PDA

View Full Version : Dread Pirate Roberts "Hell's Angels Assassination Transcript"




presence
02-03-2015, 10:03 AM
Dread Pirate Roberts 3/31/2013 8:59 : Don’t want to be a pain here, but the price seems high. Not long ago, I had a clean hit done for $80k.


http://newsbtc.com/2015/02/03/fascinating-dread-pirate-roberts-assassination-transcript/



That problem was dealt with. I’ll try to catch you online to give you details. Just wanted to let you know right away so you have one less thing to worry about.



http://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations/




his scheme spirals from merely tracking down a blackmailer to intimidate him, to hiring Hell’s Angels to kill that blackmailer, to paying those same hitmen a total of $650,000 to kill four more people.

muh_roads
02-03-2015, 11:43 AM
I want to feel sorry for him because the consequences of getting caught during the war on drugs is the greatest atrocity the Government has imposed on its people since slavery.

On the flip-side Ross was a huge idiot for writing a journal documenting everything...keeping all his chats...never destroying PGP keys...never using a tumbler when moving coins...etc. Motherboard has a good article on this.

He may have had a jury nullification chance on the drug stuff with an appeal...but plotting to kill is incredibly retarded...especially for a self-proclaimed libertarian who should believe in non-aggression. Why he didn't just retire early and disappear with 6 figures of BTC's I'll never understand...

Acala
02-03-2015, 11:47 AM
Although in this case, BECAUSE of the illegal and immoral war on drugs, the person he purportedly had killed was threatening the lives of many other innocents. Arguably legitimate defense of others and CERTAINLY well-deserved consequences for mr. blackmailer.

dannno
02-03-2015, 12:25 PM
Although in this case, BECAUSE of the illegal and immoral war on drugs, the person he purportedly had killed was threatening the lives of many other innocents. Arguably legitimate defense of others and CERTAINLY well-deserved consequences for mr. blackmailer.

Ya and it's hard to imagine they weren't govt. provocateurs.

amy31416
02-03-2015, 11:05 PM
If you're dumb and violent enough to have someone "hit," I guess it makes sense that you're dumb enough to make transactions online to do so.

Christian Liberty
02-03-2015, 11:49 PM
I think presuming we know what actually happened here is to presume too much. Just IMO.

The government could well be making this up in order to make an alleged libertarian hero look bad.

fr33
02-04-2015, 12:40 AM
The black market sucks. The recourse you have is not legal no matter what it is.

PRB
02-04-2015, 01:40 AM
Although in this case, BECAUSE of the illegal and immoral war on drugs, the person he purportedly had killed was threatening the lives of many other innocents. Arguably legitimate defense of others and CERTAINLY well-deserved consequences for mr. blackmailer.

Yep, fight blackmail with murder, free market at work.

PRB
02-04-2015, 01:40 AM
The black market sucks. The recourse you have is not legal no matter what it is.

The price of freedom, isn't it?

PRB
02-04-2015, 01:44 AM
If you're dumb and violent enough to have someone "hit," I guess it makes sense that you're dumb enough to make transactions online to do so.

his whole case goes to show how no amount of cryptography will protect you if you're stupid enough to...be human.

1. how did somebody blackmail him? whoever blackmailed him knew who he was
2. he had to know the person blackmailing him, I mean, you have to, to want to kill somebody
3. he would've never been caught in connection with silk road if he wasn't an idiot using an email address with his real name to begin with
4. when all said and done, you can't get away with crimes forever, if you make money committing crimes, you'll slip up when you spend it, or die young. Crime just doesn't pay.

PRB
02-04-2015, 01:46 AM
He may have had a jury nullification chance on the drug stuff with an appeal...but plotting to kill is incredibly retarded...especially for a self-proclaimed libertarian who should believe in non-aggression. Why he didn't just retire early and disappear with 6 figures of BTC's I'll never understand...

it's not aggression when you're killing somebody who "deserves it" (Acala's words), is it?

why didn't he cash out and retire? Because he's human. Not because he's retarded, but because he's not retarded. Humans never know when to walk away on a winning streak. Greed is knowing you're never satisfied, pure and simple.

Acala
02-04-2015, 08:20 AM
it's not aggression when you're killing somebody who "deserves it" (Acala's words), is it?

why didn't he cash out and retire? Because he's human. Not because he's retarded, but because he's not retarded. Humans never know when to walk away on a winning streak. Greed is knowing you're never satisfied, pure and simple.

If somebody holds a gun to the head of an innocent and threatens to kill them if you don't meet his demands, the law in most states, and my moral values system, says you can use deadly force to stop him from harming the innocent third party. I think the actual facts here are too uncertain to say for sure, but I could see a situation where a person makes a credible threat to unleash deadly forces upon innocent persons and in such a case, killing that person to stop the threat is justified.

PRB
02-04-2015, 12:12 PM
If somebody holds a gun to the head of an innocent and threatens to kill them if you don't meet his demands, the law in most states, and my moral values system, says you can use deadly force to stop him from harming the innocent third party.


So you believe a person who hasn't harmed another person deserves to be killed?



I think the actual facts here are too uncertain to say for sure, but I could see a situation where a person makes a credible threat to unleash deadly forces upon innocent persons and in such a case, killing that person to stop the threat is justified.

Credible threat hasn't been harmed.

William Tell
02-04-2015, 12:24 PM
Wow, he paid to have at least 5 people slaughtered? If so, dude, not cool.

pcosmar
02-04-2015, 12:30 PM
The price of freedom, isn't it?

nope.
A black market is proof of the Lack of Freedom.

Acala
02-04-2015, 01:48 PM
So you believe a person who hasn't harmed another person deserves to be killed?



Credible threat hasn't been harmed.

I don't believe self-defense requires a person to wait until they have been harmed. The law in most states is that a person who is in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury can use deadly force to stop the attack BEFORE it happens. If someone points a gun at me with what a reasonable person would believe is the intent to shoot me, I can shoot them first. The same rule typically applies for intervention on the behalf of another person. If instead of me the would-be murderer is pointing the gun at another person and I have a reasonable belief he is going to shoot that other person, I can shoot him first. I do not have to wait for the murder or rape or arson to actually happen.

"Deserved" is probably not the best word. I would restate it that a person who makes a credible threat to kill a bunch of other people for his own profit has nothing to complain about when he is killed first.

muh_roads
02-04-2015, 03:03 PM
Wow, he paid to have at least 5 people slaughtered? If so, dude, not cool.

There is no proof that they were actually killed. It was likely that he was paying Government stooges pretending to be hitmen.

PRB
02-04-2015, 03:51 PM
nope.
A black market is proof of the Lack of Freedom.

you mean to say, black market is the result of a regulated market, but black market participants are exercising freedom, are they not?

PRB
02-04-2015, 03:53 PM
I don't believe self-defense requires a person to wait until they have been harmed. The law in most states is that a person who is in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury can use deadly force to stop the attack BEFORE it happens. If someone points a gun at me with what a reasonable person would believe is the intent to shoot me, I can shoot them first. The same rule typically applies for intervention on the behalf of another person. If instead of me the would-be murderer is pointing the gun at another person and I have a reasonable belief he is going to shoot that other person, I can shoot him first. I do not have to wait for the murder or rape or arson to actually happen.


This is basically PRE CRIME. The justification for drunk driving laws. Arrest and imprison somebody before he's harmed anybody. Threats are not crimes, no harm no crime.

William Tell
02-04-2015, 04:27 PM
There is no proof that they were actually killed. It was likely that he was paying Government stooges pretending to be hitmen.

But if you are right he still paid to have people killed. He's just as much a scumbag whether the people he paid went through with it or not.

muh_roads
02-04-2015, 04:36 PM
But if you are right he still paid to have people killed. He's just as much a scumbag whether the people he paid went through with it or not.

The War on Drugs itself causes people who were never violent to become violent to protect themselves.

I'm not justifying what he did...but the system at its root core is the problem.

muh_roads
02-04-2015, 04:38 PM
BTW Ross was just found guilty on all accounts. May 30th is the sentencing. 20 to life. Will probably appeal since the Judge blocked evidence and testimony by the Defense from being put on record on numerous occasions.

Acala
02-04-2015, 04:39 PM
This is basically PRE CRIME. The justification for drunk driving laws. Arrest and imprison somebody before he's harmed anybody. Threats are not crimes, no harm no crime.

I didn't say anything about what is or is not a crime. I am talking about lawful use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of another.

To use deadly force in self-defense or defense of another from imminent death or serious bodily injury, you do NOT need to wait until the death blow has been delivered. That would be even more idiotic than the law typically is.

If you ever intend to use a gun to defend yourself, your home, or your loved ones, you need to know this law CLEARLY. Look at your state statute. I will quote the law of my own state:

"[A] person is justified in . . . using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force."

You do NOT need to wait until you have been attacked if you reasonably believe you WILL be. You may use deadly force to PREVENT a deadly attack from happening. Call it pre-crime if you like, but it is the law. And I agree with it. What you are suggesting would be moronic.

William Tell
02-04-2015, 04:45 PM
The War on Drugs itself causes people who were never violent to become violent to protect themselves.

I'm not justifying what he did...but the system at its root core is the problem.
Black market big shots make money because of the war on drugs. I don't consider him a victim in the least. He made money off the fact that drugs are illegal. Presumably way more money than many narcotics officers. Hiring assassins to kill 5 people is not self defense.

Certainly the system is a problem. But it can't be blamed for all evil. If he really did hire assassins he is the only one to blame for that.

hillertexas
02-04-2015, 04:49 PM
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/silk-road-ross-ulbricht-verdict/
Ross Ulbricht Convicted of All 7 Charges

PRB
02-04-2015, 07:14 PM
I didn't say anything about what is or is not a crime. I am talking about lawful use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of another.


Same thing, really.

kcchiefs6465
02-05-2015, 07:00 PM
Black market big shots make money because of the war on drugs. I don't consider him a victim in the least. He made money off the fact that drugs are illegal. Presumably way more money than many narcotics officers. Hiring assassins to kill 5 people is not self defense.

Certainly the system is a problem. But it can't be blamed for all evil. If he really did hire assassins he is the only one to blame for that.
I was hoping for nullification. If the case were that said five people were blackmailing him, threatening him with a few hundred years in a cage, his family ruined, etc. well, meh. I'd cry more over spilled piss.

To recognize that such a scenario (his rise to power as well as said informants looking to possibly extort him for his freedom and allegedly and subsequently being killed after the fact) was only made possible through the inane drug laws is simply just that. I don't excuse what he may have done and I don't know the exact circumstances.

Regardless it is clear to see that absent the drug laws being what they are now, his life would have probably been considerably different. Pushing for freedom and challenging the status quo with regards to entrepreneurial norms and technology, maybe he would have been 'legitimate' as well as wealthy? Guess we won't know... because to prevent his 'crimes' (the only few of which being said murders where a proper defense was not even allowed) everyone must be robbed to collectively pay for a five million dollar prosecution/incarceration. And that is a low figure. Their investigation alone probably tallied into the tens of millions.

The DEA sells drugs. They regulate and are directly involved in the pimping of them to children too. Maybe they were upset that he wouldn't become an informant? That he shrugged at their good cop, bad cop, shenanigans? It's funny who is allowed to sell cocaine (though this gentleman never directly or provably sold any, I don't believe) and who is not. Look at the sort of people the DEA routinely covers for in said trafficker's cocaine/murder/gun running schemes. It's almost as if they are incompetent, politicized whores.

Norwin Meneses comes to mind but the list is quite long. Their entire history is full of similar fail.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-05-2015, 08:36 PM
Same thing, really.


Disbarred lawyer/law school dropout?

ThePaleoLibertarian
02-06-2015, 12:03 AM
The movement should definitely not throw any support behind this guy just because he claims to have shared ideals. Hiring a vicious biker gang to murder people is not acceptable under any framework. Certain circles I was involved with had one percent bikers on the periphery, and they are brutal, horrendous human beings.

It's one thing to offer a service to customers, it's quite another to try and murder people to maintain your business. I know people are saying they were government operatives (which I've seen no actual evidence for), but even if they were, he contracted people to be killed. There's no excuse for that, and saying you can kill people who were going to aggress against others is a slippery slope. By that standard, you could argue it's okay to kill politicians, or cops or maybe even government workers or welfare recipients. It's not a road to go down.

Christian Liberty
02-06-2015, 12:30 AM
Wow, he paid to have at least 5 people slaughtered? If so, dude, not cool.


But if you are right he still paid to have people killed. He's just as much a scumbag whether the people he paid went through with it or not.


Black market big shots make money because of the war on drugs. I don't consider him a victim in the least. He made money off the fact that drugs are illegal. Presumably way more money than many narcotics officers. Hiring assassins to kill 5 people is not self defense.

Certainly the system is a problem. But it can't be blamed for all evil. If he really did hire assassins he is the only one to blame for that.


The movement should definitely not throw any support behind this guy just because he claims to have shared ideals. Hiring a vicious biker gang to murder people is not acceptable under any framework. Certain circles I was involved with had one percent bikers on the periphery, and they are brutal, horrendous human beings.

It's one thing to offer a service to customers, it's quite another to try and murder people to maintain your business. I know people are saying they were government operatives (which I've seen no actual evidence for), but even if they were, he contracted people to be killed. There's no excuse for that, and saying you can kill people who were going to aggress against others is a slippery slope. By that standard, you could argue it's okay to kill politicians, or cops or maybe even government workers or welfare recipients. It's not a road to go down.

Some people do indeed go down "that road", its quite common in ancap circles actually (though of course there are plenty of ancaps who won't "go there." (I've never heard of anyone go as far as "welfare recipients" though.) But really, I don't think that's the main question here. Of course it was wrong if he hired assassins. My real question is; did he actually hire assassins? Or is this just government being like "see, this is why drugs need to be illegal"?

Christian Liberty
02-06-2015, 12:33 AM
I don't think any of us know what really happened. I suspect foul play on government's part. I don't think he should be punished just for selling drugs, if it is not indeed the case that he tried to murder. Also, if government officials actually tried to entrap him into "ordering a hit" than maybe he's a scumbag but that's not a just means of punishing someone.

AuH20
02-06-2015, 12:43 AM
If anyone has read the details of the court case, Ulbricht may be one of the most ignorant 'criminals' around.

AuH20
02-06-2015, 12:45 AM
On the flip-side Ross was a huge idiot for writing a journal documenting everything...keeping all his chats...never destroying PGP keys...never using a tumbler when moving coins...etc. Motherboard has a good article on this

Correct. He literally punched his own ticket for imprisonment.

ThePaleoLibertarian
02-06-2015, 12:49 AM
Some people do indeed go down "that road", its quite common in ancap circles actually (though of course there are plenty of ancaps who won't "go there." (I've never heard of anyone go as far as "welfare recipients" though.) But really, I don't think that's the main question here. Of course it was wrong if he hired assassins. My real question is; did he actually hire assassins? Or is this just government being like "see, this is why drugs need to be illegal"?
Has he claimed that the assassin contracts were wholly fabricated?

I know what you mean, there's a lot of bad shit flying among ancaps. Lots of ancaps claim I'm not one of them, because I call them on their shit and I'm a very idiosyncratic anarcho-capitalist, advocating the privatization of law itself and neo-Heathian, privately owned cities competing for "citizens" as opposed to non-geographical private defense agencies--but that's neither here nor there.

From what I've observed, the market anarchists who say it's okay to kill politicans/cops etc are the people who avoid the "ancap" label, pander to the libertarian socialists and who say ridiculous things like they'd prefer an anarcho-communist society over constitutionalism or minarchism. These are the people who the movement needs to distance themselves from, not neoreactionaries like me. I support anything that might limit the state, including civil disobedience and agorism, but there's a line that is not to be crossed.

dannno
02-06-2015, 01:10 AM
1. how did somebody blackmail him? whoever blackmailed him knew who he was


Actually they found out names and addresses of vendors on the site and were threatening to release them.

dannno
02-06-2015, 01:39 AM
Has he claimed that the assassin contracts were wholly fabricated?

I know what you mean, there's a lot of bad shit flying among ancaps. Lots of ancaps claim I'm not one of them, because I call them on their shit and I'm a very idiosyncratic anarcho-capitalist, advocating the privatization of law itself and neo-Heathian, privately owned cities competing for "citizens" as opposed to non-geographical private defense agencies--but that's neither here nor there.

From what I've observed, the market anarchists who say it's okay to kill politicans/cops etc are the people who avoid the "ancap" label, pander to the libertarian socialists and who say ridiculous things like they'd prefer an anarcho-communist society over constitutionalism or minarchism. These are the people who the movement needs to distance themselves from, not neoreactionaries like me. I support anything that might limit the state, including civil disobedience and agorism, but there's a line that is not to be crossed.

What I'm guessing happened was that the government hacked in or some how found out names and addresses of his vendors. A government agent then came to him and said that he had the names and addresses of his vendors and was going to release them to the cops if he didn't give him a large sum of money. The government agent left a crumb trail to a fake person. Ulbricht probably put the hit out on a fake person who he thought was somebody else but was actually a government agent. Knowing that he would be looking to hire a hitman, they setup government agents to offer him their services.

So when you say "It's not cool man!!! It's just not cool!!".... well... the ENTIRE situation was likely fabricated as a way for them to capture him for his libertarian activities, so the whole thing was probably a giant hoax that he got swallowed up into, it was likely entirely all created by the government.

That is the most probable explanation. The next most probably explanation is that somebody who wasn't a government agent actually did demand $10 million or they would release the list of his vendors. So basically, all his vendors would be kidnapped, imprisoned and have their lives ruined. Since Ulbricht had no other recourse, I don't see that it is necessarily immoral for him to go after the guy like that.. HOWEVER.. That is highly improbable because of the fact that Ulbricht ultimately ended up hiring a government agent as a hitman, they probably were working to entrap him already at that point and so were probably involved with the blackmailing.

ThePaleoLibertarian
02-06-2015, 01:43 AM
I don't think any of us know what really happened. I suspect foul play on government's part. I don't think he should be punished just for selling drugs, if it is not indeed the case that he tried to murder. Also, if government officials actually tried to entrap him into "ordering a hit" than maybe he's a scumbag but that's not a just means of punishing someone.
Define "entrapment", though. If anyone (including a government agent), just said that he offers assassin jobs and Ulbricht took him up on it, is that entrapment? It's like when that hilarious "catch a Predator" show was on, and people were saying it was entrapment, but the decoys just posed as a 13 year old and the pervs brought up coming over to fuck them.

ThePaleoLibertarian
02-06-2015, 01:46 AM
Correct. He literally punched his own ticket for imprisonment.
I think the government is shooting themselves in the foot with this prosecution in a sense, and that's fine with me. More competent and savvy criminals are going to flock to the DarkWeb and offer drug markets that aren't so easy to tear down and prosecute. In fact, I think that's already happening with sites like Agora. The market cannot be controlled, it can be driven underground and turned into a violent mess by statist shitheels, but supply will always rise to meet demand.

dannno
02-06-2015, 01:53 AM
Define "entrapment", though. If anyone (including a government agent), just said that he offers assassin jobs and Ulbricht took him up on it, is that entrapment?

Well since you keep asking hopefully you will acknowledge my above post.

ThePaleoLibertarian
02-06-2015, 02:21 AM
What I'm guessing happened was that the government hacked in or some how found out names and addresses of his vendors. A government agent then came to him and said that he had the names and addresses of his vendors and was going to release them to the cops if he didn't give him a large sum of money. The government agent left a crumb trail to a fake person. Ulbricht probably put the hit out on a fake person who he thought was somebody else but was actually a government agent. Knowing that he would be looking to hire a hitman, they setup government agents to offer him their services.

So when you say "It's not cool man!!! It's just not cool!!".... well... the ENTIRE situation was likely fabricated as a way for them to capture him for his libertarian activities, so the whole thing was probably a giant hoax that he got swallowed up into, it was likely entirely all created by the government.

That is the most probable explanation. The next most probably explanation is that somebody who wasn't a government agent actually did demand $10 million or they would release the list of his vendors. So basically, all his vendors would be kidnapped, imprisoned and have their lives ruined. Since Ulbricht had no other recourse, I don't see that it is necessarily immoral for him to go after the guy like that.. HOWEVER.. That is highly improbable because of the fact that Ulbricht ultimately ended up hiring a government agent as a hitman, they probably were working to entrap him already at that point and so were probably involved with the blackmailing.
Okay, what's the evidence for that? I'm really asking; I want to know, and if you are correct, then I have no problem with what you're saying. I'm not in favor of his prosecution, in fact it's rare that I'm in favor of any prosecutions under the current injustice system, and prison-industrial complex. The only people who should be in prison are brutal murderers, sociopathic gang members and corporate criminals-they can all rot for all I care (though the latter group never fucking does). Drug merchants, prostitutes, gun runners, underground casinos-nothing criminal in any of those enterprises, not in my book!

I'm just saying he shouldn't have support from the movement simply because he claims to have libertarian values. I try not to jump to conclusions just because they coincide with narratives I agree with. If the movement supports anyone who claims to hold pro-liberty, ant-state values, you'll find yourself supporting a lot of odious characters. I'm not saying Ulbricht is one of them, just that I want to know who and what he is before I support him and the movement should take similar precautions.

squarepusher
02-06-2015, 02:38 AM
Wow, he paid to have at least 5 people slaughtered? If so, dude, not cool.

but free market!! its ok!!

dannno
02-06-2015, 02:58 AM
Okay, what's the evidence for that? I'm really asking; I want to know, and if you are correct, then I have no problem with what you're saying. I'm not in favor of his prosecution, in fact it's rare that I'm in favor of any prosecutions under the current injustice system, and prison-industrial complex. The only people who should be in prison are brutal murderers, sociopathic gang members and corporate criminals-they can all rot for all I care (though the latter group never fucking does). Drug merchants, prostitutes, gun runners, underground casinos-nothing criminal in any of those enterprises, not in my book!

I'm just saying he shouldn't have support from the movement simply because he claims to have libertarian values. I try not to jump to conclusions just because they coincide with narratives I agree with. If the movement supports anyone who claims to hold pro-liberty, ant-state values, you'll find yourself supporting a lot of odious characters. I'm not saying Ulbricht is one of them, just that I want to know who and what he is before I support him and the movement should take similar precautions.

Do you need evidence that the government wanted to shut down the Silk Road and that this was an extremely high priority for them? Do you need evidence we have an intelligence community that does precisely what I just said on a regular basis even in lower level crimes as well as with mentally challenged people who they convince to be terrorists?

I mean, I just don't know why anybody who understands how the government works would question whether this is the most likely scenario.

The safest position you can take about what type of person Ulbricht is would be to have neutral feelings because we don't really know, but to support what he was doing in otherwise and to be extremely wary of the story the government is telling because they almost always lie.

dannno
02-06-2015, 02:59 AM
but free market!! its ok!!

If there was a free market then it wouldn't matter if his vendor list were to be made public, or at least it wouldn't result in people being abducted and imprisoned and having their lives ruined.

PRB
02-06-2015, 03:15 AM
Actually they found out names and addresses of vendors on the site and were threatening to release them.

just not his information? so he stupidly hired somebody to kill people who couldn't harm him?

also, why were blackmailer stupid enough to reveal who they were, you have to know who somebody is to kill him, don't you?

PRB
02-06-2015, 03:16 AM
If there was a free market then it wouldn't matter if his vendor list were to be made public, or at least it wouldn't result in people being abducted and imprisoned and having their lives ruined.

where are the vendors now? did Ross take a beating for the team?

PRB
02-06-2015, 03:16 AM
The safest position you can take about what type of person Ulbricht is would be to have neutral feelings because we don't really know, but to support what he was doing in otherwise and to be extremely wary of the story the government is telling because they almost always lie.

support the free market of hiring hitmen to kill your harassers? the government always lies so always support criminals? LOL

dannno
02-06-2015, 03:35 AM
support the free market of hiring hitmen to kill your harassers? the government always lies so always support criminals? LOL


You don't seem to be paying much attention.

There was no other recourse, so whether the entire thing was a government fabrication from the start (the 'hacker' who took the list) and there was no real victim to be "hit" or whether the hacker was an actual blackmailer who wanted to receive the money and blackmailed him into giving them millions of dollars or turnover a list of non-violent people to be kidnapped by the government, well, Ulbricht was unable to go to the government and get these innocent people protected. So yes, that is in fact a violent action, it is a person "pointing a gun" at dozens of other people, and Ulbricht was defending them. I'm not saying it is the best course of action, I'm just saying it isn't immoral if somebody is threatening other people violently to prevent that from happening. It's self-defense, and that includes other people - yep - we have the right to defend other innocent people from violence.

PRB
02-06-2015, 04:13 AM
You don't seem to be paying much attention.

There was no other recourse, so whether the entire thing was a government fabrication from the start


Except DPR himself. Who is clearly the innocent victim.



(the 'hacker' who took the list) and there was no real victim to be "hit"


Wait, so he hired a government agent to kill a nobody he wasn't sure existed??



or whether the hacker was an actual blackmailer who wanted to receive the money and blackmailed him into giving them millions of dollars


at best the alleged hacker would expose criminals to the government, a risk all criminals took themselves. DPR thinks he can stop it by killing off a blackmailer? Is he stupid enough to believe it's 1-5 people you can just hunt down, kill off and get it over with?



or turnover a list of non-violent people to be kidnapped by the government, well, Ulbricht was unable to go to the government and get these innocent people protected.


He has no obligation to protect anybody. He put his own life at risk to protect people he doesn't know and can't hurt him? That's a special kind of stupid. What kind of libertarian human shields for anonymous cowards and drug dealers?




So yes, that is in fact a violent action, it is a person "pointing a gun" at dozens of other people, and Ulbricht was defending them. I'm not saying it is the best course of action, I'm just saying it isn't immoral if somebody is threatening other people violently to prevent that from happening. It's self-defense, and that includes other people - yep - we have the right to defend other innocent people from violence.

In order to order a hit on somebody, especially if it's serious and literal, you have to know who the person is.

1. he's stupid enough to believe he knows who they are, and they're acting alone without a backup plan
2. he's stupid enough to think he can't and won't get caught
3. he's stupid enough to go to prison for people who can't harm him, criminals who committed crimes, they're not "innocent" people legally

Imagine if every hacked website from Target to Anthem responded to blackmails with violence. It takes a stupid one to think that hackers are real people with targets on their heads for you to shoot at. Somebody who has the power to hack and blackmail will just let you kill him off??

This is all making sense now, normally you'd think the feds want a deal with him, exchange prison time for his technical expertise, but this guy is too stupid for them.

squarepusher
02-06-2015, 04:17 AM
You don't seem to be paying much attention.

There was no other recourse, so whether the entire thing was a government fabrication from the start (the 'hacker' who took the list) and there was no real victim to be "hit" or whether the hacker was an actual blackmailer who wanted to receive the money and blackmailed him into giving them millions of dollars or turnover a list of non-violent people to be kidnapped by the government, well, Ulbricht was unable to go to the government and get these innocent people protected. So yes, that is in fact a violent action, it is a person "pointing a gun" at dozens of other people, and Ulbricht was defending them. I'm not saying it is the best course of action, I'm just saying it isn't immoral if somebody is threatening other people violently to prevent that from happening. It's self-defense, and that includes other people - yep - we have the right to defend other innocent people from violence.
Ulbricht was defending his own pocket and profits the whole time. He could care less about legalization of drugs, in fact he probably supports it since his business interests rely on it. He was profiting off it just like the Pharmaceutical companies and Police/Prison Unions.

PRB
02-06-2015, 04:25 AM
Ulbricht was defending his own pocket and profits the whole time. He could care less about legalization of drugs, in fact he probably supports it since his business interests rely on it. He was profiting off it just like the Pharmaceutical companies and Police/Prison Unions.

exactly! He's a heizenberg who doesn't know when to pull out and cash out.

i love how people are holding signs saying "web hosting is not a crime" claiming that somehow he was ignorant of the transactions taking place on his site. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, if that was a defense don't you think eBay and Amazon would've done it already?

PRB
02-06-2015, 05:28 AM
I hate conspiracy theories, but this article put it nicely.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbricht-got-a-fair-trial-but-not-a-fair-investigation/

It's a mystery HOW the server was found, and HOW it could be traced back to Ulbricht.

That may make a good case for search and seizure (4th amendment violations), but instead of standing on that, the defense seems to use all other arguments.

Too bad that there just was too much evidence against him, so much that it made everybody, even his own lawyer, forget about a fair trial.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-06-2015, 06:09 AM
Same thing, really.



Disbarred lawyer/law school dropout?




So you are a disbarred lawyer/law school flunk out?

dannno
02-06-2015, 10:16 AM
Ulbricht was defending his own pocket and profits the whole time. He could care less about legalization of drugs, in fact he probably supports it since his business interests rely on it. He was profiting off it just like the Pharmaceutical companies and Police/Prison Unions.

Wait, are you claiming he was a libertarian who didn't care about the legalization of drugs? That's quite a stretch.

He was also defending the lives of his business partners.

He was defending the reputation of his business as being safe for people dealing within it. He created a safe sphere for legitimate non-violent economic activity, despite massive oppression from the government.

dannno
02-06-2015, 10:17 AM
I hate conspiracy theories, but this article put it nicely.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbricht-got-a-fair-trial-but-not-a-fair-investigation/

It's a mystery HOW the server was found, and HOW it could be traced back to Ulbricht.

That may make a good case for search and seizure (4th amendment violations), but instead of standing on that, the defense seems to use all other arguments.

Too bad that there just was too much evidence against him, so much that it made everybody, even his own lawyer, forget about a fair trial.

The government is great at fabricating all kinds of evidence.

You always believe it because you always believe everything they say.

Christian Liberty
02-06-2015, 10:50 AM
Has he claimed that the assassin contracts were wholly fabricated?

I know what you mean, there's a lot of bad shit flying among ancaps. Lots of ancaps claim I'm not one of them, because I call them on their shit and I'm a very idiosyncratic anarcho-capitalist, advocating the privatization of law itself and neo-Heathian, privately owned cities competing for "citizens" as opposed to non-geographical private defense agencies--but that's neither here nor there.

I'd love to hear how your system works sometime, since I've never heard of that particular view before.


From what I've observed, the market anarchists who say it's okay to kill politicans/cops etc are the people who avoid the "ancap" label, pander to the libertarian socialists and who say ridiculous things like they'd prefer an anarcho-communist society over constitutionalism or minarchism. These are the people who the movement needs to distance themselves from, not neoreactionaries like me. I support anything that might limit the state, including civil disobedience and agorism, but there's a line that is not to be crossed.

I'm not completely ancap anymore (more of a voluntarist minarchist) but I haven't really changed that much. But, even when I was an ancap I respected minarchists and was more than willing to work toward common goals. Being all or nothing is pointless. That doesn't mean you support evil, it means taking GOOD steps when possible.

Regarding killing people, this is actually part of the reason (though there are other reasons) I'm getting less strict on the NAP, it does lead to ridiculous vigilantist conclusions. That said, I think you could make a credible argument that if civil society allows someone to get away with murder that vigilantism is justified. I'm not saying I'd agree, but I'd be sympathetic.

Define "entrapment", though. If anyone (including a government agent), just said that he offers assassin jobs and Ulbricht took him up on it, is that entrapment? It's like when that hilarious "catch a Predator" show was on, and people were saying it was entrapment, but the decoys just posed as a 13 year old and the pervs brought up coming over to fuck them.

Why is government offering to do assassinations?

I'd say if government is actively trying to persuade you to do a crime, that's entrapment. Like when policewomen pretend to be prostitutes and then arrest the guy who tries to contract with them (and yes, I realize prostitution should be legal, but even if laws against prostitution were just, it would be unjust for police to try to persuade people to engage in it and then punish them for it, IMO.)

Christian Liberty
02-06-2015, 10:53 AM
Okay, what's the evidence for that? I'm really asking; I want to know, and if you are correct, then I have no problem with what you're saying. I'm not in favor of his prosecution, in fact it's rare that I'm in favor of any prosecutions under the current injustice system, and prison-industrial complex. The only people who should be in prison are brutal murderers, sociopathic gang members and corporate criminals-they can all rot for all I care (though the latter group never fucking does). Drug merchants, prostitutes, gun runners, underground casinos-nothing criminal in any of those enterprises, not in my book!

I'm just saying he shouldn't have support from the movement simply because he claims to have libertarian values. I try not to jump to conclusions just because they coincide with narratives I agree with. If the movement supports anyone who claims to hold pro-liberty, ant-state values, you'll find yourself supporting a lot of odious characters. I'm not saying Ulbricht is one of them, just that I want to know who and what he is before I support him and the movement should take similar precautions.

I'm against imprisonment, at least in its modern form. Criminals should either be executed (for murder, rape, kidnapping) or otherwise have to pay restitution to their victims (which could include indentured servitude, potentially in some type of confinement, but not like prisons today.)

Just IMO.

PRB
02-06-2015, 11:44 AM
The government is great at fabricating all kinds of evidence.

You always believe it because you always believe everything they say.

you're not seriously saying his whole laptop's evidence is fabricated, are you?

PRB
02-06-2015, 11:57 AM
Wait, are you claiming he was a libertarian who didn't care about the legalization of drugs? That's quite a stretch.


Yes, because it's still a black market, and the market would die if drugs were legalized.



He was also defending the lives of his business partners.


How nice of him to protect people by hiring a killer and putting himself at legal risk



He was defending the reputation of his business as being safe for people dealing within it. He created a safe sphere for legitimate non-violent economic activity, despite massive oppression from the government.

except it's not safe when you're hacked, it's that simple. hasn't government coverups taught you ANYTHING? you can't make something safe by suppressing evidence that it's not safe.

dannno
02-06-2015, 01:56 PM
This is basically PRE CRIME. Threats are not crimes, no harm no crime.

lol, so if somebody comes up to you and puts a gun to your head and demands your wallet, you aren't entitled to defend yourself because they haven't committed a crime yet?!??

Stop wasting forum space with your ridiculous arguments that don't make any sense.

DPR was operating a legitimate business that unfortunately did not have any type of recourse through the legal system.

The person who was blackmailing him and his vendors was in the process of committing a crime, when they threatened them they were basically doing the same thing as holding a gun up to somebody's head and demanding money. Are you defending actual criminals? DPR is not a criminal, he was dealing with a criminal through the only recourse he had.

dannno
02-06-2015, 01:58 PM
Yes, because it's still a black market, and the market would die if drugs were legalized.


That is the definition of an ASSumption... because a libertarian was profiting from the black market, they must be for the black market?? You're one of the worst posters on this site, I know most people say you're just a troll, I would really hope that is the case.

dannno
02-06-2015, 02:01 PM
you're not seriously saying his whole laptop's evidence is fabricated, are you?

I'm saying I don't believe ANYTHING the government says because I know for a fact that they were targeting DPR the entire time, trying to bring him down and wanted to get him on something other than running a website that sold drugs which is tenuous and so they came up with a plan to get him on murder charges as well to ensure prosecution...and probably fabricated the entire incident with the blackmailer and probably created fake hit victims which DPR may or may not have even called a hit on.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-06-2015, 03:37 PM
Same thing, really.


Disbarred lawyer/law school dropout?





So you are a disbarred lawyer/law school flunk out?



No answer, PRB?

Yeah, I knew it. Practicing his legal skills while the Democratic Party pays him to try to shut down Ron Paul Forums. LOL.

PRB
02-06-2015, 07:30 PM
lol, so if somebody comes up to you and puts a gun to your head and demands your wallet, you aren't entitled to defend yourself because they haven't committed a crime yet?!??


it's called no harm no victim, you pre-crime fascist!

ThePaleoLibertarian
02-06-2015, 10:29 PM
Do you need evidence that the government wanted to shut down the Silk Road and that this was an extremely high priority for them? Do you need evidence we have an intelligence community that does precisely what I just said on a regular basis even in lower level crimes as well as with mentally challenged people who they convince to be terrorists?

I mean, I just don't know why anybody who understands how the government works would question whether this is the most likely scenario.

The safest position you can take about what type of person Ulbricht is would be to have neutral feelings because we don't really know, but to support what he was doing in otherwise and to be extremely wary of the story the government is telling because they almost always lie.
Any claim being made needs evidence, regardless of how commonplace. If the claim is that Ulbricht was hiring a hitman, the burden of proof is on the people making that claim. If the claim is that everything was purely a government concoction, that claim does need evidence, regardless of how duplicitous the government so frequently is. The default position is not "the government did it, lets assume that until we know otherwise". I do support using the darkweb for counter-economic purposes, but I don't necessarily support the people who use it that way.

Christian Liberty
02-07-2015, 12:31 AM
The movement should definitely not throw any support behind this guy just because he claims to have shared ideals. Hiring a vicious biker gang to murder people is not acceptable under any framework. Certain circles I was involved with had one percent bikers on the periphery, and they are brutal, horrendous human beings.

It's one thing to offer a service to customers, it's quite another to try and murder people to maintain your business. I know people are saying they were government operatives (which I've seen no actual evidence for), but even if they were, he contracted people to be killed. There's no excuse for that, and saying you can kill people who were going to aggress against others is a slippery slope. By that standard, you could argue it's okay to kill politicians, or cops or maybe even government workers or welfare recipients. It's not a road to go down.

To be clear, I am not endorsing him or "supporting" him. I'm just really, really skeptical that the whole "tried to assassinate innocent people" narrative is actually true. If he tried to assassinate people who are trying to stop peaceful trade with government force, I'd argue that that's less wrong, though still wrong.

ThePaleoLibertarian
02-07-2015, 12:51 AM
To be clear, I am not endorsing him or "supporting" him. I'm just really, really skeptical that the whole "tried to assassinate innocent people" narrative is actually true. If he tried to assassinate people who are trying to stop peaceful trade with government force, I'd argue that that's less wrong, though still wrong.
Good, being skeptical is the right way to approach a narrative. The problem is that some people (not you) are skeptical toward "official" stories, but not the counter-narratives they hold.

I hold very heterodox views on economics, history, philosophy and of course politics. I self-identify with several groups to whom I am sympathetic; "libertarian" is but one, so I don't neatly fall into any narrative of reality. As such, I am certainly not saying that the mainstream narratives that should be accepted. However, one thing we all must remain of is falling in to confirmation bias, regardless of which way it goes. As someone who is very anti-state, it is easy for me to accept a narrative that claims government malfeasance, and the same is true for all of us if we're honest. It is precisely because--not in spite--of the fact that I am anti-state and inclined to have negative views of the government that I must be even more skeptical when presented with a claim that falls in line with my worldview. It is far too easy to simply accept something that maintains the worldview one already has, and for one's standard of logic and evidence to drop because of that agreement.

Christian Liberty
02-07-2015, 01:02 AM
Good, being skeptical is the right way to approach a narrative. The problem is that some people (not you) are skeptical toward "official" stories, but not the counter-narratives they hold.

I hold very heterodox views on economics, history, philosophy and of course politics. I self-identify with several groups to whom I am sympathetic; "libertarian" is but one, so I don't neatly fall into any narrative of reality. As such, I am certainly not saying that the mainstream narratives that should be accepted. However, one thing we all must remain of is falling in to confirmation bias, regardless of which way it goes. As someone who is very anti-state, it is easy for me to accept a narrative that claims government malfeasance, and the same is true for all of us if we're honest. It is precisely because--not in spite--of the fact that I am anti-state and inclined to have negative views of the government that I must be even more skeptical when presented with a claim that falls in line with my worldview. It is far too easy to simply accept something that maintains the worldview one already has, and for one's standard of logic and evidence to drop because of that agreement.

That's a good point, and my implications are the same as yours.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-07-2015, 01:03 AM
Did anybody actually read that transcript? Most comical nonsense I've read in a long time.

PRB
02-07-2015, 03:05 PM
To be clear, I am not endorsing him or "supporting" him. I'm just really, really skeptical that the whole "tried to assassinate innocent people" narrative is actually true. If he tried to assassinate people who are trying to stop peaceful trade with government force, I'd argue that that's less wrong, though still wrong.

that's like saying wanting 5 people dead is better than allowing 50-500 people dead, right?

Christian Liberty
02-07-2015, 04:13 PM
that's like saying wanting 5 people dead is better than allowing 50-500 people dead, right?

Not quite; sort of but not quite. More like saying there's a difference between killing someone because they cheated with your wife vs blowing up a 5 year old child because you thought it would be fun. No, you don't have the right to do the former, but its more understandable than the latter.

I don't support killing government agents who use violent force to restrict peaceful trade. But I still understand why someone would do that more than I do someone who just kills people for fun.

PRB
02-07-2015, 05:30 PM
I don't support killing government agents who use violent force to restrict peaceful trade. But I still understand why someone would do that more than I do someone who just kills people for fun.

Good to know, not that you'd be stupid enough to say you support it if you did.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-07-2015, 05:39 PM
The transcript was bullshit. I'm sure the founder might have felt more at ease talking about such matters when he thought communication safer, but who in their life, in such a position, has not entertained such thoughts?

The FBI simply embellished the "transcript." The dialogue was ludicrous, but defined enough to put one over on a jury. My understanding is that the founder was not charged with attempted "assassination," but that evidence was introduced anyway. The jury swallowed it, based on their TV viewing of cop hero shows, and their awe of law enforcement.

The FBI has it's finger up it's ass. I argued with a guy here named MacGuineas. I came to understand what he was saying, but that is beside the point. His case was an mundane as it gets.

MacGuineas was charged with threatening a school with firearms or explosives or some such shit. He was not caught because of the FBIs crack skills noted on TV. He was caught because his own sister, a Washington DC analyist-socialite ratted him out. MacGuineas unleashes anger in a diatribe with his sister, only to see her turn him in.

How did they get MacGuineas back to jail when he was out? CSI methods? Fancy surveillance? No, it was pizza and beer. It took two agents to follow MacGuineas to a pizza joint. MacGuineas probation prohibited alcohol consumption. When he put that bottle to his lip, the crack duo FBI moved in for the apprehension!

The court proceeding was even more ludicrous. I read that transcript, a transcript much more mundane than the Dead Pirate. The whole contention of the prosecutor was that the glass of the beer bottle must have touched the lip of MacGuineas. The only way MacGuineas could not have taken a swig of beer (and thereby be in violation) was him pouring it down his shirt.

A MacGuineas story is not very interesting for the public. The Silk Road case needed drama. I don't even believe in conspiracies, but it probably took less than a handful of people to concoct that transcript. The world was fascinated, and nobody will be the wiser.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2015, 10:29 AM
Good to know, not that you'd be stupid enough to say you support it if you did.

That's true, but would I go out of my way to say that I didn't?

PRB
02-11-2015, 03:48 PM
That's true, but would I go out of my way to say that I didn't?

you pretty explicitly said you don't, so I don't care if you went out of your way. I do appreciate you answering when asked.

squarepusher
02-11-2015, 03:57 PM
The transcript was bullshit. I'm sure the founder might have felt more at ease talking about such matters when he thought communication safer, but who in their life, in such a position, has not entertained such thoughts?

The FBI simply embellished the "transcript." The dialogue was ludicrous, but defined enough to put one over on a jury. My understanding is that the founder was not charged with attempted "assassination," but that evidence was introduced anyway. The jury swallowed it, based on their TV viewing of cop hero shows, and their awe of law enforcement.

The FBI has it's finger up it's ass. I argued with a guy here named MacGuineas. I came to understand what he was saying, but that is beside the point. His case was an mundane as it gets.

MacGuineas was charged with threatening a school with firearms or explosives or some such shit. He was not caught because of the FBIs crack skills noted on TV. He was caught because his own sister, a Washington DC analyist-socialite ratted him out. MacGuineas unleashes anger in a diatribe with his sister, only to see her turn him in.

How did they get MacGuineas back to jail when he was out? CSI methods? Fancy surveillance? No, it was pizza and beer. It took two agents to follow MacGuineas to a pizza joint. MacGuineas probation prohibited alcohol consumption. When he put that bottle to his lip, the crack duo FBI moved in for the apprehension!

The court proceeding was even more ludicrous. I read that transcript, a transcript much more mundane than the Dead Pirate. The whole contention of the prosecutor was that the glass of the beer bottle must have touched the lip of MacGuineas. The only way MacGuineas could not have taken a swig of beer (and thereby be in violation) was him pouring it down his shirt.

A MacGuineas story is not very interesting for the public. The Silk Road case needed drama. I don't even believe in conspiracies, but it probably took less than a handful of people to concoct that transcript. The world was fascinated, and nobody will be the wiser.

the dialogue may have been ludicrous, but what about the $600,000 in Bitcoins paid actually carry it out?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-11-2015, 04:09 PM
......but what about the $600,000 in Bitcoins paid actually carry it out?


What?

PRB
02-11-2015, 05:49 PM
What?

what he's saying is, it can be definitively proven true or false by virtue of bitcoin's public ledger

a) DPR held the wallet that paid the coins
b) he paid the coins to somebody who can testify to being paid

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-11-2015, 06:06 PM
what he's saying is, it can be definitively proven true or false by virtue of bitcoin's public ledger

a) DPR held the wallet that paid the coins
b) he paid the coins to somebody who can testify to being paid

Paid to who? For what? And what do you mean they can testify? The trial is over.

How do you know?