Hacker News Reader

Comment by aegiso | Hacker News Reader

It's entirely possible to be in support of a free and peaceful drug trade, while at the same time being morally against theft. I don't know why you're lumping the two.

View on HN

Conflating law with ethics. Becoming more prevalent as the number of laws increase.

I can't back it up with science (someone know of any research?), but it sure seems to be a trend when you compare among countries in various stages.

Well, Nuremberg trials and the American revolution show that ethics are above law in many peoples minds at least when convenient. And in many ways, opposite expressions of the notion of Natural Law vs. State. (not Socrates, of course)

Is that the Nueremburg trials that von Braun was prosecuted at? Because the history of that trial showed me that justice is applied at the prosecution's convenience rather than in the cause of justice, even for the most reprehensible.

Nuremberg trials are not a paragon, merely an example where a majority of the people believe that ethics/natural law trumps the laws of the state. This says nothing of its actual conduct.

There's a difference between supporting a free and peaceful drug trade and participating in a very-much illegal drug trade. It's possible to be a hemp-wearing, tree-hugging hippie and be pro-death penalty - it also happens to be rare.

the law has very little to do with supporting freedom and peace these days.

That is very true, but there's still an enormous chasm for your average person between being mostly-law-abiding (I'm not counting things like jaywalking or going 5mph over the limit) and participating in drug sales, which could land you life in prison. Hell, I think drug laws are incredibly unjust in the US, and that the government is overstepping its bounds left and right. By no means should you infer from this that I'm not careful of the legality of my actions. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone participating in a life-in-prison-risking drug enterprise would also be willing to make other illegal/immoral decisions - in fact I think it would be foolish and naive NOT to assume that as a default, despite the fact that it will of course not be true in every case.

Having dealt passingly with a large number of marijuana dealers, I disagree strongly with your assessment.

Do you have any statistics to back this up, or just the naive reasoning "Well, it's a /serious/ crime, so they'd probably commit others, because only bad people commit /serious/ crimes"?

I'm an ex-heroin addict, and you'd be quite surprised. At least here in Australia, that particular "community" is quite anti-violence, at least at the purchasing/dealer level. Move up the ranks and then that will change, however.

Overzealous drug laws make normally-regular people be defined as criminals. As such, they are forced into contact with other criminals. Some of these criminals break moral laws as well as legal ones.

At this stage those two thing (free and peaceful drug trade, and illegal drug trade) are very much the same thing.

This is willful ignorance.

What drug kingpin would ever be morally against theft? Does the fact that this trade is being done via the internet imply that these groups have all adopted some kind of code of honor? DPR of SR1 put out hits on people.

Parent's suspicion is right on the money.

Because most people feel an ethical obligation to follow the law. (And I'm not saying this as a member of this group). So if you find a person who does not feel compelled to follow the law, they could be an ethical anarchist, or altogether unethical. Purely given how fringe anarchism still is, I don't think it's too unreasonable to guess that the person is in the second category.

I think that's exactly wrong, given the number of people who don't feel compelled to say, follow the rules about when to cross the road, but don't commit theft or murder.

It shows that large classes of people are willing to follow rules that they think are ethical, while ignoring others they regard as immoral or amoral.

Yeah, that's "possible". But what about "likely"?

Very true, but at the same time, the anonymity prized by many in support of the site or currencies like BTC makes it a easy target for scammers. I'm saying this happened here, but I'm honestly surprised DPR1 had as much money in BTC, and lived in the US. i.e. Build a system, run it as legit until you're storing $100m of other people's money. Then use the anonymity the system provided you disappear with their money to a county where you broke no laws and provides no extradition to the USA. Spend the rest of your life sipping mai-tais on the beach. Anonymity can be the enemy of accountability.

It doesn't like a moral argument that's being made, rather a probability. Yes someone can be motivated by libertarian values and enable crime. But what's the likelihood that it's a crook looking for a way to steal?

I don't have a great opinion on this argument, just clarifying it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com