The same argument is better directed at drug prohibition writ large, and seems intellectually incoherent when focused selectively on individual enforcement actions.
Too, there's something galling about the idea of militating for forbearance for the drug market that serves primarily the wealthiest actors. Before we turn a blind eye to what are in fact gigantic organized criminal conspiracies operated by the kinds of people who will happily slap $70,000 on the barrel for a vanity electric car, maybe we could take a hard look at sentencing laws and early release programs.
Finally: it's an easy sleight of hand trick to suggest that the "darknet" traffic solely in substances, as if allowing them to operate unimpeded would have only the effect of getting some of the drug trade off the street.
Finally: it's an easy sleight of hand trick to suggest that the "darknet" traffic solely in substances
Absolutely. For example these sites routinely sell guns into parts of the world with strict and popular gun control policies. Ask an average man on the British street if their country is being made safer by sites that let anyone easily buy guns that are delivered to the door, and see what response you get ...
Not that routinely... Guns have developed a reputation for either being scams or the seller getting busted routinely (almost all the BMR busts were related either to poison or guns), never sell well (which is why SR1 shut down its Armory section after a few months - no sales), and around half the markets outright ban sales of them (see my census http://www.gwern.net/Black-market%20survival#data ).
It's only intellectually incoherent from the perspective we hold, on the outside of the bureaucracy. From within, either cognitive biases fill the gap, or there is information which, true or not, fills the gap.
I'm not sure which is scarier, as I find myself often wondering whether our governments are barking mad, or know something we do not - or are just deluded by bog standard cognitive dissonance.
Either way, the problem you describe extends far beyond prohibition, and drives much of the world's woes.
Not so obvious. A lot of the reason power has aggregated in the federal government here in the U.S. is because smaller governmental entities are incapable of addressing "race to the bottom" problems. Whether you're talking about gun control, environmental protection, welfare, health insurance, etc, it's hard to effectuate those laws if they can be easily subverted by moving 100 miles away.
So you're against people having more choice of where to live, and abandoning where they live if they deem fit, because it makes it hard to have effective laws in a country if people can easily move out?
You thirst for power is incredible. If people are moving 100 miles away from a country you think it's great to live in, then why do you care so much?
I will never understand this urge to rule over other people.
It is obvious but completely ignores my question. As an aside, I can't think of many governments that would willingly divest themselves of access to tax revenue/citizens.
I don't have much sympathy for the online drug dealer. The wild west atmosphere of the net is ending (sadly), but all they're doing is providing another pretext for governments and powerful interests to seize more control.
Too, there's something galling about the idea of militating for forbearance for the drug market that serves primarily the wealthiest actors. Before we turn a blind eye to what are in fact gigantic organized criminal conspiracies operated by the kinds of people who will happily slap $70,000 on the barrel for a vanity electric car, maybe we could take a hard look at sentencing laws and early release programs.
Finally: it's an easy sleight of hand trick to suggest that the "darknet" traffic solely in substances, as if allowing them to operate unimpeded would have only the effect of getting some of the drug trade off the street.