Founder of Silk Road Gets Life in Prison

Status
Not open for further replies.

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Ross Ulbricht's cruel and unusual sentence has far, far more to do with his agorist philosophy (and the threat of Bitcoin) than the drugs he didn't sell, although there's a tremendous effort to paint him as nothing more than a vicious drug dealer in it only for the money.

Bolding mine. Boggling mine as well. Are you freaking kidding me?

Check google. Big time drug dealers get life sentences all the damned time. Maybe in your ideal world, drug dealing is not illegal. Hell, Don, you and I could get together and have a rousing discussion, in agreement with one another, about the legalization of all drugs. But in our current reality, drug dealing is illegal, acting as a middle-man in drug deals is illegal, setting up systems to disperse illegal drugs is illegal, what this man did was illegal, and the sentence he received is not out of step with what others have received for similar crimes. But you want to say they're punishing him for his philosophy, or because he made money with Bitcoin?

Please.

Arguing that there shouldn't be laws against what he did is reasonable. And yes, I find the judge's "social fabric" remark disturbing - although not for reasons related to the crime or sentencing of the accused. But he did commit a crime, his sentence is not unusual, and no one was arrested for "an agorist philosophy" or a "stack of bitcoins." No one was arrested for an altruistic attempt to take violence out of drug deals, either. The fact that he set up drug deals for a cut of the profit online instead of in person is unusual, but the act itself is pretty common and is - like it or not - illegal.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Our drug laws are stupid and counterproductive. Decades long sentences including up to life in prison are counterproductive, absurd, and often tragic, and deserve more outrage then they currently receive.

There is one well-known case where a young man with no previous record who received life in prison without parole for simply facilitating a marijuana deal. He was carrying a gun, and although it was neither used nor even displayed and he was not the buyer nor the seller, they put him away for life.

But our bitcoin hero was no innocent babe. He made millions in a long, ongoing scheme to reap enormous drug profits. And whatever you think of the drug laws, the fact is that those exact same drug laws are what enabled him to make his millions of dollars. It's not like he didn't know what he was doing, nor the consequences if he were caught. And whether it could be proved in court or not, it's pretty clear to me that he really was looking around for a hitman.

That said, yes the sentence is, to me, unreasonably harsh. But again, no more so than what has happened to many other drug dealers. Now, if he had just done something less despicable, like raping a child, he wouldn't have received such a penalty.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
Lol.

I'm disappointed with the willful blindness I'm seeing. The transcript is there. Ulbricht could easily have been bullshitting about the guy he had killed in order to look tough. But it's pretty obvious he wasn't a stand-up guy, imo.

But bitcoin! But war-on-drugs! He's a hero! Uh-huh. Sure he is.

Why no charges? Well, he didn't actually have anyone killed and I don't know that any real money changed hands. And we're talking internet chats. Not actually a firm foundation for a case. Regardless, the prosecutor proved what he needed to prove to get Ulbricht sent up, no?

To be clear, I don't thinks drugs are evil or anything like that. But when they're not a medical need/necessity, when they're recreational, yeah then I don't care a whit. The ones that are illegal are illegal. Don't like it? Keep working to make them legal.

I like a good scotch as much as the next guy. And if scotch became illegal, I wouldn't be happy. I might even try to get that situation changed. But would I participate in a black market for the stuff? Nah. There are other things to enjoy, other things to do. It's just not all that critical to me, having access to any drug for recreational use.

While I think the War on Drugs is largely a waste of resources and mostly pointless (I have to admit, I don't like the idea of people freely using crack and heroine one little bit), I find much of the pushback in this regard to be pathetic.
I'm not calling this guy a hero, and I've stated so explicitly.
As far as the "don't like it? change it" mentality, sure, I'll get right on that. And luckily, there are a few viable candidates for 2016 who want to end the War on Drugs. :sarcasm

I, too, think the War on Drugs is a waste of resources, and pointless, while also not being keen on people freely using crack and heroin (I don't want them to use heroines either). But people are already using them. People are already using them. And the drug laws aren't changing that. People are finding ways to use, and to sell, up until they get caught, and then other people are taking their places. I happen to care about people who are using to their own detriment and would like to see government resources being used to offer something that might actually help those people, while leaving others to their own choices.

People who want these things don't necessarily want access to any drug for recreational use. That's simplifying it in the same way that you'd claim someone fighting for free speech was wanting to be free to publicly say a bunch of shitty things. You can fight for a freedom, for just and fair treatment by the government, for proper use of government resources, without actually wanting, in the case of free speech, to be a loud-mouthed bigot, or, in the case of decriminalization, to take hits off a crack pipe every now and again.
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
People who want these things don't necessarily want access to any drug for recreational use. That's simplifying it in the same way that you'd claim someone fighting for free speech was wanting to be free to publicly say a bunch of shitty things. You can fight for a freedom, for just and fair treatment by the government, for proper use of government resources, without actually wanting, in the case of free speech, to be a loud-mouthed bigot, or, in the case of decriminalization, to take hits off a crack pipe every now and again.
You do realize that such reasonableness has no place whatsoever in today's polarized society, right? If you're not for the drug warriors, you're obviously a crack addict. After all, who could possibly oppose the militarization of the police, huge profits for the prison industry, the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and the destruction of whole segments of society except crack addicts? :sarcasm
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
And whatever you think of the drug laws, the fact is that those exact same drug laws are what enabled him to make his millions of dollars.
This is the part that frustrates me the most.

In and of itself, drug use isn't harmful. Drug addiction can be harmful, both to oneself, which I'd argue is a process to be worked through and can be moved past, and also to other people, which is something we need to protect other people from, as we do for, say, alcohol abuse.

But not only have the drug laws actually created a way for people break the law, exploit users, and make millions, they haven't reduced the potential harm, as I see it.

So why the continued drug laws? Why have we not shifted away from laws that create violations and abuses and illegal profits but don't minimize the harms I would assume we are trying to prevent?

You do realize that such reasonableness has no place whatsoever in today's polarized society, right? If you're not for the drug warriors, you're obviously a crack addict. After all, who could possibly oppose the militarization of the police, huge profits for the prison industry, the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and the destruction of whole segments of society except crack addicts? :sarcasm
Sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of "you had to be there." If I'd never been addicted to anything, honestly, I probably wouldn't give a shit either. Jesus, I'd probably still be a Republican.
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Don said:
If you're not for the drug warriors, you're obviously a crack addict.


No one on this thread is saying this, or anything remotely like it. From this page:

me said:
Hell, Don, you and I could get together and have a rousing discussion, in agreement with one another, about the legalization of all drugs.

Rugcat said:
Our drug laws are stupid and counterproductive.


For the record, I am not a crack addict, nor did I assume that Rugcat was.

I don't believe there should be any such thing as a victimless crime. Prostitution, drug use... stuff like that doesn't bother me until it hurts someone else. On the other hand, I recognize that they are currently illegal; if someone is busted for such a crime, I don't immediately suggest that they were busted because of their philosophy, or for some admirable and perfectly legal goal, or because they were paid in bitcoin. I can both disagree with the laws and understand when someone is rightfully convicted of breaking said laws.

That's reasonableness, not polarization. And if it's out of fashion, most of the posts on this thread have been.

 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
People who want these things don't necessarily want access to any drug for recreational use. That's simplifying it in the same way that you'd claim someone fighting for free speech was wanting to be free to publicly say a bunch of shitty things. You can fight for a freedom, for just and fair treatment by the government, for proper use of government resources, without actually wanting, in the case of free speech, to be a loud-mouthed bigot, or, in the case of decriminalization, to take hits off a crack pipe every now and again.
I don't have a problem with people fighting for access to various drugs. Fight away. Read what I wrote, again.

To be clear, I don't thinks drugs are evil or anything like that. But when they're not a medical need/necessity, when they're recreational, yeah then I don't care a whit. The ones that are illegal are illegal. Don't like it? Keep working to make them legal.

I like a good scotch as much as the next guy. And if scotch became illegal, I wouldn't be happy. I might even try to get that situation changed. But would I participate in a black market for the stuff? Nah. There are other things to enjoy, other things to do. It's just not all that critical to me, having access to any drug for recreational use.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
I don't have a problem with people fighting for access to various drugs. Fight away. Read what I wrote, again.
Read what I wrote again. It's not about "fighting for access." You make it sound like people against drug laws just want to access drugs.
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
I'm a bystander here, and I don't often agree with Robeiae, but he said, "But when they're not a medical need/necessity, when they're recreational, yeah then I don't care a whit. The ones that are illegal are illegal. Don't like it? Keep working to make them legal. "

There's no assumption made about why a person might not like it. I do not do marijuana. I do run a facebook group in support of legalization. He might not care; others do, and it doesn't make them users, nor did he imply such. His further explanation, about Scotch, made the point that even though he enjoys it, the legalization or criminalization of Scotch really wouldn't get him to take action, because - quote - it's just not all that critical to me, having access to any drug for recreational use.

In other words, it's not about whether or not one uses the drug(s) in question.
 
Last edited:

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
I'm a bystander here, and I don't often agree with Robeiae, but he said, "But when they're not a medical need/necessity, when they're recreational, yeah then I don't care a whit. The ones that are illegal are illegal. Don't like it? Keep working to make them legal. "

There's no assumption made about why a person might not like it. I do not do marijuana. I do run a facebook group in support of legalization. He might not care; others do, and it doesn't make them users, nor did he imply such. His further explanation, about Scotch, made the point that even though he enjoys it, the legalization or criminalization of Scotch really wouldn't get him to take action, because - quote - it's just not all that critical to me, having access to any drug for recreational use.

In other words, it's not about whether or not one uses the drug(s) in question.

No, it's not about whether one uses the drug in question. That's the point I was making, when it comes to arguing against the law.

robeiae's point seemed to say that if something he liked was made illegal, he would give it up. And that's a super-great and law-abiding thing to do, but has nothing to do with whether making scotch illegal would be a misuse of government power, and everything to do with how robeiae won't break the law.

And also, it is seemingly a condemnation of people who aren't giving up illegal things, like robeiae would. He'd be fine with it, so why isn't everyone else?

Eh, maybe I'm missing something, I don't know.

My issue with the drug laws isn't that they're "denying people access to recreational drugs." My issue is, I imagine, similar to yours and rugcat's and many others'.
 

lance.schukies

Banned
Spammer
Joined
Apr 7, 2015
Messages
96
Reaction score
4
Location
in a small dungeon
To me the guy got the sentence he deserved, he was and is motivated by money and destroyed peoples lives, the addicts who got drugs and the people who worked for him. he needs to live out his days under supervision, he has proven to his peers he is guilty.

you will never convince me that all drugs he allowed to be sold and he profited from are ok, I have seen to many problems from drug use.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
To me the guy got the sentence he deserved, he was and is motivated by money and destroyed peoples lives, the addicts who got drugs and the people who worked for him. he needs to live out his days under supervision, he has proven to his peers he is guilty.

you will never convince me that all drugs he allowed to be sold and he profited from are ok, I have seen to many problems from drug use.
Well, we certainly don't want to derail this into yet another argument about drugs in general.

For me, the question is not whether or not drugs are good for you. It's about whether or not attempt to control their abuse through the criminal justice system, including and up to life imprisonment is a rational policy.

I don't think alcohol is very good for people in general either. If you study history, you'll see that the prohibition movement came about in part because of the serious negative effects alcohol was having on families and society in general. And as we all admit today, the attempts at reducing and controlling alcohol consumption through criminal penalties was not a success.

Even if one accepts the premise that drugs are bad and sometimes destroy people's lives, the way we are dealing with the problem also destroys peoples lives, and has been an abject failure as social policy. There certainly is a middle ground between allowing free and legal access to all drugs for anyone at any time, and incarcerating hundreds of thousands of people for the crime of using or selling drugs.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
I've wondered if it might be more effective to legalize them, but not protect sellers from civil liability for selling them. Let people sue the crap out of the providers for the damage done, and let the civil courts handle instead of the criminal courts.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
The problem is, if something can make money, negative effects aside, someone is going to abuse it, someone is going to encourage that for profit, and there's not going to be an easy way to combat that.

Anyone comes up with a perfect solution for that, let us know. They prolly won't, though, because it's easier to make money the other way.

Personally, marijuana and caffiene are the only non-medical drugs I think should be legal. Maybe acid? Not alcohol, not nicotine, not heroin, not cocaine. If I had a fool-proof way to outlaw those, or even one that would do slightly less harm than legalizing them, I would be on that in a second. No such method exists that we know if.



In this case, the guy did things he knew were illegal, perhaps for ideological reasons originally, but eventually for profit and power, and there were severe negative consequences on many people. Much like drugs, breaking the law can be harmless, but it can also easily result in going to far and becoming "addicted" (or addicted) to the side-effects. Ironic, I suppose. (Also, as a note, it appears he viewed drugs as his primary item of value, so it doesn't really matter what else might have been sold on Silk Road.)
 

lance.schukies

Banned
Spammer
Joined
Apr 7, 2015
Messages
96
Reaction score
4
Location
in a small dungeon
read http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...ulbricht-jailed-for-life-20150530-ghd1od.html

" It was the maximum possible punishment for
Ross Ulbricht, who was convicted in February by
a jury on seven counts of narcotics trafficking,
criminal enterprise, computer hacking and money
laundering."

if you disagree with the verdict move away from a country that offers a jury system, I would say in his case he had a fair trial, and will appeal the sentence length.

from what I have read of his diaries and reading the evidence in his emails , the guy sounds like he belongs in supervised institution. his justification only confirms he should never be released.

I stress again someone dealing in addictive drugs that destroys peoples lives is not someone I look up to.
 

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
7,099
Location
Albany, NY
Bolding mine. Boggling mine as well. Are you freaking kidding me?

Check google. Big time drug dealers get life sentences all the damned time. Maybe in your ideal world, drug dealing is not illegal. Hell, Don, you and I could get together and have a rousing discussion, in agreement with one another, about the legalization of all drugs. But in our current reality, drug dealing is illegal, acting as a middle-man in drug deals is illegal, setting up systems to disperse illegal drugs is illegal, what this man did was illegal, and the sentence he received is not out of step with what others have received for similar crimes. But you want to say they're punishing him for his philosophy, or because he made money with Bitcoin?

Please.

Arguing that there shouldn't be laws against what he did is reasonable. And yes, I find the judge's "social fabric" remark disturbing - although not for reasons related to the crime or sentencing of the accused. But he did commit a crime, his sentence is not unusual, and no one was arrested for "an agorist philosophy" or a "stack of bitcoins." No one was arrested for an altruistic attempt to take violence out of drug deals, either. The fact that he set up drug deals for a cut of the profit online instead of in person is unusual, but the act itself is pretty common and is - like it or not - illegal.

I just want to say that a lot of big players are actively against the use of bitcoins....I was banned for life from Western Union for buying bitcoins... that's all...
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I just want to say that a lot of big players are actively against the use of bitcoins....I was banned for life from Western Union for buying bitcoins... that's all...
Bitcoin is evil. Whatever it is. Because FedGov says so. Nevermind that the block chain technology developed there has forever solved the problem of decentralized consensus. (which is the primary reason centralized authorities are so adamantly opposed to it).
The key is that the block chain provides us with a mechanism to apply decentralized consensus to a variety of applications. Applying this decentralized concept to other technologies presents the prospect for profound future impact. Any application that requires a system of record, whether banking, property ownership records, or election voting, could potentially benefit from a system of decentralized consensus by breaking away from the classic ‘keys to the kingdom’ problem and eliminating any single point of failure.

For failure to occur in a decentralized network, an entity must compromise a large portion of a distributed, potentially global, network rather than a single institution. Decentralized consensus has other benefits as well, as it potentially creates another barrier for misrepresenting the truth. When information is publicly known, an inaccuracy must be vetted by the system.
...
The question is not whether decentralized networks become more pervasive in our future, but to what extent they will redefine existing systems. By supporting new forms of trusted data sharing and transactional interactions, the long-term effect of Bitcoin may not be its actual impact as a global currency, but as the precursor to a new fundamental trusted application environment that changes the way that we work and play together.
AAMOF, some think the block chain just may save the music industry and the concept of intellectual property in general. I'd expect most authors to consider that a good thing, not a source of evil.
Artists – visual, musical, or otherwise – really must educate themselves about these emerging technologies, or suffer the fate of being exploited by those who do.

OTOH, if FedGov thinks they have a problem today with Silk Road type sites, wait until bookies and the rest of the economic underground discover the block chain. Untraceable financial transactions that are 100% secure for both parties involved in the transaction?

Nah, nothing for FedGov to worry about there. :sarcasm
 

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
Bitcoin is evil. Whatever it is. Because FedGov says so.

Well, FedGov and Charlie Stross.

Me, I don't know. Well, I do know that I don't want to get involved with BitCoins - I don't have enough money of the normal kind to want to risk it in something that might just be an ideological farce. I'll give it a few decades. If BitCoins still exist in 50 years, I might try them out.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
Of course. Because "fiat" money is only bad if it's issued by a government.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Are you seriously still trying to push the line that it was his agorist philosophy and use of Bitcoin that got him into trouble, and not narcotics trafficking, money laundering, ect?
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
I think bitcoins are a cool idea, but like most cool ideas, they aren't going to work out in the real world the way most people think they are. Whether the designers intended them as a weapon against central governance, as opposed to a demonstration of libertarian principles, I think the former is rather the stronger effect.
 
Last edited:

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
While he did things that violate laws that are on the books, those actions were not illegal just a hundred years ago, and I expect that they will not be illegal a hundred years for now, except for the money laundering matter. If you look into the trial itself, then it looks even worse for the government. The investigators who trumped up the charges are themselves under investigation for dubious acts. The defense asked that the trail be postponed until after that completion of the investigation, but the motion was denied, and no evidence at all was presented in regard to a couple of the charges. The defense lawyer will be appealing, and from what I know of the trial the appeal will be successful, and there will be a new trial.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Are you seriously still trying to push the line that it was his agorist philosophy and use of Bitcoin that got him into trouble, and not narcotics trafficking, money laundering, ect?
It's perhaps worth noting that the sentence handed down was beyond what even the prosecution asked for.

I don't believe you can read both Ross Ulricht's pre-sentencing letter as well as Wired's coverage of the sentencing statement by the judge and come to any conclusion other than this sentence was more about sending a message about his techniques than about the crimes he was actually convicted of. That's very plainly stated in both documents.

The interview with his mother at the first link is also worth the investment in time to understand how this first conviction of a web creator for the activities of the site's users has serious implications for the future of the internet, as well as detailing the numerous violations of due process that buttressed the government's case.

Or you can just wait until the FedEx conviction and be surprised when that judgement comes down.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
While he did things that violate laws that are on the books, those actions were not illegal just a hundred years ago, and I expect that they will not be illegal a hundred years for now, except for the money laundering matter. If you look into the trial itself, then it looks even worse for the government. The investigators who trumped up the charges are themselves under investigation for dubious acts. The defense asked that the trail be postponed until after that completion of the investigation, but the motion was denied, and no evidence at all was presented in regard to a couple of the charges. The defense lawyer will be appealing, and from what I know of the trial the appeal will be successful, and there will be a new trial.
There's quite a bit in both the Wired article and the pre-sentencing article's video interview that I posted in #48 about the various transgressions during the investigation that were glossed over by the prosecution and passed by the judge with a wink and a nod.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
There's quite a bit in both the Wired article and the pre-sentencing article's video interview that I posted in #48 about the various transgressions during the investigation that were glossed over by the prosecution and passed by the judge with a wink and a nod.

Thanks for the link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.