[EDIT2: OK, I agree that calling it the "FreeMarket" may be a wise move, it nevertheless reminded me a bit of the same game that the politicians play by using words like "criminal", "illicit", etc. in reference to the War on Drugs: manipulation via the negative connotation of words. If on the other hand, like Riseed pointed out in a reply below, what you're saying is that it's simply more accurate to call it a free market, then I agree, that's a strong stance to take.]
We need to turn the tables on these politicians. The truth is that they are the inhumane ones. They are responsible for millions of deaths and atrocities thanks to their support of the War on Drugs. [EDIT3: for citations see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7656095 ]
"Illicit goods"? How about illicit politicians? War criminals whose face is framed in your neighborhood government office?
Call a spade a spade. The War on Drugs is a War on Humanity. It is literally responsible for more collective human suffering than the Holocaust.
EDIT: Unfortunate to see fellow HN'ers downvoting me on this issue. Don't want to here it from me? Maybe you'll find Richard Branson and H.L. Mencken more appealing:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-dru...
AFTER EDIT: I note a downvote for disagreement. So I will ask the obvious follow-up question. With what part of the two questions I originally posted do you disagree, and what facts and reasoning should I consider to change my opinion?
Although Nixon declared the War on Drugs public enemy number one in
1971,[14] the policies that his administration implemented as part of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a
continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in
1914
In Mexico, the "official count" (always an underestimate) is now over 100k. [2]
In Afghanistan, Opium has played a major role in almost every war and genocide, where deaths have exceeded several million. [3][4][5]
You can do your own research for the number of deaths that the War on Drugs has caused in just about every country on the planet (Russia, China, all countries in South America, especially Columbia). Summed up "millions of deaths" is easily accounted for by bad drug-related policies.
And that's not even counting all the drug-related deaths that are caused thanks to illicit drugs being illicit. How many people have blamed the deaths of their loved ones on "illegal drugs" when the truth is that it is the War on Drugs that killed their son, spouse, loved one? When you don't know what you're actually ingesting/smoking/injecting (as a consequence of the substances being illegal and not regulated), again the death toll leads to the millions.
And then there's the number of lives ruined (not killed)...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#History
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
[3] https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/
[4] http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270611.htm
[5] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175225AFTER EDIT: I'm still not seeing any historical or transnational policy comparison support from reliable sources for the proposition that the original comment to which I asked two follow-up questions is factually correct in the context of this thread, which is about a proposal for a secure online network and not specifically about legalization of the sale of currently prohibited drugs.
Nor am I saying that this "DarkMarket" will make our lives safer. We need these drugs legalized and regulated on the open market. That would make all the difference.
In my opinion: most people incorrectly read an axiomatic nature to the "non-violence" (revolutionary) approach of Ghandi. Ghandi was not a pacifist in the lay sense. He was a pacifist in the terms of Vedic consciousness and was a daily student of Bhagavad Gita;
And that would prompt the question of why did he opt for non-violence as the 'correct' approach;
And per my analysis, he did so because he recognized that the British Empire motivated its political balast -- from aristocracy down to plebe; whatever held it together -- by the declared shared justification that "we are civilizing the world.";
And Ghandi basically put all of his forces towards attacking that notion;
And by demonstrating (beyond argument) to balast of the British Empire that Ghandi and the Indian Nationalists were in fact more civilized than the Empire, he basically demoralized the affective corps of that Empire. That is why he won.
In the current situation, the fraction of 1% that truly wield global power in our world view us nearly in sub-human terms. And the corporate mirror to the world -- under their control -- pretty much paints their opinion of "us".
To take your example, the motivation for the policy decisions that are accepted by the current regime's 'political balast' -- these are the bright young things furnished by the scientific, academic, cultural, and economic mills -- is their (pretty accurate) assessment that without the police force, without the governing order, the un-washed brethren would eat them up like so much cake. So here, the internalized justification is that "at least this violence is policy driven and under control".
If the layer under the elite balast -- that's the middle class -- demonstrates that they are thoughtful & capable of self determination and self ordering, then this order of things will collapse, just like the British Empire.
So, it is entirely appropriate to remember that "a people get the government that they deserve".
It's about the belief that capitalism is the true(est) reflection of personal worth and that monetary wealth itself determines personal value.
In the future I predict that technology will let us return to the original notion for which money is but an imperfect proxy: credit, or deservingness.
It's not until the wealth of the rich actually becomes dependent on their goodwill that they will behave as though it is.
I understood it to say not only that "FreeMarket" would be a convenient name because it sounds like "free market", but also to say that such a place/site/network actually is the free market because if someone wants to buy X for $Y, and someone wants to sell X for $Y, then a transaction happens, end of story.
In other words, "FreeMarket" is simply an honest and straightforward name for what it is (or strives to be).
You don't have to play the politicians word games but totally disregarding their MO is playing into their hand.