Some Further Thoughts on Ross

In Search of Truth

A few days ago, I reposted an article I drafted back in May of 2015 on Ross Ulbricht in response to his extremely harsh sentencing. It received a great deal of attention and generated some degree of controversy- especially for my character assessment of Ross. Thus I'm writing a follow-up article to go into more detail about my comments and refine the original purpose of the post.

The primary point of my argument is that the state broadcasts a vacuous term called social fabric to justify incarcerating millions of Americans- many of whom are poor and minorities. The state seems to believe that this approach acts as a deterrent and will eventually reduce the sale and consumption of drugs.

There is a legion of evidence to the contrary and real data from the lifting of prohibition that clearly shows the state's arguments are wrong.

As people's lives are being destroyed, it is worthwhile to point out some of the consequences of the state's war on drugs. Families have been broken up. Entire communities are now in a continuous cycle of incentivized crime and economic destruction. Black markets engender violence especially in jurisdictions like Mexico. The police are becoming increasingly more militarized and violent. Constitutional rights are set aside to accommodate ever more aggressive investigations that often yield no consequences to the state if they make dangerous mistakes.

This is what a city looks like that has been ravaged by the economic consequences of targeting communities.

Detroit and other metropolises have been generationally devastated in part because of the war on drugs. Also, I haven't even mentioned civil asset forfeiture. A process where the state can take your money without evidence and then forces you to prove you obtained it lawfully. Again, this disportionately affects the poorest in America.

What is Good?

With respect to my article on Ross, there was some criticism of my assessment of his personality and character. For the record, I think operating a black market that sells harmful substances to people isn't a good act. At least any more good than the arms dealer saying his weapons have no impact on people or society. These are neutral acts at best with a borderline on bad given that addiction does destroy people's lives.

This said, I do not believe such an act should be illegal, but there needs to be a social differentiation from acts that are legal and acts that are good. Businesses that prey upon people's vices or enable human destruction will never be good in my eyes.

My assessment of his character does not come from the unproven allegations that he attempted to hire an assassin to eliminate an extortionist . They come from the fact that he profited from contributing to an operation that distributes harmful substances to people. This same judgement would be levied upon cigarette companies or doctors who over-prescribe drugs.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

As for whether Ross is a fall guy, I cannot comment on this claim. I can say that there is considerable evidence that Ross did not receive a fair trial nor was the investigation properly conducted given that the investigators themselves committed criminal offenses. I firmly believe - without proof- that the NSA provided evidence to law enforcement officials and then the officials generated a parallel construction, which is a fundamental violation of our constitutional rights. In summary, the entire case was a political mockery of justice.

All this said, it is pyrrhic to focus on Ross's character or the injustices he has received by the heavy hand of the state. The state and the media are perfectly capable of making anyone appear to be a monster beyond redemption. If we reduce the debate to the moral virtues of the wronged, then we are betting the farm on our ability to overcome a massive disinformation machine. We must instead focus on the hypocrisy of enforcement, known lies and the broader consequences of the policies.

It is beyond defense to say throwing flash bang grenades at infants is a just act. It is beyond defense to say stealing cash from poor people and then forcing them to prove they earned it is a just act. These are the types of pillars that a reasonable movement must be built on. They cannot be distorted by propaganda without an almost comical amount of effort and the careful eye of a commissar.

Black Markets

The final criticism I noticed from my post was that my claim that black markets lead to violence is untrue. Notes wrote a thoughtful response to my article that covered this topic. My counter is that it's important to distinguish from personal experience and the general nature of a market configuration.

I will not dispute that it is entirely possible to exist within a clique that is non-violent, yet engaging in a grey or black market. My comments are targeted towards the general reality that all black markets face. They do not have properly formed arbitration, transparency, reliable reputation systems, enforceable contracts or the assistance of the state as a decider of last resort. They are also subject to rapid reconfigurations and changes in governing actors.

In more concise terms, these properties introduce a natural de-evolution towards acts that are the most effective in maintaining stability. If you exist in a clique with nice people, but suddenly they retire or get arrested, then what guarantees do you have that your new associates will be as pleasant? What happens when bad actors enter your clique and begin to use violence? How do you counteract their activities? Many addicts don't seem to particularly care about the moral virtue and business practices of their suppliers. The most efficient actors will have a competitive advantage.

Ironically, the silk road made a major contribution towards reducing the tendency towards violence by disintermediating suppliers and consumers as well as instituting a more stable reputation system. It's not inconceivable to imagine a mostly non-violent marketplace materializing over time with arbitration and better quality control. Yet what happens when someone gets compromised in the system and then leverages knowledge of his peers to reduce punishment? It seems interference from the state could actually introduce violence into the system.

A Path Forward?

Wiser and more informed people than me have written libraries worth of information on suggested policies and roadmaps towards a future without the war on drugs. I'm incapable of contributing much beyond their efforts. Yet, I will offer a suggestion that we should focus on safer marketplaces through better technology and that we have an obligation to point out hypocrisy wherever it exists in our drug policy.

I believe this will be a battle much like civil rights with victories in the inches and endless human suffering in between. I also believe the existence of social media and the constant vigilance of the people will eventually break the policies. It's also been tremendously satisfying to see the decriminalization of Marijuana in Colorado and for the state not to descend into chaos as a result.

Thanks for Reading!