SilkRoad domain Seized?

[AC130AS]

All I have to say is that shit just got real.

[1715686151]

1715686151

[1715686151]

1715686151

[1715686151]

1715686151

[1715686151]

1715686151

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

I would like to see examples of countries (areas?) which had no formal government and which hosted a sophisticated, peaceful civilisation for some length of time. I think I've read quite a lot of history and I'm struggling to recall any such place.

Medieval Iceland and Ireland didn't have an actual government, law was decentralized. I wouldn't call any medieval society "sophisticated and peaceful", but they compared well to other European places of the time.
There's also lex mercatoria which was a set of voluntary merchant laws that transcended states of the time.

There have been practical examples of decentralization of mostly everything a state monopolizes today, if not all.

I've actually read some Rothbard. I found his prose to be deeply unconvincing. I respect economists who develop theories and then test them against real world data. Theories that exist in the world of abstract philosophy is how you end up with the deflationary spiral idea - stuff that simply doesn't match observed reality.

Rothbard had a lot of very strange ideas about the nature of cartels and monopolies. DPR was fond of citing him as some kind of authority. But when you read his writings, where are the examples, where are the studies that show his theory matches observed reality better than other theories do? He didn't bother. He asserted some ideas as facts and then engaged in ever more tenuous logical extrapolations. My mind was open and what I found simply didn't win me over.

Empiricism may be used to demonstrate to skeptics an already proven praxeological theory, but it's not through empiricism that economic science should be done. The deflationary spiral theory is supported by empiricist economists, by the way - no wonder is so wrong. For empiricist scientific methods to work, you must be able to isolate all variables and reproduce experiments at will. That's obviously impossible when studying the human action. You can't even enumerate all possible variables, let alone isolate them. Economics can only be developed through the "apriori" method, the same method of mathematics: you start with basic axioms, and then you deduct logical conclusions.

Ludwig von Mises wrote a lot on the importance of the praxeological method to the economic science. Perhaps you should search his texts.

And by the way, libertarianism isn't only economics. Actually, I'd say it's more an "ethical philosophy" than anything.

[klee]

All I have to say is that shit just got real.

Surreal

[tmbp]

And they both had 80 million $ at some point...

They are terrifyingly similar 

[murraypaul]

Consider an analogy: if someone went up to Oskar Schindler and said "I know you are helping Jews escape; if you don't pay me $150k I will tell the Nazis about it", don't you think Schindler had the right to prevent that person from making that known - even if the only way to do so was murder?

Selling people drugs for profit is analogous to freely saving people from Nazi death camps at considerable risk to your own life?
If he did this, it seems very naive to think it was to save all those poor druggies from exposure, rather than to save his own profitable site.

[ronimacarroni]

The fact that some idiot thinks I'm "authoritarian" for merely being unsurprised at Ulbricht's true nature just shows how deluded some people really were. You didn't have to be a genius to see that he might be dangerous.

You're an "authoritarian asshole" because you turned an unproven allegation into an indiscriminate political smear against an entire philosophical discipline, including some of the top thinkers in the world today and some of the highest profile and staunchest Bitcoin supporters.

You didn't condemn contracted murder, you used contracted murder as an excuse to condemned people who disagree with you politically.

By the way - I'm amazed at how many people are surprised that a drug dealer with extreme anarcho-capitalist tendencies turned out to be not a swell guy! Imagine that!

Some of the top thinkers in the world today are drug dealers?
I'm sure you've got a cite for that  

He never said that. He said some of the top thinkers are part of the philosophical discipline (ancapism/libertarianism). Stop twisting words.

It seem like the guy was more interested in $$$ than any sort of phony ideal.
Also libertarians are not anarchists or any of its variations.
Libertarians have a legitimate political party that promotes small government in a time when we could use one.

[scooter]

Once he started doing interviews with Forbes and other media.. I knew it was only a matter of time before he got caught.
Not that the interviews had anything to do with him getting caught, just that it indicated he was the sort of person that was not smart enough to stay hidden.

[Mike Hearn]

Medieval Iceland and Ireland didn't have an actual government, law was decentralized.

I suppose it depends on the precise definition of government you use. Medieval Iceland had courts, laws and judges. It did not have police, so people were expected to get a ruling and then settle their own feuds.

But you're right, when I said sophisticated and peaceful I was thinking more-so than medieval societies.

All the modern examples of government-less areas of the world I can think of are countries where the state collapsed after a revolution or war, usually either quickly replaced by a (often worse) government, or constantly warring factions.

The closest peaceful example might be Belgium, which couldn't decide on a leading political party for a long time and was run by a "caretaker government" that didn't make any major decisions. But absence of decision making is not really the same thing as absence of the rule of law, which is what DPR wanted.

Empiricism may be used to demonstrate to skeptics an already proven praxeological theory, but it's not through empiricism that economic science should be done. The deflationary spiral theory is supported by empiricist economists, by the way - no wonder is so wrong.

You must be using the word empirical in a different way to how I'd normally understand it. Economists that tried to find empirical evidence for deflationary spiral theory have failed - historical data does not support the theory.

In fact, let me quote my favourite paper on the subject:

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr331.pdf

Are deflation and depression empirically linked? No, concludes a broad historical study of inflation and real
output growth rates. Deflation and depression do seem to have been linked during the 1930s. But in the rest
of the data for 17 countries and more than 100 years, there is virtually no evidence of such a link.

That's an empirical study, it even says so in the abstract. That's the kind of economics I find convincing - study the data. It's difficult to do the same for anarcho-capitalist ideas because there aren't any good examples of it working successfully in modern times.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the theoretical appeal of a society without a ruling government. But in practice one seems to be necessary to keep the peace, which is why so much political philosophy over the past 2000 years has focused on how to limit the power of the state rather than eliminate it entirely.

[wopwop]

lol @ ppl discussing here now that drugs is infact, liberal and thus a good thing

bitcoiners.. always in for a joke

[AC130AS]

lol @ ppl discussing here now that drugs is infact, liberal and thus a good thing

bitcoiners.. always in for a joke

http://img.humorsharing.com/media/images/1211/i_hilarious_spiderman_memes_025_50a8e5af9c5a9.jpg

[tmbp]

lol @ ppl discussing here now that drugs is infact, liberal and thus a good thing

bitcoiners.. always in for a joke

Lol he's in on it he's in on it he's one of the feds!

[callem]

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/10/silk-road-founder-arrested/

This could hurt Bitcoins...

or not

[BCB]

Ross Ulbricht - Thoughts on freedom from his Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/notes/ross-ulbricht/thoughts-on-freedom/108140845903395


Thoughts on FREEDOM
July 5, 2010 at 11:32pm

In light Independence Day, I have been inspired to write down my thoughts on freedom, about a page in length. I hope they will stimulate YOUR thoughts, which I would most enjoy hearing.

What does it mean to be free? This word has been used to describe many things, including feelings, states of being, political and social arrangements, mental states, and physical states. Like something beyond the power of words to describe, freedom exists, but only as it occurs to someone experiencing it. Is it possible for someone locked in a cage to be freer than someone who isn’t? What if they are free from limiting beliefs and can imagine experiences without limits, while the other limits themselves to a prison of dull routines? Can freedom stand up to inter-personal comparisons, or is it a wholly personal experience?

Because of its vague nature, it is useful to make further distinctions. One way to identify freedom is by what one is free from. For example, social freedom could describe freedom from limitations imposed by others. Physical freedom could be freedom from physical restraint either imposed by others or by nature. Personal freedom could describe freedom from beliefs one may have about one’s self, others, and nature that limit what one believes is possible. Always, freedom arises in the absence of limitation. When someone is not limited by others, their physical environment, lack of knowledge or skill, or their own beliefs about what is possible; it is natural for them to expand how they express themselves in the world until the next barrier to their self-expression is reached.

One’s limitations can be difficult to identify because they are not always in plain view, especially the self-imposed ones but also the ones imposed by others and nature. For example, death and taxes are widely agreed upon to be inevitable, but are they? While one may have a choice in how they respond to external limitations, this does not negate their existence. Death and taxes are still real and observable, but inevitable? This is an interpretation. It is an extrapolation from the past in an attempt to predict the future, is not the truth and therefore limits what is possible.

That being said, it is my observation that far too much attention is directed, by people in general, toward limitations that arise out of a lack of skill or knowledge that could be better directed toward eliminating self-imposed limitations and one’s beliefs about seemingly inevitable external limitations. This is understandable because, for limitations in skill or knowledge, the problem, solution, and benefit are easy to see and predict. For example, I know I will have more freedom if I know how to play the piano and that all I need to do is learn to play and practice. However, the solution to and benefit of ridding one’s self of a belief such as “I’m shy” or “telepathy is impossible” are not so apparent. Imagine how rich and fulfilling your life could be, well beyond learning a new skill, if you could let go of the beliefs you have that limit you and live your life to its fullest potential. Imagine what could be accomplished and experienced.

Are you free? Yes and no. Freedom is a relative and unquantifiable thing. The question is, “How can I be freer?” and the answer to that depends on YOU. For me, I could be freer by letting go of beliefs like “life is hard,” “if you want something done right you should do it yourself,” “why try, I’ll probably fail” and so on. I could also be freer by creating and acquiring more resources that allow me to express myself in bigger and broader ways, both physical in form and in the form of relationships.

Let Independence Day be a reminder to us that we live in a most unique time, and are freer, as a generation, than any that has come before us. Let us be thankful for our freedom, and build a world where we, and the generations that follow us, will be freer than any that have come before!

[BitWrit]

Hey we can't allow people to kill each other.
That's were I draw the line.
You kill someone you go to jail/go to the chair.
Simple as that.

One could make the argument that objectively the system that SR had in place likely prevented more murders than it caused. But yes he is, if proven in a fair trial (however likely that may be) beyond a shadow of a doubt, a murder and does not deserve freedom.

[ronimacarroni]

Hey we can't allow people to kill each other.
That's were I draw the line.
You kill someone you go to jail/go to the chair.
Simple as that.

One could make the argument that objectively the system that SR had in place likely prevented more murders than it caused. But yes he is, if proven in a fair trial (however likely that may be) beyond a shadow of a doubt, a murder and does not deserve freedom.

lives are not numbers.
If you kill one person you're as bad as the person who kills a thousand.

[Chronikka]

Hey we can't allow people to kill each other.
That's were I draw the line.
You kill someone you go to jail/go to the chair.
Simple as that.

One could make the argument that objectively the system that SR had in place likely prevented more murders than it caused. But yes he is, if proven in a fair trial (however likely that may be) beyond a shadow of a doubt, a murder and does not deserve freedom.

lives are not numbers.
If you kill one person you're as bad as the person who kills a thousand.

I beg to differ. I am in no way saying its ok to murder anybody...but you can't seriously consider somebody who commits one murder out of self preservation equal to a person who kills a thousand

[Alonzo Ewing]

Would you believe that I, as an ancap, also find Rothbard unconvincing?  Not only that, but I don't think the "non-aggression principle" is an adequate guide for political philosophy.  I'm not a libertarian due to moral axioms, but rather, because I think it produces the best outcomes. 

When I talk about anarcho-capitalism, I don't mean ending a govt and leaving a void.  Rather, I hope that certain institutions replace current institutions.  I don't desire lack of security or legal adjudication; I want a market for such.  In place of monopoly, I want competition.  Upon reading this, I'm sure you already have objections, such as, "Why won't various security providers simply fight each other?  Wouldn't they basically be gangs?"  Good question.  Just like you mentioned how at the supra-national level, there's relative peace because of economic development and the high costs of war, in my ideal world, security providers would find peace more profitable than war.  You might be skeptical; I don't blame you.  It's not without cautious skepticism that I hold my views. 

To flesh out these ideas better, there's no better book than The Machinery of Freedom http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf by David Friedman.  If you appreciate a beautiful argument and a razor-sharp mind mixed with humility, you'll love the book.

As far as empirical examples, there are examples to various degrees, even if not in totality:

* federalism in the early US
* no supra-national govt at the world stage
* medieval merchant law
* insurance companies having procedures to settle disputes outside of courts
* rural California ranchers (Friedman's more advanced book Law's Order goes into this more)
* as mentioned earlier, medieval Iceland

Let's also recognize that just because something is unprecedented, that doesn't mean it's impossible.  Institutionalized slavery was a human universal... until it wasn't.  Women's suffrage was crazy... until it wasn't.  Democracy itself was nutty (one ancient Egyptian to another "What, the ruler will simply step down if he loses a popularity contest?!?!  Haha, you so crazy!!")...until it wasn't.  The idea of a functional cryptocurrency was crazy... until Satoshi made it work.

So yes, the list of functional ancap societies in the modern area is blank, but that doesn't imply they can't exist.  What matters is--can societies thrive under such a system?  Can they evolve into such a system?  The reason I call myself an ancap is because I believe, cautiously, that the answer to both questions is "yes". 

..lots of stuff snipped...

I've actually read some Rothbard. I found his prose to be deeply unconvincing. I respect economists who develop theories and then test them against real world data. Theories that exist in the world of abstract philosophy is how you end up with the deflationary spiral idea - stuff that simply doesn't match observed reality.

Rothbard had a lot of very strange ideas about the nature of cartels and monopolies. DPR was fond of citing him as some kind of authority. But when you read his writings, where are the examples, where are the studies that show his theory matches observed reality better than other theories do? He didn't bother. He asserted some ideas as facts and then engaged in ever more tenuous logical extrapolations. My mind was open and what I found simply didn't win me over.

[Jenger]

Response from a MOD on SR forums. Seems LE has control of the forums, using it to absorb any and all evidence possible.

https://i.imgur.com/v4LC2Fw.png (screenshot post from MOD on SR fourms)

[Jenger]

And possible info on that first "murder for hire" plot, the one he said he got done for $80k.. seems he was set up in that one too by the feds!
This news article has a lot of info I havnt heard about so far.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bal-silk-road-owner-ross-william-ulbricht-allegedly-tried-to-arrange-witness-murder-in-md-20131002,0,5476223.story

[TheKoziTwo]

That he was an an-cap?  Well, so is probably 20% of the community here.

That also includes Jeffery Tucker, Roger Ver, Jeff Berwick, Stefan Molyneux, and quite a few others. Maybe Mike Hearn can publicly debate them sometime, if he's got something more than insults to bring to the table.

+1

It's really disappointing to see such pathetic outbursts of authoritarianism coming from Mike Hearn. He lost all respect I had for him today. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad he did, now we know his true colors.