Ross Ulbricht: Silk Road appeal denied.

john-robert (55) in bitcoin • 6 years ago (edited)

SCOTUS will not review Ulbricht's case.

Full article @reason: https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/28/ross-ulbrichts-case-will-not-be-heard-by

bitcoin freemarkets scotus economics libertarian

6 years ago by john-robert (55)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

cryptick (56) · 6 years ago

When you consider the potentially huge amounts of drugs that went through the silk road, and the implications of those drugs hitting society. This is man who needs to stay in jail. Now I know lots of people have different opinions on drugs, but ultimately, their misuse has destroyed and hurt a huge number of lives. (If people would have been able to maintain self control and not ruin lives, it would not have been needed to make the drugs illegal in the first place.)This is a complicated issue that society has had to deal with in Cigarettes and alcohol, but the harder drugs are so much more addictive and deadly. By helping to spread massive quantities of these illegal drugs, he has hurt people, caused deaths and done serious damage to society. There are certain people that are just best kept in prison and away from society. He is one of those people.

$0.08

1 vote

[-]

john-robert (55) · 6 years ago

I see your point @cryptick.

Following the logic of your reasoning. It is not the objects that are the problem, but the human drive to abuse. If someone does not abuse drugs they may still abuse other things like work or other people.

Expanding human choice surely contributes to some harm being done if humans have harmful tendencies; if the good potentially outweighs the bad; everyone is better off.

$0.00

[-]

cryptick (56) · 6 years ago

Yes, And society has learned through experience that it can decrease the bad effects through certain laws. Legal drinking ages (21 in USA), laws on drinking and driving, laws about not serving alcohol after certain hours, and laws about not serving drunk patrons, and more go to help limit the damage of these. Many drugs are illegal for a reason. Meth for example is extremely addictive and can destroy lives so fast. It really warps the brain. Plus drugs and alcohol are a factor in so many other things. (Crime, people not able to maintain a job, unwanted pregnancies, sexual abuse and more.) Drugs that are not a big factor in this -smoking or caffeine- have had less restrictions. People don't like rules, but rules do work.

$0.08

1 vote

[-]

john-robert (55) · 6 years ago (edited)

Do you think 17 year olds should vote for the legislatures? What about 16 year olds? We can enforce countless restrictions on individuals for the "good of society". The enforcers may actually believe in their hearts it is the right thing to do.

Take a society that legally distributes alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine and simultaneously restricts cannabis and psilocybin. Such a society will manifest certain characteristics. Do you believe human governments capable of finely weighing all of the potential risks/rewards of each restriction?

$0.00

[-]

cryptick (56) · 6 years ago

I was politically aware when I was 17, enough that I felt I would have made an educated informed decision, however today I shudder when discussing politics with people because I run into many who are much older than that, and so ill-informed that it scares me. A decision had to be made, people decided it was 18. I don't feel like changing it just for the sake of changing it. I do not believe human governments are capable of finely weighing ALL the potential risk and rewards of each restriction, but I do feel they they are good at generally weighing MOST OF the risks and rewards of most things. Governments have done an amazing thing with traffic laws. Governments have done an amazing thing at zoning laws. Water is safe to drink. Governments are made up of people. We need to constantly change laws. America is facing a opid crisis -drugs pain killing drugs perscribed by congress. The drug companies told congress their new pain killing drugs would not be addictive. Well, they are. And now millions are addicted. This was a failure. It was only 150 years ago that electricity was invented, yet we have very few deaths due to electrocution. Governments made laws, standards and they worked. Water in most of the Western World is safe. That is not the case in other places. This regulation worked. In America congress outlawed DDT -a mosquito killing pesticide- After this millions of people died in Africa. I think this was a mistake. We can always rebel against government, but there are times to acknowledge that it works.

$0.00

[-]

hashcash (63) · 6 years ago

Ross Ulbricht case is a black mark on the modern justice system. I started following (just reading but sadly no activism) his case last year. To me it seemed that from the moment he entered the system, the very wheels of it were bent on jailing the guy.
What is more worrisome is the fact that his case has received tons of public exposure and yet lawmakers are literally bending the rules to make sure this guy stays in. A true example of the fact that the reach of the law is only limited to some.

$0.07

1 vote

[-]

john-robert (55) · 6 years ago

I think you're on to something. The entire handling of the case appears to be an exercise in outcome-oriented process. Even public coverage/opinion of him was distorted.

Yes, the Silk Road was a place to buy drugs.

But it was also a place for low-income people to buy medications (inhalers etc) at affordable prices without the pharmaceutical company/insurance fraud mark-up.

So I ask you, who is the real criminals?

$0.00

[-]

kwadjobonsu (66) · 6 years ago

Hey Robert @john-robert This comment is unrelated to the post above. However, I would like you to know that I have been able to get 10 yensesa tokens.