No, that's a really imbecilic interpretation of what I said. If you're making yourself rich you can't turn around and plead that your act was selfless public service. Ulbricht was no different than any other violent drug lord and you won't convince me otherwise by repeating arguments about how drug laws should be reformed -- that's not a notion I disagree with but I think it has zero bearing on this case.
> If you're making yourself rich you can't turn around and plead that your act was selfless public service.
If the public willingly partook of his services, by definition they were a public service. Stores profit from me and yet I also profit from them.
But you're trying to twist out some strange moralistic meaning, as if he should run his business as a non-profit despite how you and I both expect to profit from our work. And even if he could just give his products away, you'd condemn him for that as well. Nobody needs to be selflessly service the public just to deserve protection (or the right to protect themselves).
> you won't convince me otherwise by repeating arguments about how drug laws should be reformed
I'm not arguing that they should, but mainly because I think that's obvious. I'm arguing that because these are our laws, we created this situation. That as long as we have these laws, we create this exact scenario.
> I think it has zero bearing on this case.
Well, other than being 100% the cause of this case. Because you can't blackmail someone for something legal, and this is the very model of a consensual. Nobody was forced to shop Silk Road.
If we don't need to justify the law then we could just as well make abortion illegal and apply the same logic to escaped abortionists.
The law on its own is a worthless artifact, not justification.
> Ulbricht was no different than any other violent drug lord and
Wrong, considering his attempted violence was defensive in nature. But also, boring blame centric thinking.
Drug lords are no different than spice merchants; protecting their wares until they get to market. If you want safer streets, protect the merchants.
No, that's a really imbecilic interpretation of what I said. If you're making yourself rich you can't turn around and plead that your act was selfless public service. Ulbricht was no different than any other violent drug lord and you won't convince me otherwise by repeating arguments about how drug laws should be reformed -- that's not a notion I disagree with but I think it has zero bearing on this case.