a moral statement. Do you think that law equates with morality?
He once got into an argument with me in which I called him a neoconfederate apologist and he proceeded to say I was wrong. His evidence for why I was wrong consisted of a boatload of neoconfederate apologia from mises.org
reading /u/Matticus_Rex's comments I found myself saying "that guy should definitely be on some FBI watchlist or something", that's a level of insane delusion that's downright scary.
> ReasonThusLiberty
My fedora gave an epic throb whilst reading the OP's username
"In this moment, I am affluent. Not because of some phony state's welfare. But because I am enriched by my own inheritance."
The whole argument is that the death of one is justified if it saves the many. The same logic could be applied to the drug dealer geting incacerated if it means a better life for everyone whose lives have been affected negatively by the drug trade.
Yes, if you're ideas for justice come from the Vulcan home world. Here, in the real world, where our sense of legal justice is nested in hundreds years of legal precedence, the extrajudicial killing of anyone is an extremely bad thing and in no way comparable to incarcerating someone for breaking democratically determined laws.
I see that the brigade has arrived. Will this become another 300+ comment thread?
Well on our way already. AnCap drama is pretty fun because we get to bring it home with us!
Seriously where's the drama?
We can do better than this. It's not a good look on the rest of us users on this sub if people just post things they politically disagree with.
We are here for linking to drama threads not starting drama.
There's no drama yet. OP made this thread as bait most likely.
And so appears the only sane voice in this clusterfuck.
I wish the mods did something about people posting threads with no drama or stuff they disagree with.
the good name of srd, known across the internet for it's mature, sensible, even-handed, and well-rounded regular posters, has truly been besmirched by this scandalous indignity
>Seriously where's the drama?
All over this thread.
Chicken and the egg.
The thread this post links to contains no drama. This thread shouldn't even exist, therefore no drama should even exist.
If it was designed to bait for drama then that's even more concerning. That's not what this subreddit should be about.
In fact I'm very surprised the mods condone this.
I wonder how these people would feel about Walter White? It's shocking how similar DPR is to that character.
Walter White had to resort to violence, otherwise his perfectly legitimate empire would have been destroyed by asshole government officials.
From the Onion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvGCYyZPYPg
But seriously, the DEA was the real villian in BB, take them out of the picture and the only bad thing that would have still happened is Walter White's cancer.
This bit is absolute gold. one guy is arguing about the definition of extortion and the other guy replies
> I'm referring to its treatment in libertarian legal theory.
Yes. We were on a libertarian subreddit, discussing libertarian legal theory. There's a particular distinction made between blackmail and extortion in the academic literature in that area.
how pretentious
How anti-intellectual.
Where is the actual drama in this? People talking. This shoudl be removed and submited where you really wanted it. SRS. Happy Brigading SRD. Yea I get it you want to meta-link them and produce a bunch of downvotes for having different opinions than you.
edit, as noted by me elsewhere brigading hasn't really happened much this time so good work SRD.
Feel free to skim the thread, those murderous "capitalists" are trying to justify hiring hitmen and downvoting those that disagree.
So just to be clear, there is no actual drama at the link, you just disagree with the opinions of the people there so you want to stir up some outrage here
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
Full disclosure: I came here from /r/Anarcho_Capitalism and have only skimmed your rules, so even though I haven't voted on anything it's possible I'm breaking one. Mea culpa in advance.
I'm noticing two things: First, a lot of the AnCaps in that thread have blinders on that shock and scare me. Second, that you guys aren't thinking critically when you dismiss comparisons between programs to imprison Jews and programs to imprison people who self-medicate.
Is the example so hyperbolic as to be inane? Yes. Does that fact support the argument that something being against the law inherently makes it immoral and worthy of punishment? No. Please don't go overboard in your criticism--it makes it look like you're not even trying to understand the issues we're talking about, which is a shame because more people need to stand up and point out that hiring hitmen is a bad thing to do and those people need to be thoughtful and articulate enough to be taken seriously.
You're misunderstanding this subreddit. We aren't about arguing about shit - there is no expectation here that someone will argue against the sanest possible interpretation of whatever nonsense some idiot spews. That kind of discussion does happen here, but fundamentally, this subreddit is about laughing about the stupid arguments people have on reddit, and how mad they get about petty bullshit.
You don't have a serious debate against a clown; they'll just make you both look ridiculous, something the clown has more practice with.