Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: shippyship on October 04, 2013, 05:02 pm
-
DPR created a free market against oppression and for the purpose of not harming others.
But when the site which was created to further that ideology is put in jeopardy, that ideology goes out the window and murder [for hire] becomes acceptable? Of a fictitious man with a fictitious wife and kids (although that aspect was unbeknownst to DPR). Also keep in mind this is the 2nd time DPR unsuccessfully solicited a M4H. I fully support his claimed ideology, but I don't think he truly did; he just pushed it on you all to make a cool $80 million while laughing all the way to the bank.
Had the aforementioned aspects not been part of the arrest warrant, I would consider him a martyr for the good fight; I just can't justify that position now, and I don't understand why an overwhelming majority of the Road holds him in God-like status. The grim reality is that all he did was amalgamate his skills to fill a niche market void that ultimately lead to his downfall due to carelessness.
This was originally going to be a response to a soon-to-be-dead thread, I am quoting Cirrus (a moderator) who was wildly accused of being LEO for correctly not providing details on the primary agent responsible for the Road's demise. Then I decided I wanted some community feedback on my opinion. Am I off-base or on-point? You decide.
-
Well... there were two 'assassinations'. We need to determine whether DPR violated the non-aggression principle (NAP).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
In the first case an employee got arrested and DPR ordered a hit on this person in order to stop him talking. It is debatable, but in my experience and knowledge of libertarianism, the murder of a man that has not committed an act of aggression against you is a violation of NAP.
In the second instance an FBI agent was 'blackmailing' DPR, pretending to be a normal blackmailer. In this case one could argue self defense. Again, it is debatable. Depending on whether blackmail can be considered aggression or not (many would argue that it is not), DPR either violated NAP or did not violate NAP.
-
The only relevant thing that caught my eye while skimming that was:
the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others
One may argue that the 2nd hit was both self-defense and defense of others, but someone better at arguing may counter with there's a difference between preservation and defense, and that his actions were for preservation, not defense. I could argue with myself adopting both sides of the coin all day!
-
Well... there were two 'assassinations'. We need to determine whether DPR violated the non-aggression principle (NAP).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
In the first case an employee got arrested and DPR ordered a hit on this person in order to stop him talking. It is debatable, but in my experience and knowledge of libertarianism, the murder of a man that has not committed an act of aggression against you is a violation of NAP.
In the second instance an FBI agent was 'blackmailing' DPR, pretending to be a normal blackmailer. In this case one could argue self defense. Again, it is debatable. Depending on whether blackmail can be considered aggression or not (many would argue that it is not), DPR either violated NAP or did not violate NAP.
Did the employee in the first incident not commit an act of aggression? I thought it was said that absconded with the bitcoins of users on the site.
-
Without the killer hiring he would be a hero. We don't know how hard the FBI agents tried to make him do this however. He may have been manipulated by them all along and we only see the part which makes him look bad. Anyway, that's no excuse for murder.
In a country like the USA it's not a surprise however, as they are constantly killing people in other countries, and those people are not always bad guys. So many people there think they're some kind of cowboy in the wild west.
-
@dread, I guess the definition of aggression is subjective. Are you making the statement in a roundabout way that: murder for theft is in-line with Libertarian ideology?
@Bazille, I don't have the first hit details in my head (nor if they were mentioned in the arrest warrant by anyone other than DPR to redandwhite) but the 2nd attempted hit of the family man appeared as those DPR sought the debtor of FriendlyChemist with the intention of having FC wiped out.
-
Villain? How is that even a question? It amazes me how quickly some people have turned on this man, who created such an unprecedented beacon of hope for us all and sacrificed his very freedom in the process, after hearing one sided accusations from none other than the mainstream media and the very subhuman shills that have wrongfully criminalized all of us to begin with. For shame.
-
Villain? How is that even a question? It amazes me how quickly some people have turned on this man, who created such an unprecedented beacon of hope for us all and sacrificed his very freedom in the process, after hearing one sided accusations from none other than the mainstream media and the very subhuman shills that have wrongfully criminalized all of us to begin with. For shame.
If you disregard preconceived notions based on DPRs statements as to his motives behind the Road, and accept the possibility that it could have been purely for profit (with or without firm belief in the ancillary benefit of freedom from oppression ideologies) it's very easy to see how he could rationally be portrayed as a villain. I'm taking my "accusations" directly from the arrest warrant, not the media. Time will tell if those accusations are legitimate, but there is no reason to believe otherwise.
-
Villain? How is that even a question? It amazes me how quickly some people have turned on this man, who created such an unprecedented beacon of hope for us all and sacrificed his very freedom in the process, after hearing one sided accusations from none other than the mainstream media and the very subhuman shills that have wrongfully criminalized all of us to begin with. For shame.
Well put.
Do we actually know all this for a fact? Have I missed the solid evidence that verifies that DPR solicited a M4H?
If not, why would you take the FBI's word for it? What if the M4H part of the criminal complaint is a set-up charge designed to ensure he is vilified and convicted, in case the factual charges aren't enough?
Please realize that the FBI probably commits more crimes than any other organization in the world. For example, they are constantly setting up dim-witted Muslims in fake terrorism cases for the media to run another scaremongering frenzy and whip up hysteria and support for killing brown-skinned people overseas. The mafia's word is much more trustable than the FBI's.
shippyship: "Time will tell if those accusations are legitimate, but there is no reason to believe otherwise." -- Really?? You believe the people who say you're a criminal and want to deprive you of your freedom for smoking weed (or whatever it is that you used SR for)?
-
Nobody says I'm a criminal. As some black guy in the 90s or 2000s put it "It ain't considered a crime unless they catch you."
Other than freedom fighting fuck-the-system conjecture and speculation, I don't think anything in the arrest warrant has been proven false as of yet. I'm sure there's plenty of public evidence available to circumstantially substantiate quite a bit of it as well. I give credence to the arrest warrant allegations not because I believe the gov't is honest, but because misrepresentation of facts in that could be substantial enough to have the case thrown out. It's more likely to be accurate for self-serving reasons rather than selfless dedication to stellar investigative work.
As far as the Muslim thing goes, they deserve it. If the FBI / DHS / CIA can set them up to a point where they agree to engage in terrorist activities, it would be even easier for a genuine AlahuAcchchchcbar terrorist to get them to join their cause. I'm fully supportive of nixing potential future terrorists.
What we know as fact is that DPR is being independently charged in Maryland for soliciting murder for hire, exclusive of the federal charges. There has to be pretty credible evidence to indict someone on such serious charges.
If you fail to acknowledge my points, you are a sheep blindly following your beloved leader, because he made you believe he believes in the same things you believe in.
-
DPR- 1 person
The war on drugs- hundreds of thousands of people
-
shippyship,
So if the charges are "serious" enough, you'll automatically believe it?
Misrepresentation of facts is far from the only tactic that is employed by the IC. You don't know who we are talking about here. The criminal organization(s) we are talking about are very good at creating legends, make-believe scenarios, planted evidence trails, unverifiable claims, etc.
DPR is no more a "beloved leader" to me than the FBI are a "beloved law enforcement agency" to you. Let's leave the ad hominems out.
All I'm saying is that you are giving undeserved credibility and authority to the very same goons that wouldn't hesitate to break into your house and arrest you and steal from you if they so much as suspect that you have a stash of weed.
-
We have no reason not to believe the charges. What part of the arrest warrant do you specifically discredit? Everyone here knows DPR was the sole proprietor of SR, everyone here knows what SR is all about. A majority of the warrant we can corroborate due to our knowledge of SR, we can't conclusively tie them to RWU, but they certainly did a solid job of connecting the dots. Are you simply claiming that the murder for hire aspect was fabricated because that doesn't fit the image of DPR you hold so dearly? I'll readily admit some of it may not be true (inaccuracies / misinformation), but with such a high profile case they have a lot more to lose via fabrication than they have to gain.
I'm no more a fan of the po-lice than you are, but I'm also not a fan of psuedoLibertarians who let greed get the best of them and lost sight of what this was supposed to be all about in the first place, while putting hundreds of vendors and thousands of large scale buyers in jeopardy as the result of carelessness.
-
Guilty until proven innocent? What is this, the UK?(I think that's how it works over there?)
-
Villain? How is that even a question? It amazes me how quickly some people have turned on this man, who created such an unprecedented beacon of hope for us all and sacrificed his very freedom in the process, after hearing one sided accusations from none other than the mainstream media and the very subhuman shills that have wrongfully criminalized all of us to begin with. For shame.
I couldn't agree with this more. This is exactly what they want. They want people to turn against DPR. Nobody would care if DPR was having people whacked if the road was still up. He is a hero in my book.
-
who is the admin they say he put a hit out on? does anyone know?
-
@dread, I guess the definition of aggression is subjective. Are you making the statement in a roundabout way that: murder for theft is in-line with Libertarian ideology?
No you're right, I'm just saying that if I was risking life imprisonment and a guy was trying to victimize me I can't say I wouldn't do something drastic to preserve my freedom.