Ross never once alerted these people that they had their information compromised.

Why? Bad for business. I'm not saying that there is no moral utilitarian argument for killing a snitch, but that Ross was not one of these instances.
--
Sent from my Android phone with mail.com Mail. Please excuse my brevity.Seth <list@???> wrote:

    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