I think it's extremely likely it saved people from overdosing or taking the wrong drugs. The review system let people vet their dealers before buying.
And yeah, I was mainly thinking about street level violence. While I've never lived under the influence of a cartel, I have a hard time believing the Silk Road would make anything worse for anyone in that situation. It seems to me giving cartels the ability to directly sell their drug to people over the internet would only decrease violence. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
> I think it's extremely likely it saved people from overdosing or taking the wrong drugs. The review system let people vet their dealers before buying.
Based on what? How many OD victims never lived to give a 3 star rating "overdosed, would not buy again"?
You should watch Cocaine Diaries (http://exclaim.ca/music/article/blurs_alex_james_in_bbc_doc_...) - a documentary about a rock star, after talking about cocaine fueled parties, was invited to Colombia and met with everyone from villagers to a cartel hitman. To think that there's no violence in the _production_ alone, let alone distribution and retail, would be naive. And to think that giving the cartels safer channels to sell and increase their market would make those precursors safer is something I can't really picture.
It saved lives by giving more people access to high quality drugs, as well as having a feedback and review system that made the vendors accountable for the shit they sold.
Harm reduction is a big thing on DNM markets and forums. You have information on how to safely use drugs and places to ask for advice. I bet it saved quite a few lives.
The access will always be easy anyway. The only difference is that now people have access to high quality drugs which are much less damaging, not some shit that has changed hands ten times, with each duckhead cutting it with whatever they have nearby.
the most obvious example of harm is probably the opiod epidemic, and the deaths resulting from overdose. of course shutting down the silk road and sending addicts into the streets or to jail is probably exacerbating the risks and is certainly no solution.
I think if anything, the opioid epidemic was improved through dark web market places. I'm sure if you search on the news throughout the years, there were more overdoses related to substances sold being misrepresented or cut with something like fentanyl.
The Silk Road was bad because it circumvented the law and the ability of law enforcement to enforce the law. The law is an important thing in a democracy. The rule of law protects us, from each other and from the government. The way to change laws is through your representatives in the government, not go do your own thing. If you do go do your own thing and the law catches up to you, that is a consequence of your actions.
It would be hypocritical to be upset at politicians like our president and congress for breaking laws, but then to cheer on Ross for his breaking of the law. Justice isn't a pick and choose kind of thing.
Not all laws are just. Not all application of law is just, though it may be lawful. The Constitution even has an escape hatch built in: the presidential pardon. The framers were quite aware that sometimes the law is not just- otherwise, why allow unilateral pardons?
Sodomy laws were only overturned nationally in 2003. Was everyone involved in consensual buggery before then "hypocritical" for being "upset at politicians like our president and congress for breaking laws"?
as a practical matter civil disobedience is a pretty fundamental part of how democracies function. I don't think darkweb markets are civil disobedience! but there are many, many worse things than hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is another thing that is a fundamental part of how democracies function. Without hypocrisy you can't really have a free society.
You're earnestly comparing civil disobedience with profiting off of illegal drug trade. Some laws truly are unjust but that doesn't mean you or I can justify breaking whatever law we want because of it. If your conviction about the unjustness of a law is strong enough, then you'll be willing to face the consequences that comes with breaking them.
That's what Ulbricht is doing, facing his consequences, and I have no sympathy for him. Notice the lack of a public outcry or a huge public movement to come to his rescue. It's because the laws he broke are not unjust. The laws he broke are reasonable, he was a drug trafficker.
Again I'm not saying that darkweb markets are civil disobedience. But first you have to determine that drug laws as we know them are just before you can be sure that shutting darknets down is in the interests of justice.
For instance, drug possession is illegal, but prosecuting every single person found with small amounts to the maximum extent possible would not be just, and no appeal to the law will make it so. I am hugely sympathetic to people pulled up on minor drug crimes, even though they are technically "facing the consequences" of their actions, because they're unjust consequences. Drug possession isn't civil disobedience but that doesn't mean I'm happy when people go to jail on minor possession charges. Ditto prostitution: not civil disobedience, probably unjust to jail someone for it.
I'm not sympathetic towards him either, but neither am I particularly mad at him over his actions being illegal. Hiring a hitman is wrong regardless of the law. Profiting off drug sales, well that's a more complicated argument than simply "it's illegal." It's probably good that he's behind bars but I don't think you can just point at the statutes he broke and, without reference to anything in the outside world, say that you are certain it's a just consequence. Possibly it was. But you can't just assume that if he really is guilty (he is), the consequences are reasonable.
Meanwhile, Paul le Roux is very likely to get a light sentence due to his extensive cooperation with the government. le Roux is directly responsible for several completed murders. He sold missile components to Iran! His sentence will almost certainly be much shorter than Ross Ulbricht's. Does that serve justice or not? It's not obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux
Yes, it is. That is the entire purpose of the executive branch; choosing what laws to enforce. We don't have the capacity to enforce every law. There are such a ridiculous amount of laws on the books over the last 250 years that enforcing them all is impossible. So, we prioritize things. There is a reason why most lawyers will suggest that you don't talk to the police without an attorney present[0]. If they want to get you for something, they will find something.
Also, justice and law are not the same at all. We do not have a justice system. We have a legal system. If you have more money, you will almost always have more favorable outcomes in court. I'm not saying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need some laws and law enforcement. But legality does not equal morality. You have to weigh things on their own.
Owning slaves was legal and enforced by the law at one point too. Was the underground railroad an immoral drain on society?
While not all of Silk Road was sunshine and rainbows, the changing attitudes towards marijuana legislature is proof that circumventing the law isn't always this drain on society because the law isn't always caught up to society.
>It would be hypocritical to be upset at politicians like our president and congress for breaking laws, but then to cheer on Ross for his breaking of the law.
There's a lot wrong in your comment but this is the most wrong by far. Citizens are not accountable to the government in the same way that the president is accountable to the country. The latter is a far stricter responsibility and not a two-way relationship. Citizens have no moral obligation other than the threat of force to obey unjust laws; in fact in many cases breaking such laws is closer to moral duty. See civil disobedience.
