Aside from the question of whether it was a good idea, from a libertarian perspective, for Ross Ulbricht to launch the underground black market Bitcoin using site Silk Road (I happen to think it was a terrible misguided move by Ulbricht), it appears clear to me that the misguided Ulbricht in some crazy manner thought he was promoting liberty,
It is equally clear to me that U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who presided over the trial and sentenced him to life in prison, had no understanding of this Ulbricht perspective.
She said so herself during the sentencing.
Fortune magazine reports:
“It’s still unclear to me why you kept a journal,” said Judge Forrest while pronouncing Ulbricht’s life sentence.This statement by the judge means she didn't get that Ulbricht was a naive fool. The reason Ulbricht kept the journal was becasue he really did think he was advancing liberty and that somewhere down the road he would be writing about his success in a book that would become a national best seller, and he wanted all the facts straight when he sat down to write the best seller.
The judge clearly looked at Ulbrucht as just another criminal. Real drug dealers don't keep diaries that the Feds can find. Made members of the Mafia don't keep diaries. For obvious reasons, they don't. And Judge Forrest clearly gets this, as indicated by her confusion as to why Ulbricht did keep a diary.
She just had no basis for the understanding that a person would enter into a world of drug dealing for something other than just money. But the very incriminating journal is proof that Ulbricht saw himself as something more than just a provider of a market for drug dealing. The journal was proof that he thought, mistakenly, he was on to something big in terms of advancing liberty and it is also proof that he was extremely naive.
The judge's admitted confusion is evidence that she did not understand any of this and that may be a part of the reason she was comfortable sentencing Ulbricht to life. She didn't get why he kept the diary, though, it bothered her enough that she brought it up at the sentencing. From her government perspective, she just saw a criminal defying the law--and defying government for personal criminal gain.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
O"Reilly, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were overjoyed that Ulbricht got life without parole because it's insane to legalize drugs. In fact, two "kids" died because they got drugs from Ulbricht's site. DRUGS KILL PEOPLE AND CAUSE THEM TO ROB BANKS! The judge just had to nip this one in the bud.
ReplyDeleteO'reilly doesn't bother me so much. Because I know he is an idiot. The guy gets hammered anytime he has a guest on that has any brains at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat does bother me, are the people I know who think whatever O'Reilly says is gospel. They check their brain out and say," well did you hear O'Reilly last night? He really tells it like it is". Those people boggle my mind.
They continually remind me that I don't want to, nor need to, associate myself with them. The blind leading the blind. Or maybe the fools leading the fools.
Ulbricht will not be the last. Drugs will always be available either directly or indirectly through the web or through other traditional distribution channels. He was severely sentenced because he was high profile much like an actor or entertainer is singled out and hounded for tax evasion. The goal is to make a widely publicized example to serve as a deterrent to the public. Of course it never works, because there are always others who will gladly duplicate the act at some price. But the facts never make much of an impression on the corporate-state directed pundantry.
ReplyDelete