I listed the state as an example because the state is seemingly the only entity which tries to outlaw voluntary peaceful exchanges. There is a term for practice of peaceful human action that for some weird reason is disallowed by the state [1]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics

Things like protecting weaker parties through a court system, providing national infrastructure for the economic prosperity of everyone (as opposed to private infrastructure for the prosperity of few), national defense, food and water regulation, base level research and development, protection from criminals, corporate regulation, are only a few that immediately come to mind.

This is a system for facilitating voluntary transactions between individuals. That should not frighten you.

Should we still not be frightened (or at least concerned) if what's being transacted is child slaves, or kidnapping/murder for hire, or guns for the mafia? There are a number of very unhealthy things which can fall under "voluntary transactions between individuals"

I'm not making an argument against anonymous marketplaces by any means, just against the idea that black markets are necessarily benign by definition, because they exist outside the reach of the state.

Those transactions are still going to have "meatspace" components which are, and will remain, the weak point that law enforcement will target.

Tor and bitcoin already exist, if mobs want to use those systems, they already can. The utility in systems like SR is reputation management and connection discovery. In other words, this system would really be nothing more than a craigslist that doesn't claim to take down ads for hookers. It shouldn't frighten you.

No, you should be frightened by the fact that governments, being monopolies, tend to create less economically efficient products (including laws) than competitive markets, so if you assume that societies are better off if they have legal systems which prevent slavery/kidnapping/etc., competitive markets will be more likely to produce those legal systems than governments.

Unfortunately, if the new generation of Silk Road type platform proves effective and resilient, I think that any large scale crime syndicate or trafficker with the wherewithal to pay is going to start running their own.

And granted, it may just be an arbitrary level of abstraction to say the state is necessarily any more just in generating or enforcing laws than a third-party entity, but I do believe that in the case of decentralized black markets, something other than the markets themselves are going to need to act in that stead, because there would otherwise be a conflict of interest in trying to rein in illegal activity in communities whose entire purpose is profiting from illegal activity.

Though I suppose there might be precedent, for the sake of the self-preservation of the whole, for an Anonymous-like group to step in and keep the real scum at bay.

Which might bring everything back full circle, either the Feds get called or vigilantes.

And there also is a number of unhealthy uses of cars, like using it to transport yourself right after robbing a bank. Should we ban cars?

Anything that can be used for the good, can be used for the bad as well. That shouldn't however mean that that thing should not be produced/sold/used.

No, but I believe the state has a legitimate interest in regulating their sale and use.

But i'm not talking about guns in the abstract. I'm talking about the purposes that organizations involved in a black market gun trade would likely be putting them to. Collectors of firearms are not going to be using Silk Road 2. People who just want something to protect their home aren't likely going to be using it, either. The issue is the degree to which a black market, by virtue of it's purpose to evade law enforcement, would be used to facilitate criminal activity.

Or to extend your example further, no, we shouldn't ban cars, but we have every right to shut down chop shops.

Luckily, very few - if any - libertarians ever make such a claim. If anything, you're probably either misunderstanding what they're saying, or simply engaging in hyperbole to the point of, essentially, setting up a strawman.

Libertarians acknowledge that the govt sometimes does things that are, in some sense, "good". We just happen to consider that irrelevant, since "good" which requires violating the NIF principle is not justified in our worldview. And/or, some Libertarians will also argue that for almost every value of X, where X = "something the State does", that X either isn't actually needed at all, or would be provided more efficiently by a non-State mechanism.

I see it like this: a few like minded people want to trade things that many high minded people would rather not exist or don't want to be openly sold (whichever you prefer) without having boot clodding storm troopers kick down your door and take away your ability to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is just a simple progression/evolution of the black market.

Just wondering. Why do you think forcing companies into complying with some regulation is necessarily a good thing?

If the customers care about this kind of safety, the producers will voluntarily comply with some private standards and will pass some private certification to attract customers.

So that is definitely not a valid reason of where government is needed. It can be done without the govt and without coercion.

(I could expand on every point you consider to be a good reason for existence of the state if you wish.)

Consumers cannot necessary demand something if they're not aware of it (ie: EPA testing water supply for contaminants, USDA testing meat supply for salmonella). It's taken decades of pushing for the populace to get basic things like the Clean Food & Water Act(s) passed and be able to eat/drink/consume products being able to know what the ingredients are and not (for the most part) getting sick from doing so.

Regulation needs to and should exist for basic human services of life.

A good friend of mine is an anarcho-capitalist and while he is overall a very technical, very logical, and generally smart person, neither of us have managed to convince the other that their view-point is flawed. It's rather frustrating.

So if you piss off "the corporation", you have their private militia come after you. Then their courts sentence you to death, or slave labor. How is this anarchistic? Seems pretty top-down to me. Just because a company is running things doesn't mean it's not a government.

I just don't really understand libertarianism, I guess. It makes sense if you're filthy rich, but otherwise you'd just go from being middle class to a peasant with no rights almost instantly. Are all libertarians filthy rich and just very vocal (there seem to be a lot of them), delusional, misinformed, or am I missing some large part of the theory behind it?

The only way I could ever see the phasing of government out working successfully is in a shared economy (anarcho-communism). Not that I think human nature would ever permit a system like this until tens of thousands of years of psychological/spiritual evolution take place, but I think at the time humans are able to self-organize in every sense there will no longer be the need for personal possessions. Oddly enough, we would be a lot like ants.

Check your assumptions. Corporations are a legal fiction created by the State and would not even exist in a purely anarcho-capitalist society.

The intention of the law to "meet a need or solve a problem" doesn't necessarily reflect the actual behavior of the law. Adopting this mindset can also bring the attitude of "we need a law to protect children" while packing the "Protect Children Act" full of special interest material.

I would personally disagree with the assertion that the majority of laws solve a problem or result in a net meeting of needs.

This is very true, but it doesn't represent the views of all libertarians or even all anarcho-capitalists. For a much better approach to anarcho-capitalism—one that focuses primarily on economics and not on morality—check out David Friedman's writings and talks. Here's a basic introduction to his proposal of a polycentric legal system where the market produces all goods and services including law, law enforcement, arbitration (courts), and even national defense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o. Along with Murray Rothbard's primarily moral/ethical/legal arguments (which seem slightly more prominent, and seem to be the ones you've encountered), Friedman's economic arguments make up the main "branches of anarcho-capitalism."

I don't know any libertarians or ancaps who insist that the non-aggression principle solves anything, much less everything. What we say is that it's simply the ethically Right Thing To Do, and that if "solving" a problem requires violating the NAF, then it's better left unsolved, even if there are negative consequences.

The idea that libertarians believe in some kind of "libertopia" is one of the most persistent, while completely unfounded and mistaken, myths that exists about libertarians. It's the libertarians who, more than any other group, take reality into account by acknowledging that we can't engineer a "perfect" society by using force against one another.

Libertarianism has pathologies at the edges? Big deal, so does every system that has ever been proposed as an alternative.

I doubt anyone reasonable even claims that a perfect society is possible - someone will always feel wronged regardless of their circumstance. I don't think it's unfair to say that the main function of a society is to reduce the likelihood that a person of said society gets wronged. Which brings the question of how does a society do that without enforcement of laws? If we accept the NAP is a law, who reprimands those who break it? Who actually defines what it is in the first place? Undoubtedly there are many different interpretations of it and it's not possible to achieve a feeling of fairness in a society if not everyone agrees on its basic structure and laws. If you feel like these are too basic of questions, feel free to link me to what you would consider a definitive explanation.

For me, it all basically reduces to the idea that Bastiat articulated, that "government is just the collective extension to our individual right to self defense". So even as a radical individualist anarchist / anarcho-capitalist, I can still see a role for something like "government", but only if it's use of force is restricted to defensive use, and it respects the idea that "if an individual doesn't have permission to do something, then multiple individuals don't have permission to either".

IOW, voluntarily organized collectives, assembled for mutual defense, OR individuals acting in self-defense, are how the NAP would be "enforced".

But again, there's no "perfect" political system, IMO. Conflicts could still arise, but I don't think institutionalizing the use of force is a good approach.

I do think that automated systems that don't require bureaucratic governance are a good idea, so I'm particularly annoyed by projects like this because it can create a negative public image. You can apply the concepts much more proactively.

This is bullshit. You definitely didn't live under corrupt south america regimes. Or in Soviet Union. Or in Belarus (author's location AFAICS).

If the law is very bad (e.g. death penalty for homosexuality), then it's not people who are wrong when they're breaking it.

Do you think it is proper to still practice obedience to the rulers in this case?

What is different in the case of anonymous voluntary exchange? Sure, they can outlaw clapping. Or breathing. Or being over 1m tall. Or anything. But just the fact that these people might tell you "breathing is bad" or "being 1m+ is terrible" does not make it actually this way.

You should read the news more often: Government shutdown for no valid reason, Wall Street corruption going unpunished and ongoing (those weren't the last financial scandals), the approval rate of Congress nearing the bottom, one could write a book about how the government has stopped representing the People...

> as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction

_Peaceful_ civil disobedience campaigns played a large role in the Civil Rights movement and helped raise awareness leading to (in the US, at least) the Civil Rights Act - thereby reinforcing equal protections and voting rights.

The intent is important; and the NONVIOLENT aspect is especially important. But civil disobedience isn't always necessarily a bad thing. Nor is it always a childish suggestion.

Did I ask the state to provide me with all these "benefits" in exchange for being enslaved and having guns and threats at me? If the government thinks I need its X, Y, and Z services, or whatever and uses it as a basis for theft, is it any good?

Is it different from, say, me saying that apples are good for you, therefore I can point a gun at you, violently take your money and buy you a fucking apple? You know, because it's good for you! No? Surely I am benefiting you in this case so you have to shut up and blindly obey.

Every single thing that the government does can be not only just provided, but provided more efficiently (and also more morally) on a free market.

African Americans during the civil rights movement benefited from government (roads, etc.) and also used very public law-breaking as a fundamental tactic.

[0] you can find an epub with a simple google search, or listen to this talk by the author, who unfortunately has a thick korean accent: http://youtu.be/whVf5tuVbus?#t=4m

Edit: correction

> A black market or underground economy is the market in which goods or services are traded illegally. The key distinction of a black market trade is that the transaction itself is illegal.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market

It's presumptuous to claim that "not every law is oppressive." What might be unnoticeable to many people could become oppressive to you. Ultimately, the subjective ethics and conscience of an individual is more valid than any arbitrary system into which that person is thrown, on an individual basis. In other terms, that which is "worth fighting for" -- worth resistance to oppression -- is, as always, relative and subjective. Fortunately, quite a lot of people feel that it's extremely oppressive to inflict restrictions, caging, and great violence upon nonviolent, consenting people. Oppression comes in many forms. Given this thread, I'll use drugs as the context. A single lone person who wants to grow and use drugs is still oppressed (according to my ethical framework) even if the entirety of all other people on Earth, all 7+ billion, summarily and vehemently want to violently restrict that person from doing so.

I would agree with you here. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that all laws are necessarily oppressive or, if they must be oppressive by your terms, need to be resisted. After all, there are cases of theft, vandalism, murder, rape, fraud, conspiracy, etc - all of which would require 'oppression' through the force of law for the good of the community.

I have no problem with your lone person who wants to use drugs and is harming no one - but laws in general presume consequences for violating norms within a society. If on the other hand, that lone user has to commit violent acts or their use poses a danger to others, then in my opinion their right to personal liberty has to be limited.

The more one selectively filters and dismisses the negatives of forcefully imposing [what one wants] on others, the more that person becomes conditioned to accept violence. The continued path of this mindset is easily one where imprisonment and economic suppression, and the overall appeasement of violent systems, increasingly becomes a rational response to even trite conduct. Disobedience by those who are different becomes itself vilified. Ends begin to justify means. Force imposed upon nonviolent people that would otherwise be heinous becomes common.

In contrast, I find that the more someone begins to examine, to self-assess, the negative nature of his or her own actions, the less willing he or she is to use force to impose those subjective views. It leads to admission and mindfulness. Recognizing the violence [of self] can take one on a path of peace and tolerance [of others], where one begins to seek more progress through culture alone rather than through law.

Laws by their nature are oppressive. We'd agree that there are many variations of systems and laws that we might mutually favor in principle. Though, in fewer words, the more a system lends itself to arbitrary law, the more a system lends itself to tyranny. That's because oppression and violence -- in law or in other forms -- in and of itself is no justification. Systems protecting people from violent actions certainly become a resounding cause when they use forms of oppression to protect people from great oppression (e.g. rape, murder, etc.). Though the way systems of justice do it is largely unjustified (to me), in light of the astonishing increase of a prison-military-police industry and the society that brought it into existence. It's one of many systems with systemic problems, in dire need of critical change, humanity, compassion, and transparency.

wait, what? when did subverting the state become a bad thing?

In this specific case however, he isn't advertising that he is subverting the state, so far as I can tell? what am I missing?

OTOH, I can't imagine how anything could possibly be more appropriate. I think everyone should publicly advertise, and work on, tools for subverting the State.

Where? This seems clearly false to me.

> Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law.

Making laws easy to break seems to be one of the best ways to accomplish policy change.

Should we stop promoting Tor when this inevitably becomes illegal?

It depends.

Is your goal to never work with the state, or do you intend to reconcile with it at some point?

If you never intend to obey laws, then yes. You should stop promoting Tor if Tor becomes illegal.

If you intend to get the law changed back in your favor, then you should continue promoting Tor if Tor becomes illegal.

Up to you.

I'm not advocating compliance here. I'm just challenging this idea that we can beat the state through technical prowess, or that we should do it without being pressed into extraordinary circumstances. It's not just unwise, it's (regarding the "technical prowess") flat incorrect.

There is no such thing as a system that provides privacy only for legal activities. Therefore if you want to fight for the freedom and ability to share information without surveillance, then you must design systems that can, incidentally or otherwise, be used to share drugs (and you must fight attempts to surveil existing systems.)

EDIT: jlgreco, I can't reply to you, so I'll respond here.

> So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it?

The Silk Road was a black market, so 2.0 would need to be pretty explicit that it's NOT a black market to overcome that-- but it's not. It seems pretty intent on carrying that legacy.

I wouldn't call Tor the "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic"; I'd call it the "Thing-to-avoid-surveillance-omatic." This, in keeping with the history of the Silk Road, I'd call the "Thing-to-sell-drugs-omatic."

If the author gave it all of the same properties and abilities, claimed that he intended it to share knitting patterns, named it "Yarn Road", and never mentioned a single thing about drugs, would it bother you?

> would it bother you?

To a degree, yes. I'm in favor of virtual markets and currencies, but because they can increase the opportunities for lawful commerce and reduce the role of rent-seekers-- not mask illegal activity. His messaging is certainly what I find most bothersome, but I still wouldn't throw my weight behind a system that offered no means of regulation. Likewise, I wouldn't agree with a system that includes total passive surveillability either. There needs to be a considered balance.

I certainly would not play out my policy disagreements through system design, which is how this strikes me. It's far too risky, and certain to get your software (and life) shut down in the long run.

There's obviously no shortage of people of all ages who are prone to equating [an authority that commands obedience] with [an authority of subjective moral validity]. As any struggle for freedom and liberation movement throughout history will attest, the dynamics of law vs. ethics are often in deep conflict. Time after time, subservient people who "just follow orders" obey cruelty. Heroes resist and are sacrificed. I digress.

In the context of the drug war and voluntary interactions among consenting people, [illegal] markets are the logical way to maintain liberation and resistance to [legal] tyranny.

Assuming that somebody progresses through Lawrence Kohlberg's 'stages of moral development' in order as they develop, that seems reasonable.

However, the development of this system seems to be evidence that the author does not conflate ethics and the law. Trading drugs is presumably illegal in the authors jurisdiction, yet the author presumably believes themself to be acting ethically in the development of a system that facilitates the trade of drugs. If the author were conflating the law and morality, then he likely would not develop this system because it would facilitate illegal(therefore immoral) behavior. This does not seem to be the case; the author seems to be capable of separating morality and legality.

> pfraze: "This strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Don't publicly advertise tools for subverting the state. ... Handle grievances with regulations or criminal code by organizing popular support for policy changes, not by building systems to break the law. Otherwise, expect to be treated as a criminal." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510947

Equating resistance of tyranny, and even the discussion surrounding it, as being "inappropriate" alone exemplifies, at least partially, the conflation of authority with a moral imperative. Then he or she makes this clear by blatantly suggesting that the only [appropriate] method of resistance is limited to the context of authority. That's patently absurd, of course. In any real-world application of people attempting to liberate themselves conscientiously, wherever law is oppressing them, usually they cannot attempt to do so without serious action, resistance, and cultural pressure: not remaining shackled. Free action breaks barriers. It creates a social impetus for the increase of people to follow and change to occur (culturally or legally).

I think it's very unwise to do this given it's how DPR just got busted. You can disagree or not, but this is a question of consequence, not political theory. If you don't think publishing a project called Silk Road 2.0 will get you on a watch list, then ok. If you think this is the way to organize against the state, then good luck. But if you think this is just the comments section, and nothing's really going to come of it, then here's what I have to say:

DPR doesn't have millions of people rallying for him-- because he was a drug dealer. He put a hit out on an employee, and he made $80million by taking a cut. There is no more clear way to flaunt the law than to do it for a large profit, and that's what he did. Whether he used Tor and Bitcoin or kept a notebook ledger and walked between houses, his message would be the same: that'll be 5%, please.

Free action does indeed break barriers, and new technologies change the world, but if there were ever an industry that got better treatment by a government, US Tech would be it. I don't have a problem with fighting oppression. I have a problem with squandering privilege while tying yourself to the oppressed. If you are in this conversation and you're not afraid of ramifications, yes, you have a privilege.

Sorry to be rough about it. Just how I feel.

People of "privilege" are often in the class doing the destroying.

Our opinions may be diametrically opposite. The only people "squandering" anything are the ones who enjoy parts of liberation, and agree with it, yet aren't even willing to at least stand in vocal solidarity with those who actually fight for it. The only ones who "squander" anything squeeze as much opportunity as they can out of freedoms and stand silent, from complacency or from fear, while civil liberties are destroyed. People rejecting oppression and acting upon what they know is right are doing the opposite of squandering.

One of the great lessons to nurture a skeptical mind is to learn to question everything. Question everything. Question everything especially when it's in the face of those who stake a claim to authority. Often the people who seize authority are people most eager to dominate and objectify others, and to blindly follow abusive orders. The DoJ and state entities, as it happens, are motivated by political victory, increased funding, and indirect monetary backing from corporate entities with ulterior motives. Impartiality doesn't exist, and is near nonexistent without a lot of money. "Truth" is rarely a motivating factor unless it's convenient. The US justice system is rotten in countless aspects. This especially includes the FBI. We can agree that it's good to not become a useless pawn or useless martyr to them when wise options exist. However, a voluntary market is a peaceful, wise option for many people. Yes, the system is still primed to threaten, cage, and destroy people who engage in it. It is that system and appeasers who should be vilified, not peaceful people. They are not "squandering." They are merely trying to live their lives.

You assume that DPR "put a hit on someone." Very little of what was chatted about makes sense whether or not the transcripts are accurate and attributable to him (and not someone else). To my distant vantage, the transcript suggests the person thought he was talking to a fake and was essentially toying with the fake; on the internet, we're all super heroes and can say anything extreme, facetiously. Who knows...

Wise is the one who continually perceives and questions. Ignorant and careless is the one who swiftly reaches judgment.

Yes, I was mistaken.