Now have I entirely missed something here or do you guys keep on discussing if it was cool that DPR ordered murders for hire even though he is neither charged with these crimes not to mention found guilty?

This reminds me of when the whole world discussed if it was ok for Sadam Hussein to have nuclear weapons or not, thus giving credibility to the outright lies of the people who claimed he had them.

The same government-bag full of liars who claim that DPR wanted to kill by the way.

++jp







________________________________________
Von: unSYSTEM <unsystem-bounces@???> im Auftrag von Seth <list@???>
Gesendet: Montag, 9. Februar 2015 06:26
An: System undo crew
Betreff: Re: [unSYSTEM] Silk Road Trial is starting.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:14:00 -0800, Alec Spier <alec.spier@???>
wrote:

> What were the terrible choices he had to face?
>
> A: Be blackmailed and pay the blackmail, close up shop and leave with
> deca-deca-millions.
> Improve security and open another store.
>
> B: Pay the blackmail and stay open. Be blackmailed again potentially.
>
> C: Tell the guy to fuck off, close shop and leave with your
> deca-deca-millions.
>
> D: Tell the guy to fuck off, keep shop open risk him releasing the
> customer
> lists and allow the customers to be responsible for their own actions of
> giving
> their addresses and names to anonymous people on the internet.
>
> E: CLOSE SHOP, LAY LOW, MAKE A NEW WEBSITE
>
> F (for FAIL): Have a man whose identity you are not even definitively
> sure of (considering
> he didn't end up being existent) murdered...along with anybody else
> threatening
> your clientele.
>
> Just about every other option could have had him not cross the line and
> attempt
> to pay for people to DIE. Sorry but there's not any clear excuse for
> this action
> in my eyes, if you can explain one to me I'm willing to listen.

See the problem here is that it was the blackmailer/snitch who first
threatened violence, in this case the violence of the state. And it wasn't
just DPR that was going to be harmed, it was many other innocent people
that did not aggress against anyone else.

Sicking the state on someone means threats backed by deadly force. The
state gunmen threaten and/or inflict increasing levels of aggressive
violence against a person until they either submit or die. State agents
call this the 'use of force continuum'.

In cases where the person on the receiving end of this violence is an
actual criminal (that is caused real harm to person or property) this is
not always a bad thing. In every other case it is.

Get in this cage, or get in this body bag, it's your choice.

So the snitch really was threatening all kinds of people with deadly
force, and many of those people were going to have their lives destroyed
by the state. Some would most likely be raped in prison as a result, which
one could argue is a fate worse than death.

Now for an extreme example of the concept: Let's say for the sake of
argument that you are harboring a bunch of (insert persecuted people) from
(insert despotic dictator) and his hired killers. Along comes a person who
says, I'm a little short on cash, unless you provide me 300K USD, I'm
going to let the dictator know where to find all these people who are
cowering in your basement.

If you pay someone to kill the snitch, is that an immoral act?
_______________________________________________
unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem