Shrem's kidnapping reveals slavish mindset of "public Bitcoin figures"

[genjix]

I think it's damn crap they disown themselves of their "friend" like this right away. Everyone distances themselves immediately. If this were a friend of mine, and I saw no moral wrong in their actions, damn straight I would be stirring the pot.

[Alonzo Ewing]

If Nike shoes were illegal to purchase, then yes I would say hunt the "shoe buyers" down. But it isn't illegal.

BitconEXpress has shown us he's subscribes to the bootlicker ethos.  It's easy to see why tyranny exists, why the tragedies of civilization happen.  In parallel universes, he's Stalin's deputy and Hitler's willing executioner.

[QuestionAuthority]

I'm taking up a collection to send Charlie some necessary supplies to make his stay more comfortable. Anyone want to contribute?

[TheButterZone]

I think the totalitarians would rather you send him this, so they can "win" without having to bring him to trial.

[QuestionAuthority]

I think the totalitarians would rather you send him this, so they can "win" without having to bring him to trial.

That wont set an example. He's going to be the scapegoat and Karpeles might be his cellmate.

[User705]

Shrem's issue is fairly clear cut.  Even if one disagrees with money laundering laws it's pretty clear he decided to break the law when specifically tasked with upholding it as part of his job.  The bigger issue is arrests like this
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/2-Arrested-Charged-in-Bitcoin-Money-Laundering-Scheme-Miami-Dade-State-Attorney-Says-244066451.html

[btcusury]

The people in the suits that write things on paper have the "right" to kidnap you because they have more guns and weapons at their disposal than you do.

That is the only thing that matters.

Absolutely. But these people have actually managed to convince us that their doing so is somehow legitimate/acceptable, simply by calling themselves "authority"! If I force you to do something at gunpoint, that's wrong, but if I'm "authorized" by other people who call themselves "government," then it's OK!

Can someone who believes Shrem got what he deserved explain what he did wrong, morally?

What Shrem deserve is up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else. Moreover, he did not made anything morally wrong. This is not about his moral views, this is about the agreement he made with the authorities. He promised to comply with certain requirements and failed to keep up with the promise. In other words, he agreed to play by certain rules and was caught cheating. Now a court of justice will decide what punishment he will receive. I personally think he will not be jailed. He is going to be offered the opportunity to help the authorities collect evidence to build other cases. The authorities know that is much better having him around to help them rather than having he locked in a jail for the next decades.

Your argument is premised in the idea that it's OK for "the authorities" (i.e. people who believe they have the right to initiate violent action against others who don't have that right) to kidnap anyone they want and THEN put them through a trial to decide their fate. Imagine that YOU were kidnapped for failure to comply with some bullshit regulation, and people then say "it's up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else, what Augusto Croppo deserves."

Also implicit in your argument is the idea of a fair trial in the American "justice system," a preposterous notion on numerous levels.

If they allow him, Shrem will pay much of his earned money for his freedom. He'll probably accept a plea bargain rather than face 25 years in a cage. You seem to think they will turn Shrem into a rat, so that he can help them hurt other innocent people. I would hope Shrem has more integrity than that.

If Nike shoes were illegal to purchase, then yes I would say hunt the "shoe buyers" down. But it isn't illegal.

Is there no other consideration in your thinking? No morality, right or wrong, that kind of thing? Just what the government father figure says? Please answer this question, BCX.

I don't think any of us would say that Shrem wasn't being irresponsible by risking his company. He also could have avoided this. However, that's not to say that it's his FAULT this happened. If someone from the mafia comes and says you'll do what they say or die, and you disobey and are killed as a result, you could have avoided it. The point where you start being stupid is when you start praising the oppressor, basically saying he had it coming. Just because you're warned that doing something that harms absolutely no one will get you thrown in a rape cage for a long time does not make it okay that it's being done.

+1

Shrem underestimated the evil of the system he was getting himself into, as can be seen by his unencrypted emails giving a pass to the activities of BTCKing. He could not have imagined facing 25 years in a cage for "failing to submit a suspicious activity report."

[justusranvier]

You seem to be saying that whatever the men in suits write down is right. I simply do not subscribe to that belief.

You too seem to understand my position and I respect your's. If there is any one thing about the USA that is great, it is the fact that people like you and I can disagree on beliefs and live in peace.

Go to hell you lying fuck.

No, we can't "disagree on beliefs and live in peace". One side has an army of armed mercenaries who kick the teeth in of anyone who disagrees with them.

What you're actually saying is this: "If there is any one thing about the USA that is great, it is the fact that if people like you I disagree on beliefs, then people like you have to obey people like me in order to live in peace."

If you're going to be an outright sociopath, then do it openly at least and stop insulting our intelligence. Take your smug disingenuity and shove it up your ass.

[Molitor]

The funny thing is that even IF it were a genuine money laundering charge, Shrem would still be morally innocent, because the money was (allegedly) used to buy drugs, not to steal or murder or otherwise cause harm to someone.

I think you mean he would be morally not guilty.

[charleshoskinson]

I've met Charlie at several events and had a chance to work with him at the Foundation when I was bootstrapping their education committee. Charlie seemed to me to be an intelligent and passionate man who fell into a role beyond his skill set and years. He definitely was trying hard, but he apparently didn't learn the lessons all entrepreneurs need to know- surround yourself with good, reliable people, protect yourself from the consequences of success, admit you don't know it all (compliance officer?) and be careful with the law.

I really hope this matter can be resolved quickly and without drama to the ecosystem. For what it's worth, I think he will eventually recover and continue to be an entrepreneur. I also see this as a transition stage for bitcoin from its early mtgox, silkroad, bitinstant and 10000 btc pizza days to a more mature and regulated ecosystem. When I was in Miami, I couldn't help but feel that some of the magic was lost, but I did like seeing Rassah manning the bitcoin experts booth.

[cdog]

Many good points however I would just like to state that the premise that we operate under the "rule of law" in America has been clearly proven to be a fallacy, with the 2008 financial crisis and NSA spying being just two out of hundreds of examples of the selective application of law to certain individuals and organizations.

Its pretty simple, Charlie doesnt know the right people and doesnt have enough pull in the right places. Unfortunately, he was a little bit too outspoken and rich to be fully ignored.

[Honeypot]

So you'd support hunting them down just because the government says it's illegal?  No other reason needed?

Yes, I think you finally understand me.

You seem to be saying that whatever the men in suits write down is right. I simply do not subscribe to that belief.

You too seem to understand my position and I respect your's. If there is any one thing about the USA that is great, it is the fact that people like you and I can disagree on beliefs and live in peace.

Is there no other consideration in your thinking? No morality, right or wrong, that kind of thing? Just what the government father figure says? Please answer this question, BCX.

Same question I have answered from quite a few war protesters here in the USA concerning my three paid vacations to Afghanistan and Iraq via the USMC. Sure on a micro person to person level there is that consideration, but over all there is a greater good and I am not the policy maker. I didn't particularly care for killing Muslims living in 7th century conditions, but I did and I lost no sleep over it.

Now am I a saint?, hell no. I do things all the time that might be considered illegal or "victimless" crimes, but I do so knowing that I might pay the price if caught and I don't pretend it's ok just because I happen to disagree with the law.


~BCX~

BCX, I think you are losing part of what it means to be human. We question. We wonder. We think. Would you, say, kill a child if the people in power told you to? If so, I think you should really reconsider your blind faith in people you will never meet with motives unknown to you.

Part of what makes you 'human' is your ability to act beyond some impulses. People who bitch and moan about 'government' all day and think they know better really don't have such skills.

Best thing is, they deluded themselves to be opposite of what they really are, just like justusranvier for example

[Honeypot]

BCX, I think you are losing part of what it means to be human. We question. We wonder. We think. Would you, say, kill a child if the people in power told you to? If so, I think you should really reconsider your blind faith in people you will never meet with motives unknown to you.

I did three tours, so been there, done that. In a combat situation if said child was a threat to me or others or was necessary to eliminate in order accomplish the mission, then yes, and I have. I do not see any situation in my civilian life now that would require such actions, but if it were according to a specified rules of engagement for a predefined cause that was legal and permissible, again yes and I would lose no sleep. I just somehow do not think we are going to agree on this.

Again, Shrem rolled the dice knowing what the consequences were if he crapped out. So I have zero support or mercy for him.


~BCX~

The truth, and nothing but the truth.

I would respect anyone's wishes, and decisions. I hope they are prepared to respect mine. And the consequences of their decisions as they are prepared to respect the fact that they are in a position to make decisions of any kind at all.

[Honeypot]

Also, to whoever thinks bitching about shit means you know what it means to 'stand up against DA MAN', kindly go fuck yourself. Hippies tried that shit and now they are in the dust bin of history along with those deluded communists and Das Kapital.

A grown man knows the world he lives in, and sees values as well as things that need changing. If crypto community is to grow and mature, you better start thinking outside of OP's persecution complex delusions and begin behaving like a professional.

If anyone wants to protest this kid's arrest........


Well they can't. He played and lost.


'Slavish mindset' LOL this kind of childish smugness drags good causes through the mud.

[btcusury]

Is there no other consideration in your thinking? No morality, right or wrong, that kind of thing? Just what the government father figure says? Please answer this question, BCX.

Same question I have answered from quite a few war protesters here in the USA concerning my three paid vacations to Afghanistan and Iraq via the USMC. Sure on a micro person to person level there is that consideration, but over all there is a greater good and I am not the policy maker. I didn't particularly care for killing Muslims living in 7th century conditions, but I did and I lost no sleep over it.

Now am I a saint?, hell no. I do things all the time that might be considered illegal or "victimless" crimes, but I do so knowing that I might pay the price if caught and I don't pretend it's ok just because I happen to disagree with the law.

~BCX~

OK, I understand you now. May I introduce you to Ken O'Keefe? He was a marine (and as the saying goes, he still is) just like you, but at some point had an epiphany, an awakening. He saw reality as it is, rather than how he was told it is. He regained his ability to think for himself.

Also, to whoever thinks bitching about shit means you know what it means to 'stand up against DA MAN', kindly go fuck yourself. Hippies tried that shit and now they are in the dust bin of history along with those deluded communists and Das Kapital.

A grown man knows the world he lives in, and sees values as well as things that need changing. If crypto community is to grow and mature, you better start thinking outside of OP's persecution complex delusions and begin behaving like a professional.

How can you be so sure you know the world you live in? Over 1 billion of us are starving, yet we have the resources and technology to easily feed and shelter every human being on the planet. If you still have the sense of compassion that you were born with, you'll know that this fact alone proves that there is something fundamentally awry in the system we are living within.

[TheFootMan]

OK, I understand you now. May I introduce you to Ken O'Keefe? He was a marine (and as the saying goes, he still is) just like you, but at some point had an epiphany, an awakening. He saw reality as it is, rather than how he was told it is. He regained his ability to think for himself.

On an unrelated note, I read that in one state students who were found to be too intelligent was dismissed from the police academy.

And in Denmark, the Jehovah's Witnesses had some senior members that complained about youngsters doing advanced educations, as this tended to make them think for themselves and leave Jehovah's Witnesses.

The people in power like to have obedient people beneath them that will do whatever they're told.

[jongameson]

Drugs are not moral that's why they are illegal.  There's a difference between what's moral and not moral and that's called LAW.  don't like it, CHANGE IT AMERICA

[btcusury]

Drugs are not moral that's why they are illegal.  There's a difference between what's moral and not moral and that's called LAW.  don't like it, CHANGE IT AMERICA

You can't be serious...

Who are you to pass that kind of general moral judgment, stating it as if fact?

Law, as you are thinking of it (legislation), has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

Looks like you also believe that the "democratic process" is the only way to change things, how cute.

[Beliathon]

I'd like to add two things to this, as an east-coast American lifelong marijuana smoker and social-anxiety sufferer with PTSD. I could still today go to jail for reducing my suffering with weed.

Global war on drugs a "billion dollar failure"

Ending the War on Drugs, with Compassion

Mala prohibita has got to GO! For the same reason sexual reproductive laws have got to GO!!! These bodies belong to us, not them!

Fuck Amerikkka and its cartel-enriching drug war, fuck the CIA, fuck the DEA, fuck the NSA. They can all go to hell, and if they ever send armed men to my door that's exactly where I'll send them.

See also: The long reach of reason.

[Beliathon]

This didn't start with with Shrem, and it won't end with Shrem. The "make an example" to scare the masses tactic is very, very old.  

How did that work out with the drug war? And the copyright war?  

Relax everyone, Bitcoin is going to be fine. Their tricks are old and tired, and we know them well. They're losing their power to control us as we speak.