Quote from: cjmoles on December 03, 2015, 10:28:50 PM

Quote from: xenotrunksx on December 03, 2015, 09:40:11 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on December 03, 2015, 08:43:16 PM

This is one of the reasons it would be so difficult to accomplish anything even if an attempt was made. I would want changes in complete opposition to what you desire.

Yes, I think Ulbricht should be in prison, although mainly for charges other than the drug selling (I remember reading something about an attempt at hiring a hitman and weapons being sold on Silk Road). We have many legal "drugs" in the US. I do not need a nanny state to tell me which harmful drugs I'm allowed to use and which ones I am not. They are ALL harmful to an extent and I am more than capable of weighing my own pros and cons in substance use. The money spent on the war on drugs would be better put to use in education, treatment and addiction facilities.

It also appears from your previous posts you are in favor of tighter gun controls or even an outright ban on civilian gun ownership. Both of which I oppose fervently. What's the oft coined phrase?

"If you criminalize gun ownership then only the criminals will own guns."

I know the nuances of gun control laws and consequences cannot simply be boiled down to a 2 dollar catch phrase on a NRA poster, but France has much tighter gun laws than the US and yet criminals can just as easily mow down a street of people there as they can here.

I respect your desire for change and modernization, I just think you are pulling at the wrong threads if you want to realistically bring the majority of our country behind a change. Lobbyists, corruption, governmental transparency, the revolving door between congress and corporations, term limits for positions that have none, etc are more pressing issues that have a greater feasibility for public support.

I think that we're on the same team here. We need to start fixing our system from the top down instead of the
bottom up. Instead of disarming citizens by attacking the Bill of Rights, disarm big money by limiting their control over the populace. What many US citizens forget here is that the power of the US Constitution lies in the fact that the people have the power to enforce it if need be. Bitcoin and its ability to decentralize the control of the flow of "money" is the means by which we might achieve those goals. Instead of attacking people like Ulbricht, we should be concentrating on the solutions to fixing our corrupted economical power base. I believe that an attack on Ulbricht is an attack on the Bitcoin community in general!

That is a very powerful statement and one that I fully support. It's important to have that option even if no one ever wants to have to go to those means to protect their family/property. The argument of throwing off the reigns of an oppressive government may have a few holes in it with the current power of major nation states, but it is still significant to the founding of our country. Its significant to the spirit our culture. It isn't really about the individuals of the time, more of what they represent. This idea of what we strive to be as a society, guns are a part of that narrative. Now it may be personal bias from my own upbringing but that to me is a culture of freedom and sacrifice; something worth preserving. Some people with just as much citizenship as myself (and just as much right to an opinion as myself) might think such a cultural tie is a little outdated in today's world. That's OK.

Without trying to sound like a conspiracy nut, the insidious thing about our current system is that it works well enough. Well enough to NOT bare arms over. Well enough for most people to ignore things like senior corporate executives writing our trade laws such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership(/1EzkWiY]http://[Suspicious link removed]/1EzkWiY). To ignore that we don't truly make any of the important decisions. Decentralized voting was the most exciting idea when I first discovered Bitcoin. A tamper proof system that can be used to vote on government budgets, which programs get green lit, and even a President without 50 recounts! The people can decide whether to go to war for more oil or to rebuild our infrastructure with solar powered roads(http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml). I'm still not sure exactly how it would work, I would be interested to know of any projects on the subject if anyone wants to share.

I'm not even the type to have a locker full of guns in my home, waiting for society to collapse and the apocalypse to begin; I simply think that with arguments presented to the citizens you would never obtain a significant, lets say two-thirds, majority in favor of removing anything from the Bill of Rights, much less the 2nd Amendment. The danger lies in "clarification" of the 2nd Amendment. Until we have a voting system as described I honestly do not trust the government to "clarify" any of my rights. I prefer to interpret them as written.

Quote

I believe that an attack on Ulbricht is an attack on the Bitcoin community in general!

I wouldn't go that far, the US government seems to be fairly nonreactive to Bitcoin in general. Only so much to say that the same corrupt rules apply to your new fancy internet moneyz.