Is This Really a Philosophy?
Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
The FBI's shutting down of The Silk Road may have had unintended consequences. The author finds a new philosophy in the market's response. How does this conflict or match with Objectivism?
Or wait, do you not consider yourself an Objectivist?
Check out: "The Internal Revenue Service targeted liberal groups as well as conservatives seeking tax-exempt status,..."
That's from: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/i...
even though some progressive organizations underwent additional scrutiny, their tax exempt status was granted much quicker.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit...
I don't see it being in conflict with my Objectivism, yet. Just a bunch of people trying to trade goods in peace. xD
There's a city in my country where it's illegal for people to sell red meat on sundays (they wanted the population to get healthier...). Isn't that absurd? And now there's lots of people buying meat 'illegally' haha. Yeah, but anyone with a sane mind will see that they're not doing something immoral, of course.
Now about SR, the system itself was kinda amazing, actually. Many many people stopped buying drugs on the streets, and that makes it safer not only for consumers, but for society in general. The drugs sold there were amazingly pure and 'healthier', also, because there was a five star rating for every seller, so they had to make a good job!
And contrary to popular opinion, if someone even thought of talking about murder or things like child abuse over there, they would be banned right away! The rules were very strict on that. That was not the purpose of the website. =/
SR was just that. It was an option for removing drug dealing from the streets, making it safer for everyone, and also a solution for this abusive War on Drugs that's going now right now. That's just what I concluded myself... But I could be wrong though. = )
Kinda like a religious nut saying, "What would Jesus do?"
Can't justify real life murder charges with fiction. The courts will sort it out.
Atlas Shrugged was a fiction when it was written, but unfortunately mankind seems to be going in that direction now... That makes the context of the story quite useful in real life, right?
Well, I suppose we should agree to disagree. Take care, dude! = )
The people judging him won't acknowledge his ideals, or libertarianism, or even what the hell bitcoin is. I wouldn't trust a bunch of ignorants for matters like these.
All they're going to hear is "drugs", "illegal", "murder", "terrorism".
There shouldn't be a problem with selling drugs.
Murder is acceptable in case of self-defense.
He's basically done for in the hands of stupid people like that... Sad, but true.
We don't allow over enthusiastic Christians to kill doctors in the name of "it's a babyeeeeee" either.
But you put down his choosing not to participate in the rules/law of that society. The rules/laws of the 'stupid people like that.' Makes sense to me. Why should he have to participate in a stupid people society's rules/laws?
Then you conflate an anarchist supporting a black market with Christians kill doctors, how trite and petty.
That's quite cool, actually. I'd like one too. xD
They are punishing him by applying their degrading 'moral code' on this trial. I'm sure Rearden would stand by his side! =/
I... I don't follow you last sentence, dude. =|
"When you stop to think about it, a life of automatic obedience to the enforcer is based upon the wildest of claims:
That cops are more noble and trustworthy than we are, that their bosses are definitely nobler than we are, and that power does not, in fact, corrupt.
That government workers are somehow a better class of beings, but perhaps only while they are working for the state.
That intimidation, lies, threats, and violence are transformed into goodness when inflicted by men wearing blue shirts with brass pins.
That politicians, whom we all know to be liars and money-whores, somehow produce pristinely moral results in their offices."
Zen, Eudamonia has a post asking gulchers to share their blogs. I think you have one, right?
"On October 2, 2013, the FBI shut down Silk Road.[13] They arrested Ross William Ulbricht on charges of alleged murder for hire and narcotics trafficking violation " That's from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(...)
Seems to me that the underground marketplace was a criminal enterprise of the worst sort.
BTW, not to be confused with I think most recreational drugs should be legal. That way there would be no need for a black market.
What could Ross do, in that situation? He was responsible for the security of the website, responsible for the lives and safety of thousands of people... Then comes this person, threatening him that he would expose everyone of them and lock them up in rape cages!
What could he reasonably do...?
He wouldn't be able to sue the guy over this. Not a chance. All thanks to the government... If his business were legal, he would just hire a lawyer or call the police!
But since there were no legal alternatives, his only options were:
A) Do nothing. Sentence all of his users and their families, who were depending on him, to prison. Most of them good people, who just wanted to buy their drugs in peace. :(
B) Doing something evil (killing the guy), in order to fight against a greater evil (thousands of lives ruined).
The one who initiated the aggresion was the threatener, right? If the same happened to John Galt, what do you think he would do? What If one of the parasites found the Gulch's location, threatened him of exposing all of them to the world, and there was no legal way of stopping the guy...?
At least, he would lock the guy up in a cage until the Strike was over. However, for Ross, that wouldn't really be a viable option. If Galt where in a similar situation, I think he would commit a murder if necessary. The lives of all his friends, or the life of a parasite who initiated aggression against them...?
I could be wrong though. Please correct me If I'm not being reasonable, Boborobdos. = )
The courts would send a modern John Galt behind bars if they could. For rebelling against mankind, a terrorist... There's no way they can grasp how grave Ross' situation was.
If someone threatened to send my partner to a rape cage, unjustly, and there was no legal way of stopping the theatener from doing so, I wouldn't need to think twice before commiting a murder myself in order to save the person I love.
Rand wasn't against murder if the context is self-defense. What Ross did was just that: self-defense in order to save the lives of thousands of users and their families. =/
Rand being for murder in case of self-defense? There's a quote here from the Mike Wallace interview. o/
"Those who have initiated force will be punished by force, and that is the only proper function of government."
If someone tries to kill me, I should not let myself be killed, right? =D