Cyber-libertarianism: Silk Road battleground individualism vs authority(abc.net.au)
abc.net.au
Cyber-libertarianism: Silk Road battleground individualism vs authority
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-04/stilgherrian-silk-road/4998476
5 comments
It's not that humans are evolving into something else, it's that the internet dramatically reduces communication costs and allows for levels of cohesion not seen since the village days, except on a global scale. If you try to deeply understand economics (any school), one thing that comes out again and again is that low information is in some sense the root of all evil.
This can even be described formally:
> Theorem: given perfect information and zero communication cost, any reasonable decision-making method must produce a Pareto-optimal outcome (ie. one that cannot strictly be improved upon).
> Proof: suppose otherwise. This means that the decision-making method in question produced outcome X, where outcome Y would have been possible, preferable to at least one person and unpreferable to no one. By the perfect information criterion, everyone should have realized that this would have happened, and by the zero communication cost criterion everyone would have come together and agreed to produce outcome Y instead. Thus, outcome X cannot have happened.
Note that the above applies to markets, democracy, Reddit-style karma systems and any other mechanism where every individual has nonzero power (so, maybe not pure dictatorships). And the further we fall from this perfect information / zero communication cost ideal, the more all of the various social problems we are familiar with today arise.
Centralized systems tend to historically emerge in low-information environments, as otherwise it's too easy for people to come together and realize that it would be more efficient for them to cut out the middleman. The internet is inherently much more decentralized than the communication media of the 20th century, under which only a few select parties could be broadcasters and everyone else is a passive consumer. Thus, it massively broadens the solution space for methods of decision-making, allowing for the growth of mechanisms that do not rely on central authorities. This is the fundamental insight of so-called "cyber-libertarianism", and applies to governments, large corporations, schools and even families.
This can even be described formally:
> Theorem: given perfect information and zero communication cost, any reasonable decision-making method must produce a Pareto-optimal outcome (ie. one that cannot strictly be improved upon).
> Proof: suppose otherwise. This means that the decision-making method in question produced outcome X, where outcome Y would have been possible, preferable to at least one person and unpreferable to no one. By the perfect information criterion, everyone should have realized that this would have happened, and by the zero communication cost criterion everyone would have come together and agreed to produce outcome Y instead. Thus, outcome X cannot have happened.
Note that the above applies to markets, democracy, Reddit-style karma systems and any other mechanism where every individual has nonzero power (so, maybe not pure dictatorships). And the further we fall from this perfect information / zero communication cost ideal, the more all of the various social problems we are familiar with today arise.
Centralized systems tend to historically emerge in low-information environments, as otherwise it's too easy for people to come together and realize that it would be more efficient for them to cut out the middleman. The internet is inherently much more decentralized than the communication media of the 20th century, under which only a few select parties could be broadcasters and everyone else is a passive consumer. Thus, it massively broadens the solution space for methods of decision-making, allowing for the growth of mechanisms that do not rely on central authorities. This is the fundamental insight of so-called "cyber-libertarianism", and applies to governments, large corporations, schools and even families.
What? Your theorem doesn't even match with the basic prisoner's dilemma. True, in the classic version of this game there's no communication... but the point is the same - just because an outcome is Pareto efficient doesn't mean that it's a stable equilibrium - people's rational self interest can result in worse outcomes. I don't know what kind of economics you're talking about. Most of the absurd simplifying assumptions really have to do with the idea that people have perfect foresight and their statistical guesses are unbiased - and that we perfectly understand variance/risk and all that jazz. It doesn't have as much to do with how we communicate with one another, rather that we are super awesome flawless statistical machines when in reality we all suck at statistics (have all kinds of biases and heuristics to rely on) in every day life.
And just because information is cheaper doesn't mean it's free. At the very least it costs us time - at least in the current form of the internet it's not like there's simultaneous, effortless, instant communication between every human being on Earth. Now that might change things.
But I don't think you fully made the case that the internet is fundamentally different than a "better" or more effective printing press. My point, I guess, is that maybe we approach that zero cost world, but will never reach it. And that there's a fundamental distinction between being at zero cost and being at any positive cost... so that the internet is more like a printing press rather than a zero cost communication mechanism.
And just because information is cheaper doesn't mean it's free. At the very least it costs us time - at least in the current form of the internet it's not like there's simultaneous, effortless, instant communication between every human being on Earth. Now that might change things.
But I don't think you fully made the case that the internet is fundamentally different than a "better" or more effective printing press. My point, I guess, is that maybe we approach that zero cost world, but will never reach it. And that there's a fundamental distinction between being at zero cost and being at any positive cost... so that the internet is more like a printing press rather than a zero cost communication mechanism.
Users are the most important part of any information processing system, and any Pareto-optimal communication configuration requires that perfection extend to the users and their decision-making process.
You could model this with the Prisoner's Dilemma by playing it this way: in your system of perfect communication, both players can know each other's decision before they commit and both can respond to any change in the other player's position. This would lead to always choosing the mutually beneficial position. Any change to the rules would make at least one individual worse off because they would lose information. This situation requires that both players give up the freedom to conceal their decision from the other. Privacy is at odds with optimal communication.
In the move toward perfect communication, there will be changes that damage the positions and advantages of people involved in the system. It's clear that existing power differences are enhanced by rapid growth. Although perfection might not be a reachable goal, I believe there's evidence that approaching it will lead to a massive long-term benefit for everyone involved. There's no other way to overcome the mistakes we all make by being constantly misinformed.
You could model this with the Prisoner's Dilemma by playing it this way: in your system of perfect communication, both players can know each other's decision before they commit and both can respond to any change in the other player's position. This would lead to always choosing the mutually beneficial position. Any change to the rules would make at least one individual worse off because they would lose information. This situation requires that both players give up the freedom to conceal their decision from the other. Privacy is at odds with optimal communication.
In the move toward perfect communication, there will be changes that damage the positions and advantages of people involved in the system. It's clear that existing power differences are enhanced by rapid growth. Although perfection might not be a reachable goal, I believe there's evidence that approaching it will lead to a massive long-term benefit for everyone involved. There's no other way to overcome the mistakes we all make by being constantly misinformed.
> What? Your theorem doesn't even match with the basic prisoner's dilemma.
Yes it does.
> True, in the classic version of this game there's no communication
That's why. The infinitely iterated prisoner's dillema the theorem works with just fine because there's perfect communication (or rather, the imperfection in communication drops to 1/∞), any finite prisoner's dilemma, on the other hand, relies on both parties making their decisions in secret.
> I don't know what kind of economics you're talking about.
I would recommend anything by Ronald Coase or David Friedman.
> And just because information is cheaper doesn't mean it's free.
Correct. We will never have a perfect economy of any sort. We can only get better. But that doesn't change the fact that the internet is vastly better than anything we've had before in a number of very significant ways.
Yes it does.
> True, in the classic version of this game there's no communication
That's why. The infinitely iterated prisoner's dillema the theorem works with just fine because there's perfect communication (or rather, the imperfection in communication drops to 1/∞), any finite prisoner's dilemma, on the other hand, relies on both parties making their decisions in secret.
> I don't know what kind of economics you're talking about.
I would recommend anything by Ronald Coase or David Friedman.
> And just because information is cheaper doesn't mean it's free.
Correct. We will never have a perfect economy of any sort. We can only get better. But that doesn't change the fact that the internet is vastly better than anything we've had before in a number of very significant ways.
Evolution, no, society, yes. New means of communications change the dynamics of how groups and alliances are formed which shapes dissent.
The internet has radically lowered the cost of friction of communication and coordination in all but the smallest groups - in that it shares a lot with the printing press which did much the same thing for printed material.
The internet has radically lowered the cost of friction of communication and coordination in all but the smallest groups - in that it shares a lot with the printing press which did much the same thing for printed material.
I'm in total concurrence with you. I think the major advance was the telegraph or maybe the telephone. Reducing communications latency from 3-5 days to milliseconds.
Technology is great, but people dramatically overestimate how much impact it has on social organization. Look at cities. Cities are the archetypal expression of civilization. How long have cities been built in more or less the same way? They have been recognizably modern for a century (people were coming down from Westchester to work in midtown Manhattan on electric trains 100 years ago), and have been structurally similar for hundreds if not thousands of years.
People were sitting around complaining about taxes and oligarchs during the Roman Republic 2500 years ago.
Technology is great, but people dramatically overestimate how much impact it has on social organization. Look at cities. Cities are the archetypal expression of civilization. How long have cities been built in more or less the same way? They have been recognizably modern for a century (people were coming down from Westchester to work in midtown Manhattan on electric trains 100 years ago), and have been structurally similar for hundreds if not thousands of years.
People were sitting around complaining about taxes and oligarchs during the Roman Republic 2500 years ago.
While you make a solid point, I will point out that the newest, hottest technology can make a difference, as in this very case. Silk Road was something new, and different from anything one could do with a telegraph or telephone. For the first time in history, (a part of) cyberspace was a effectivly a independent country, effectivly a country of it's own, not bound by any lawmakers whatsoever. It was true anarchy, the kind libertarians dream of, and it worked. The medium of the internet allowed it to run in that fashion, and still be a civil place. For the first time ever, Hobbes was wrong. In the state of nature as it is on the internet life is not nasty, brutish, and short. No one died in horrible fighting and murder on Silk Road, unlike in unregulated areas in real life. (Such as real-world drug dealers.)
> Silk Road was something new, and different from anything one could do with a telegraph or telephone.
I fail to see how Silk Road was anything other than a way to buy and sell goods, something that has been done via telegraph and telephone and other communications mediums for centuries.
> For the first time in history, (a part of) cyberspace was a effectivly a independent country, effectivly a country of it's own, not bound by any lawmakers whatsoever.
It wasn't anything of the sort. All of the costs and benefits of Silk Road were externalized to the offline world. It was less like an "independent country" than even say Hacker News, where the online interaction is valuable on its own merits. Silk Road was in contrast not valuable on its own merits, but just a way to exchange things of value in the real world (drugs and money).
More to the point, while I don't agree that drug laws are a good idea, I can see what motivated the legislation. Drug use isn't cost-free. It's not just high-functioning professionals using a little pot on the weekends. It is that, but it's also addicted pregnant women and mothers injuring their babies. It's addicted fathers unable to provide for their families. It's rural communities ripped apart by addiction.
The fact that the cost of the drug war may be worse than the costs of drug use does not mean that there are no costs to drug use. You can't accidentally step on a used syringe on a city street and fail to see what might motivate people to outlaw the use of drugs.
That's where the "independent country" analogy totally falls down. A country must deal with the ramifications of its policies, good and bad. Texas chooses to let oil and chemical companies operate relatively freely within its borders, and it enjoys the economic benefits of that and suffers the environmental and health consequences of that. But on Silk Road, all of the costs of those illegal products sold on the site were not felt internally. They were externalized to the real world. It's easy to construct a utopia when all of the consequences happen elsewhere.
I fail to see how Silk Road was anything other than a way to buy and sell goods, something that has been done via telegraph and telephone and other communications mediums for centuries.
> For the first time in history, (a part of) cyberspace was a effectivly a independent country, effectivly a country of it's own, not bound by any lawmakers whatsoever.
It wasn't anything of the sort. All of the costs and benefits of Silk Road were externalized to the offline world. It was less like an "independent country" than even say Hacker News, where the online interaction is valuable on its own merits. Silk Road was in contrast not valuable on its own merits, but just a way to exchange things of value in the real world (drugs and money).
More to the point, while I don't agree that drug laws are a good idea, I can see what motivated the legislation. Drug use isn't cost-free. It's not just high-functioning professionals using a little pot on the weekends. It is that, but it's also addicted pregnant women and mothers injuring their babies. It's addicted fathers unable to provide for their families. It's rural communities ripped apart by addiction.
The fact that the cost of the drug war may be worse than the costs of drug use does not mean that there are no costs to drug use. You can't accidentally step on a used syringe on a city street and fail to see what might motivate people to outlaw the use of drugs.
That's where the "independent country" analogy totally falls down. A country must deal with the ramifications of its policies, good and bad. Texas chooses to let oil and chemical companies operate relatively freely within its borders, and it enjoys the economic benefits of that and suffers the environmental and health consequences of that. But on Silk Road, all of the costs of those illegal products sold on the site were not felt internally. They were externalized to the real world. It's easy to construct a utopia when all of the consequences happen elsewhere.
>>but people dramatically overestimate how much impact it has on social organization. Look at cities. Cities are the archetypal expression of civilization. How long have cities been built in more or less the same way? They have been recognizably modern for a century (people were coming down from Westchester to work in midtown Manhattan on electric trains 100 years ago).
Cities are still built more or less the same, but the internet has inarguably enabled more people to work in the cities, by making remote work a possibility. Yes, people have commuted to work for years. But how long have there also been people who did not commute, yet still called those who commute their colleagues?
Cities are still built more or less the same, but the internet has inarguably enabled more people to work in the cities, by making remote work a possibility. Yes, people have commuted to work for years. But how long have there also been people who did not commute, yet still called those who commute their colleagues?
One view of history(and evolution) is that progress enables cooperation at a larger scale: from single cells, to multi-cell organisms, to tribes, to cities and to states, and that those abilities radically change how the world looks.
The internet has defently been a big step in larger(and higher quality) collaborations, so it makes sense it would radically change how the world looks.
The internet has defently been a big step in larger(and higher quality) collaborations, so it makes sense it would radically change how the world looks.
Hmm. I might be a "the internet is altering the course of human evolution" person. But it depends on what you mean by "the course of human evolution".
Do you mean "human evolution" in the typical biological sense, like talking about our genes and our physiology? Or something broader?
I'm pretty convinced that using the Internet has somewhat (not necessarily dramatically, but somewhat) already altered how I think about the world an dhow I see it. Certainly it has altered how I behave and spend much of my time. It also has clearly altered (I'd say dramatically) how we communicate, who we communicate with, and thus also who we consider to be part of our "in-group" (I'm thinking about Peter Singer's expanding circle). That has a huge impact on our moral attitudes, even. Very central changes to what we're like. Some people (I think rightly) consider this to be an evolution, in the broad systems sense of the word.
As for actual biological evolution, I guess that's less obvious to me. But it sure doesn't seem impossible. Yes, the beginning of the Internet is in some sense a consequence of our nature, not a cause. But now that it's here, it can interact with us; it is part of our environment, and could affect our biology. This idea isn't strange to ecologists, who typically refer to it as "top-down" forcing.
So my attitude to this is that, no, the existence of the Internet doesn't only "make our true nature more apparent". Or rather, it makes our true nature apparent in the same way that the elongated shape of some flowers illustrates the nature of hummingbirds (http://www.rubythroat.org/Article860629.html). From that article: "It's obvious that a hummingbird's long narrow beak is an adaptation for feeding on long narrow flowers, but the corollary is also true: There are species of tube-shaped flowers that are adapted for being pollinated by organisms with skinny, tapered mouthparts." I want to say something similar: "Yes, there is an ecological relationship between us and the Internet, and thus the Internet reflects our natures, but it's also its own thing, a part of our environments, alongside which we should expect to evolve."
One interesting advocate of this view is the science historian George Dyson, if you're interested in exploring the idea more.
Do you mean "human evolution" in the typical biological sense, like talking about our genes and our physiology? Or something broader?
I'm pretty convinced that using the Internet has somewhat (not necessarily dramatically, but somewhat) already altered how I think about the world an dhow I see it. Certainly it has altered how I behave and spend much of my time. It also has clearly altered (I'd say dramatically) how we communicate, who we communicate with, and thus also who we consider to be part of our "in-group" (I'm thinking about Peter Singer's expanding circle). That has a huge impact on our moral attitudes, even. Very central changes to what we're like. Some people (I think rightly) consider this to be an evolution, in the broad systems sense of the word.
As for actual biological evolution, I guess that's less obvious to me. But it sure doesn't seem impossible. Yes, the beginning of the Internet is in some sense a consequence of our nature, not a cause. But now that it's here, it can interact with us; it is part of our environment, and could affect our biology. This idea isn't strange to ecologists, who typically refer to it as "top-down" forcing.
So my attitude to this is that, no, the existence of the Internet doesn't only "make our true nature more apparent". Or rather, it makes our true nature apparent in the same way that the elongated shape of some flowers illustrates the nature of hummingbirds (http://www.rubythroat.org/Article860629.html). From that article: "It's obvious that a hummingbird's long narrow beak is an adaptation for feeding on long narrow flowers, but the corollary is also true: There are species of tube-shaped flowers that are adapted for being pollinated by organisms with skinny, tapered mouthparts." I want to say something similar: "Yes, there is an ecological relationship between us and the Internet, and thus the Internet reflects our natures, but it's also its own thing, a part of our environments, alongside which we should expect to evolve."
One interesting advocate of this view is the science historian George Dyson, if you're interested in exploring the idea more.
I don't buy into it because most people don't use it for truly ground breaking projects, but rather as a social themed timewaster. They remain in their small communities (now more of a friends list) and don't "evolve" into a new being or anything like that. Just the old deal with faster ways of communicating.
Cooking altered human DNA, so it's possible for societal changes to show up in genes.
OTOH, that was 10,000 years ago, and it takes many many generations for it to happen.
OTOH, that was 10,000 years ago, and it takes many many generations for it to happen.
In our times, it takes only an ethical decision to start producing artificially 'evolved' humans.
I'm not an individualist and I'm a strong supporter of the Silk Road. Drug prohibition is just dumb policy; it doesn't work, it's expensive, it makes drugs more desirable for teenagers and it ends up causing more suffering than if they were completely legal. I'm hoping these anonymous marketplaces go mainstream to force politicians to start thinking about better ways to reduce drug use, such as education and rehab.
It's still an illegal non-taxed market-place. The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them.
Of course his applies to the financial market also, regulating Wall Street would be a far better good (morally and financially) for the US than any SR clone out there.
The right way to go, is to fight for your policies and vote for them when time comes. Not evading the law or hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it.
On a positive note though, in countries like Netherlands iirc where many drugs are legal, people don't die on the street and drug (as in heroin) addicts have proper med-care if they chose to do so.
Of course his applies to the financial market also, regulating Wall Street would be a far better good (morally and financially) for the US than any SR clone out there.
The right way to go, is to fight for your policies and vote for them when time comes. Not evading the law or hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it.
On a positive note though, in countries like Netherlands iirc where many drugs are legal, people don't die on the street and drug (as in heroin) addicts have proper med-care if they chose to do so.
Breaking/disregarding bad laws has sometimes been a very good way to see said laws changed or abandoned. It is probably a safe bet that millions in North America are disregarding drug laws, possibly every day. The black market in controlled substances is a thriving one, showing that many will accept the risks imposed by the State, and participate in that economy regardless. Since those in power are still to some extent at the mercy of needing the consent of those they rule, the people can make a powerful statement by refusing to comply.
>The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them.
That's a very controversial opinion. Do you disagree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics in the civil rights movement?
"King was arrested and jailed early in the campaign—his 13th arrest[74] out of 29.[75]" - Wikipedia
That's a very controversial opinion. Do you disagree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics in the civil rights movement?
"King was arrested and jailed early in the campaign—his 13th arrest[74] out of 29.[75]" - Wikipedia
Moderation in the pursuit of a better world is no virtue. As a consequentialist, I disagree with your premise that subverting bad laws is unethical behavior.
Weirdly enough, or maybe not so weirdly enough, I agree with most of the assertions made here: It's unethical to subdue to a bad law. Ghandi and Marx supported this Thesis too.
But then, we need to define what is a bad law. In this case I don't considering selling drugs, guns and illegal substances online ethical by any means. Not to mention the tax evasion which hurts all of us.
So, what does "unethical" mean in this context? Can be universally measured somehow?
But then, we need to define what is a bad law. In this case I don't considering selling drugs, guns and illegal substances online ethical by any means. Not to mention the tax evasion which hurts all of us.
So, what does "unethical" mean in this context? Can be universally measured somehow?
>The fact that we don't agree with a set laws, doesn't make ethical overnight to overstep, break or elude them.
On the contrary, the mere fact that something is illegal does not make it unethical.
On the contrary, the mere fact that something is illegal does not make it unethical.
Different approaches to the question of "HOW to bring about change" (as opposed to just "WHAT change is needed") are the reason so many political tendencies exist. Your approach can be described as reformist, and it surely hasn't always proven to be the "right way to go" (other commenters have mentioned the civil rights movement). On the other hand, "hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it" is a strategy frequently adopted by anarchist, libertarian or autonomist trends that hope to create pockets of resistance outside the "system" and try to expand them to bring about change from the outside.
I doubt that there is only one "right way to go" that applies to any situation, but I think that any tactic that can bring about a powerful long-term mass movement is more likely to succeed: for example in the case of the Civil rights movement mentioned, civil disobedience was only one of the methods used, along with discussions, massive marches, boycotts, threatening escalation, and alliances with certain people within the system who have more access to power and who supported the movement.
Which brings me back to the OP's point: individualism vs. authority. Since I personally believe that building mass movements that support freedoms is the most effective way to protect them, individualism (as a method of organising) seems to be another obstacle to building a strong opposition to authority, and thus indirectly serving it.
I doubt that there is only one "right way to go" that applies to any situation, but I think that any tactic that can bring about a powerful long-term mass movement is more likely to succeed: for example in the case of the Civil rights movement mentioned, civil disobedience was only one of the methods used, along with discussions, massive marches, boycotts, threatening escalation, and alliances with certain people within the system who have more access to power and who supported the movement.
Which brings me back to the OP's point: individualism vs. authority. Since I personally believe that building mass movements that support freedoms is the most effective way to protect them, individualism (as a method of organising) seems to be another obstacle to building a strong opposition to authority, and thus indirectly serving it.
MLKJr: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"
"as long as we've gathered together in groups to organise ourselves into herds and packs and tribes and villages and
nations, as opposed to streaming mindlessly through the
oceans like shoals of mackerel"
What? Mackerel? "Streaming mindlessly through the ocean"?
Argument-from-assways-understanding-of-evolution is the new argument from authority, it seems
What? Mackerel? "Streaming mindlessly through the ocean"?
Argument-from-assways-understanding-of-evolution is the new argument from authority, it seems
FTA:
> Silk Road and its like must not only be defeated, they must be crushed out of existence and deter anyone from attempting anything similar.
I'm hoping this is satire
Edit: Apparently this is not the opinion of the author. From the comments:
Just to be clear, the sentence you're quoting is not my belief. It's my description of the obvious [?] strategic imperative from the viewpoint of centralist forces should they feel a threat from emerging individualist forces.
> Silk Road and its like must not only be defeated, they must be crushed out of existence and deter anyone from attempting anything similar.
I'm hoping this is satire
Edit: Apparently this is not the opinion of the author. From the comments:
Just to be clear, the sentence you're quoting is not my belief. It's my description of the obvious [?] strategic imperative from the viewpoint of centralist forces should they feel a threat from emerging individualist forces.
I'm trying to work out the difference between a herd and a shoal. Fish form hierarchies too.
Words don't make libertarians – actions do. The Dread Pirate Roberts may have talked like a libertarian, but he acted like a thug.
Don't call it "Cyber-libertarianism" when it's only "cyber-drug-dealing".
Don't call it "Cyber-libertarianism" when it's only "cyber-drug-dealing".
There comes a time in someone's life when it's time to admit that the whole point of assigning a label is so that [whatever it is] which is assigned said label fits under it and all things that fall outside it are ancillary to said label.
Also, please don't follow the Wikipedia link motif. It's extremely trite. If you have a point to make, please use your own words. As you start typing, you may even get a chance to re-examine your own thoughts (I always do).
Also, please don't follow the Wikipedia link motif. It's extremely trite. If you have a point to make, please use your own words. As you start typing, you may even get a chance to re-examine your own thoughts (I always do).
[deleted]
Aren't libertarians supposed to consider liberty (whatever that means) as the highest political aim? According to this definition, you can't get more libertarian that Roberts since he put his personal life at risk in order to increase the liberty of a few like minded cohorts.
I support neither drugs, libertarianism nor the Silk Road, but I don't like to see people judging who can or can't be a libertarian based on their own moral preconceptions. The only thing that matters in the definition is how much the individual in question has furthered the goal of more liberty.
I support neither drugs, libertarianism nor the Silk Road, but I don't like to see people judging who can or can't be a libertarian based on their own moral preconceptions. The only thing that matters in the definition is how much the individual in question has furthered the goal of more liberty.
> I don't like to see people judging who can or can't be a libertarian based on their own moral preconceptions.
I am judging him according to the same principles he said to defend, since he acted exactly like someone who didn't care about them, and was only interested in his personal monetary benefit - even if that meant torturing and murdering others.
Unless you postulate that "He was defending the Liberty of people to say one thing and do the other, regardless of any laws". Then I would have to agree with you.
I am judging him according to the same principles he said to defend, since he acted exactly like someone who didn't care about them, and was only interested in his personal monetary benefit - even if that meant torturing and murdering others.
Unless you postulate that "He was defending the Liberty of people to say one thing and do the other, regardless of any laws". Then I would have to agree with you.
A group is judged by the actions of its members. You don't get to say that a libertarian who does bad things must have been "not a real libertarian", any more than e.g. a $religion can say their terrorists must've been "not real $religionists".
Yeah, but isn't taking a hit out on somebody considered an initiation of force? Which if I remember correctly is a distinctly non-libertarian thing to do.
It's an interesting debate I suppose. Most 'communist' regimes don't really end up being anything like communist philosophy, yet we still call them communist and draw the conclusion that practical communism degenerates quickly from the ideal to totalitarian dystopia.
I'm not saying libertarianism has the same flaw (though personally I think it's a recipe for neo-feudalism) but it does rather complicate the idea of a strict definition for a political group.
I'm not saying libertarianism has the same flaw (though personally I think it's a recipe for neo-feudalism) but it does rather complicate the idea of a strict definition for a political group.
Libertarians have no problem with someone dealing drugs, in general.
Ah, but not all drug dealers are libertarians. What I'm saying is that according to his actions, which contradicted his words, DPR was all of the former, and none of the later.
True. We do have a problem with murderers, though.
Silk Road did not represent a threat to centralism.
If we had legal, government-regulated or government-operated drug sales then SR might have been more in line with what the author thinks.
In reality the government took down a large criminal enterprise headed by an individual who seems to have been engaged in other criminal activity (hiring contract killers).
In reality the government took down a large criminal enterprise headed by an individual who seems to have been engaged in other criminal activity (hiring contract killers).
Silk Road was criminal because the drug warriors decided that it was. I don't think the only alternative to the punitive system of fines & jails should be a bureaucracy of regulation. The latter is the likely outcome, of course, since legislators have a tough time making changes that don't keep them firmly in charge (or...pretending to be, in the case of the drug war).
That's not really the argument I was making but it is one I will make.
Where drugs are concerned, hell yes we want regulation and bureaucracy. I want to buy from a store (maybe even a pharmacist) who sells products from a well known, traceable and accountable chemical/pharmaceutical company. I want guarantees from the manufacturer that any contaminants are known, non-toxic and biologically inert. I want someone to sue if it's not the case.
I don't buy alcohol from some forum member with half a dozen good reviews, who claims there's no methanol in his moonshine. I buy it from a store that's well run and well regulated.
Edit: tl;dr - SR, to me, is not even close to a good model for legalised drug sales.
Where drugs are concerned, hell yes we want regulation and bureaucracy. I want to buy from a store (maybe even a pharmacist) who sells products from a well known, traceable and accountable chemical/pharmaceutical company. I want guarantees from the manufacturer that any contaminants are known, non-toxic and biologically inert. I want someone to sue if it's not the case.
I don't buy alcohol from some forum member with half a dozen good reviews, who claims there's no methanol in his moonshine. I buy it from a store that's well run and well regulated.
Edit: tl;dr - SR, to me, is not even close to a good model for legalised drug sales.
All of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party, and probably more efficiently.
Yay! Libertarian talking points!
I don't want to get into this, suffice to say I disagree.
I don't want to get into this, suffice to say I disagree.
I don't want to get into this either, suffice to say you're wrong.
No, I do actually disagree.
Of course, which is why you are wrong.
It is not a matter of opinion or a political talking point, it is a statement of fact; all of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party.
The "probably better" part is at least up for debate but the simple truth of the statement that private third parties provide facilities as described is simply factual.
It is not a matter of opinion or a political talking point, it is a statement of fact; all of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party.
The "probably better" part is at least up for debate but the simple truth of the statement that private third parties provide facilities as described is simply factual.
I don't believe that guarantees can be provided in the same way by private third parties, sorry. Not with the same strength as can be provided by statute, not with the same consequences for those that deliberately transgress.
Better/more efficient is also up for argument, but the main statement is not simply true. Sorry.
Edit- by "not simply true" I mean up for debate and open to argument, not "false"
Better/more efficient is also up for argument, but the main statement is not simply true. Sorry.
Edit- by "not simply true" I mean up for debate and open to argument, not "false"
I can see your point about the teeth government regulation has over 3rd party regulation, but you do have to concede that for many benign products and services (that don't involve danger to life and limb) 3rd party rating services work quite well. The debate should be about whether or not the consumer has any teeth when it comes to rejecting unsafe or inferior products and services, and if those teeth are as sharp as the Government's.
I agree, many things can be done this way. I think that with drugs the dangers from contamination and fraud are serious enough to have some proper regulation. Slip-ups or profit-motivated cuts and substitutions cost lives, many lives.
Of course some of this would be mitigated by removing the unnecessary anonymity factor from a legal silk road. I also like the idea of going to a shop and buying recognised brands of chemicals from well known companies. Total normalisation of the drug trade rather than sketchy, rep base forums.
"Hullo pharmacist, I'd like a quarter gram of DiPT crystal please" "Certainly sir. Now you're not going to be mixing that with MDMA or other serotonergica are you? Nasty interactions I'm afraid. That'll be £12"
Of course some of this would be mitigated by removing the unnecessary anonymity factor from a legal silk road. I also like the idea of going to a shop and buying recognised brands of chemicals from well known companies. Total normalisation of the drug trade rather than sketchy, rep base forums.
"Hullo pharmacist, I'd like a quarter gram of DiPT crystal please" "Certainly sir. Now you're not going to be mixing that with MDMA or other serotonergica are you? Nasty interactions I'm afraid. That'll be £12"
Now you're talking about consequences and penalties, which has nothing to do with the original statement relating purely to assurances and validation and authentication of claims.
You can argue on top of that a paramilitary organisation must exist so that such findings have any real world impact. Once again though that was not in the content of the original statement, and you might awkwardly find yourself supporting people trying to give teeth to what they believe to be extremely important things in various other ways you may not immediately see the parity with, but nonetheless spring from the exact same premise of implicitly desirable violent deterrence.
For example, engaging the services of a professional killer to prevent a large number of customers who have trusted you and your business from being kidnapped and held in rape cages for an extended period of time.
You can argue on top of that a paramilitary organisation must exist so that such findings have any real world impact. Once again though that was not in the content of the original statement, and you might awkwardly find yourself supporting people trying to give teeth to what they believe to be extremely important things in various other ways you may not immediately see the parity with, but nonetheless spring from the exact same premise of implicitly desirable violent deterrence.
For example, engaging the services of a professional killer to prevent a large number of customers who have trusted you and your business from being kidnapped and held in rape cages for an extended period of time.
Penalties are at least part of what keeps people honest, and therefore part of the assurance. Contaminated/cut/substituted drugs kill people, but there is a large profit motive to do it. I think it's appropriate to have criminal sanctions for this sort of thing.
Sure and no one does it better than Goldman Sachs or the 7 sister companies rating Lehman triple As just minutes before its crash.
Private third party is good, especially if you are the one who pays for the assignment. It accidentally delivers what suits you better, who would have thought?
Private third party is good, especially if you are the one who pays for the assignment. It accidentally delivers what suits you better, who would have thought?
There's that "probably better" part of the debate. The fact that what happened, happened, though, is just further evidence of the fact that third party ratings agencies exist.
Frankly, I do think they can be better than government alternatives, but I acknowledge it's open for debate, rather than the simple fact that they actually exist and operate.
Keep in mind the government alternative in the scenario you're talking about is the SEC, and perhaps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were actually involved in the disaster and several narratives exist in which they directly caused the disaster. The 2008 GFC as evidence of market regulation being essential is no knock-out punch, in fact it makes a pretty good point in a set of arguments as to why the inverse is true.
Too big to fail, the government and fed response to the crisis, the government regulations which contributed to the fiasco in the first place, and the half assed regulation that served neither a free market nor a centrally planned economy that has been par for the course both before, during and after the crisis are good cases in point.
Frankly, I do think they can be better than government alternatives, but I acknowledge it's open for debate, rather than the simple fact that they actually exist and operate.
Keep in mind the government alternative in the scenario you're talking about is the SEC, and perhaps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were actually involved in the disaster and several narratives exist in which they directly caused the disaster. The 2008 GFC as evidence of market regulation being essential is no knock-out punch, in fact it makes a pretty good point in a set of arguments as to why the inverse is true.
Too big to fail, the government and fed response to the crisis, the government regulations which contributed to the fiasco in the first place, and the half assed regulation that served neither a free market nor a centrally planned economy that has been par for the course both before, during and after the crisis are good cases in point.
I actually don't think that SR is a good model for legal drug sales, either. SR is/was designed around the fact that these transactions are illegal. In a situation where drugs are legal, whatever the level of regulation, you'd have very different kinds of websites. For example, anonymity might still be a selling point, but for social reasons, rather than legal ones.
The author seems to think that with so many people being online that humans are evolving into something else and thus the way our society organizes itself is also due for a dramatic change. Personally I don't see things that way, instead I just see the Internet as a logical progression of our communication tools. It's existence, to me, doesn't mean anything more than it makes human's true nature more apparent.