I’m not arguing that at all.
I’m simply arguing that Ulbricht wasn’t a drug dealer. 
I agree with you. Except with Ulbricht we punished the little guy and allowed the big boys off scott free. Would it not have been better to make a deal with Ulbricht to find and punish those who were using his site to sell to kids?
2 Likes
That would have been better.
I wonder, though, if a libertarian who set up a dark web site to avoid government involvement would have cooperated with that.
1 Like
He helped drug dealers sell drugs to kids. 
Yes. Like I’ve said, I support shutting down the site but the sentence was too harsh.
No, he didn’t.
He had nothing to do with the drug trade.
Drug dealers used the site Ulbricht created to sell drugs. He knew kids were buying drugs on his site, and he did everything he could to avoid shutting down and avoid law enforcement. Call it what you want, but you’re just playing semantics games.
No, you are the one playing semantic games. Ulbricht created a dark web site to keep it away from government intrusion. Inevitably, nefarious players availed themselves of the site and used it for illegal activity.
This is true. But when kids started buying drugs on his site and he did nothing to stop it, instead doing everything he could to keep the illegal sales going, he transitioned from a libertarian to a criminal.
Parents are responsible for the behavior of their kids, not the owner of a website.
Unsupervised kids get into all kinds of things they shouldn’t have access to on the internet. Your solution seems to be when any site realizes children are misusing it, they need to shut it down. That is ludicrous.
Parents need to do their job. They alone are responsible for the behavior of their children. Why is that so difficult to fathom?
So for consistency, I assume you do not support laws that prevent children from buying alcohol and cigarettes, laws that prevent elementary-age kids from driving, laws that prevent children choosing to get elective surgery, etc.? Let the parents take care of it?
What does that have to do with Website content?
But to your point. Despite underage drinking laws, underage children drink.
Let’s take a liquor store. They faithfully check id. But a kid’s uncle buys liquor for an underage drinking party. Is that the liquor store’s responsibility or is it the parent of each kid attending the party’s responsibility?
Selling heroine online is illegal, but you’ve been arguing for days that it shouldn’t be, that parents should prevent kids from buying it. So what’s the point of any law that imposes age restrictions on certain behaviors?
So to be clear, you support abolishing laws that make it illegal for kids to drink, drive before a certain age, choose to have elective surgery, etc., because sometimes kids do those things anyway, despite the law?
I never said any such thing. What I have been saying is that someone who uses a website for illegal purposes, doesn’t mean the website owner is responsible and should be required to shut the website down. If that were the case, then the internet would cease to exist.
And yes, parents do have a major role to play in keeping their kids safe.
Once again, I have no clue where you are coming up with that insanity.
I never even hinted at that kind of stupidity.
Why are you so resistant to the idea that parents have a major role to play in keeping their children out of trouble?
How should society prevent the anonymous online sale of crack, heroine, fentanyl, etc., if we don’t shut the websites down?
You’re exaggerating. Facebook isn’t facilitating the sale of crack to kids.
So, the only crime worth discussing is selling crack to kids. No other crimes are of any consequence.
What about child pornography?
Speaking of Facebook, it is riddled with criminal activity. Do they have criminals that use Facebook to move illegal drugs? It is highly likely that they do.
1 Like
You have been arguing for days that websites like Silk Road should be allowed to operate. When I point out that they’re facilitating crack sales to kids, your counterargument is that parents should handle it. So what’s the point of a law that says kids can’t buy vodka until they’re 21? Shouldn’t the parents take care of it and let the liquor store owners off the hook?
As far as I know Facebook is not facilitating the sale of child pornography and illegal drugs. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I didn’t really. What I did argue is that those who used the site to sell drugs to kids have simply moved to another site and that they continue to sell drugs to kids. Shutting down Silk Road did nothing to stop the illegal activity, given that the site itself, nor Ulbricht was engaged in that activity.
You continue to place the burden for raising a child on everyone but the parent. Why is that?
Age restrictions take care of the low hanging fruit. But there will always be those who will find a way around even the strictest laws. Good parenting can go a long way in preventing that kind of behavior.
