The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king.
> doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.
Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions that don't hurt anyone actually seems like the only reasonable justification for killing someone. Especially in the case of a blackmailer where they aren't attempting to right any (theoretical) wrongs.
No, you refuse to put yourself in the shoes of someone breaking an unjust law and being persecuted for it. You may never agree with a drug dealer killing an informant, but the concept of killing your blackmailer is much broader.
The fact is that our law. (You and me. We paid for it.) Doesn't help us, and was used to hurt (blackmail) someone. You might not think the hit was "Fair" or in proportion but it was a consequence of our useless law - making someone defend themselves. As long as we have bad law we'll have its unintended consequences.
Silk Road was the best public-safety advancement in drugs in the last millennium. It was impossible for someone to stumble into unaware, it wasn't near a school, church, rehab clinic, etc. And our useless laws treated it like he was shoving crack cocaine into a toddler's mouth, and denied him the protection of the police.
And useless isn't just a term of dislike, it's that our drug laws don't increase safety for anyone, dealers, users, or bystanders.
Not a martyr, that's a silly religious concept. He's just not served by the law and neither are we. He was denied protection despite not hurting people, and yet we are no safer because of the actions of law enforcement.
Anyways, as long as we create this class of people (criminals whose crimes don't hurt anyone) and deny them protection, they will protect themselves. That's not further criminality, it's humanity. You would defend yourself, and so do they. We can stick our heads in the sand and say "It's wrong, they're criminal" or we can stop with the ridiculous laws.
No, that's a really imbecilic interpretation of what I said. If you're making yourself rich you can't turn around and plead that your act was selfless public service. Ulbricht was no different than any other violent drug lord and you won't convince me otherwise by repeating arguments about how drug laws should be reformed -- that's not a notion I disagree with but I think it has zero bearing on this case.
> If you're making yourself rich you can't turn around and plead that your act was selfless public service.
If the public willingly partook of his services, by definition they were a public service. Stores profit from me and yet I also profit from them.
But you're trying to twist out some strange moralistic meaning, as if he should run his business as a non-profit despite how you and I both expect to profit from our work. And even if he could just give his products away, you'd condemn him for that as well. Nobody needs to be selflessly service the public just to deserve protection (or the right to protect themselves).
> you won't convince me otherwise by repeating arguments about how drug laws should be reformed
I'm not arguing that they should, but mainly because I think that's obvious. I'm arguing that because these are our laws, we created this situation. That as long as we have these laws, we create this exact scenario.
> I think it has zero bearing on this case.
Well, other than being 100% the cause of this case. Because you can't blackmail someone for something legal, and this is the very model of a consensual. Nobody was forced to shop Silk Road.
If we don't need to justify the law then we could just as well make abortion illegal and apply the same logic to escaped abortionists.
The law on its own is a worthless artifact, not justification.
> Ulbricht was no different than any other violent drug lord and
Wrong, considering his attempted violence was defensive in nature. But also, boring blame centric thinking.
Drug lords are no different than spice merchants; protecting their wares until they get to market. If you want safer streets, protect the merchants.
Red Herring.
> Avoiding the consequences
The invented consequences, yes. But the consequences of the crime itself (ie hitting someone while drunk driving) have to be bad in and of themselves for the concept of crime to be distinct from angering the king.
> doesn't strike me as a good case for justifiable homicide.
Being threatened with having your life ruined for actions that don't hurt anyone actually seems like the only reasonable justification for killing someone. Especially in the case of a blackmailer where they aren't attempting to right any (theoretical) wrongs.