The Judge in the Ross Ulbricht Case Was Far, Far From a Libertarian

It should not come as a surprise that a Federal judge is not a libertarian. However, just unsealed documents show just how far Judge Katherine Forrest is from understanding libertarian thinking.

Kari Paul reports:

For nearly an hour before sentencing Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht to life in prison, Judge Katherine Forrest made a sweeping defense of United States drug laws, exhaustively rebuking the idea the online drug market resulted in any harm reduction and countering its supposed libertarian mission, according to a newly unsealed document.

“What Silk Road really was was a social market expander of a socially harmful drug that we have deemed in our democratic process to be unacceptable and it was an enabler of those trying so very hard to get away from it,” she said before sentencing Ulbricht on May 29.

Ulbricht’s defense had argued the site reduced harm because it kept drug deals off the streets and allowed users to share information about drug safety. The transcript from the final day of court proceedings shows how Forrest categorically rejected that claim, outlining the social costs of drug use from an individual level to mass scale.

“The social costs of drugs are manifest,” she said. “The user is only one part of the equation, that is where much of this harm reduction argument comes from and it is focused on the user. The user is one part of a massive, massive worldwide scheme of drug trafficking and if you sat where I sat you would see that the user is not the end… So, harm reduction focused on the user is missing the point.”

Forrest resented the fact that Ulbricht was challenging US laws regarding drug sales and distribution, saying “there is a way to change the law but it is not by doing what occurred.”

“No drug dealer from the Bronx selling meth or heroin or crack has ever made these kinds of arguments to the Court,” she said. “It is a privileged argument, it is an argument from one of privilege. You are no better a person than any other drug dealer and your education does not give you a special place of privilege in our criminal justice system. It makes it less explicable why you did what you did.”

She also denounced the ideals of Silk Road, saying Ulbricht’s creation of the site implied he thought he was above the law, an idea that is “troubling and terribly misguided and also very dangerous.” She said Silk Road was not the libertarian social experiment Ulbricht made it out to be.

“You were captain of the ship, as the Dread Pirate Roberts, and you made your own laws and you enforced those laws,” she said. “So, it wasn't a world without restriction. It wasn't a world of ultimate freedom. It was a world of laws that you created, they were your laws. It is fictional to think of Silk Road as some place of freedom.”

As I have stated before, I think it was a mistake for Ulbricht to take on the government in the manner he did,  It was extremely dangerous and the price he is paying is horrific.

That said, I find some of Judge Forrest's remarks at sentencing difficult to understand from my libertarian perspective.

She said:

The user is only one part of the equation, that is where much of this harm reduction argument comes from and it is focused on the user. The user is one part of a massive, massive worldwide scheme of drug trafficking and if you sat where I sat you would see that the user is not the end… So, harm reduction focused on the user is missing the point.

I am truly at a loss here to understand  who she is referring to, when she says the user is only "one part of a massive, massive worldwide scheme of drug trafficking...So, harm reduction focused on the user is missing the point."

Anyone in drug trafficking is only in the business, of their own free will. to supply users. The only danger they face is from  government drug enforcement agents and judges, such as Judge Forrest, who sentence such traffickers to prison. This can be easily eliminated by not arresting and prosecuting traffickers and, at the courthouse level, not sentencing such traffickers to prison. Then the drug trade would become not much different than the local variety store that sells aspirin, coca cola and potato chips.

The judge goes on to say:

No drug dealer from the Bronx selling meth or heroin or crack has ever made these kinds of arguments to the Court, It is a privileged argument, it is an argument from one of privilege. You are no better a person than any other drug dealer and your education does not give you a special place of privilege in our criminal justice system. It makes it less explicable why you did what you did.

No it is not an argument from privilege, it is a naive argument from a person in way over his head thinking that principle somehow matters in court. Ulbricht obviously got that way wrong.

And finally the Judge confuses Ulbricht's anti-government position  on regulation, and incorrectly applies it to private transactions where Ulbricht would most certainly recognize private property regulation:

You were captain of the ship, as the Dread Pirate Roberts, and you made your own laws and you enforced those laws,” she said. “So, it wasn't a world without restriction. It wasn't a world of ultimate freedom. It was a world of laws that you created, they were your laws. It is fictional to think of Silk Road as some place of freedom.

The lesson here should be clear. The government does not like to be challenged. It is extremely dangerous to challenge them on regulations they take seriously. The idea that you are going to plead libertarian principle to any positive outcome in a government court is absurd.

The key is to stay out of government courts in the first place. Don't do things that will put you in front of such courts. It is highly, highly unlikely you will beat the system.

 -RW