

Derp Pirate Roberts - wikiburner
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/derp-pirate-roberts/

======
bradleysmith
He called American Hustle heavy-handed at times; I find his parallel between
the DPR case and that movie _very_ heavy-handed, the whole time. Talk about a
stretch.

It seems he's happy to have found a criminal proceeding involving "libertarian
derp". Besides this implied negativity (not familiar with Krugman, but his
language reveals his standings) and a poignant "amazing stuff" reaction at the
bottom, Krugman actually offers no analysis, opinion, reaction, or addition to
anything at all on the DPR proceedings. His quoting of this[0] story was
entirely framed as an example of why being in the FBI "these days is a lot
more fun" than in the setting portrayed in American Hustle.

Judging by the title, I was really hoping for a disection of bad opsec
decisions. Guess I'll conflate 'krugman' with 'rhetoric' from here on out.

[0] - [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/business/eagle-scout-
ideal...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/business/eagle-scout-idealist-
drug-trafficker.html?hpw&rref=business)

tl;dr - Krugman watched American Hustle, then drew a half-hearted parallel
between the movie and the criminal activity in the DPR and Silk Road case. He
did this without saying much of anything about either subject while insulting
libertarian belief systems with the use of the word 'derp'.

------
jere
If Krugman can use that kind of language in an article, I can use this kind:

 _Old_

~~~
jaynos
It's a blog post...he's allowed a more casual tone.

~~~
dasil003
You must be too young to realize that Krugman is too old to use the word derp.

~~~
jaynos
I think everyone is too old for the word "derp". I think I missed the target
of the parent comment. I thought the focus was on the casual nature, not the
specific word "derp". On rereading, I believe I was wrong.

------
chimeracoder
I'm not a libertarian, but if I were, I would find this horribly offensive.

> What you also get from the report is just how connected all this stuff is
> with libertarian derp

Much of prominent libertarian philosophy is derived from principles of
nonviolence. Of course, it is infer thaf this statement to apply to all
libertarians, but simply dismissing them as 'libertarian derp' based on one
violent individual is deliberately misleading.

Also, talking about Amy Adams and her cleavage? This is the New York Times,
not Maxim.

I expect better from Krugman.

~~~
dredmorbius
DPR espoused and was embraced by Libertarians.

Turned out to be a contract-killing, drug-dealing, law breaking psychopath.

Seems to me there's a couple of avenues to turn onto here. One is to defend
Libertarianism against its critics by badmouthing those who point out that
Ulbricht really wasn't a particularly nice guy or a close adherent to the
nonviolent principles screed on his LinkedIn page.

The other would be to disavow Ulbricht and make clear that his views have no
place within the Libertarian camp, and that he's a false representative of the
goals of the philosophy. Not that I'm any defender of Libertarianism (it's an
infantile philosophy based on fabricated principles coopted by psychopathic
timocrats, but that's a longer rant).

Which, in a slightly different context, is pretty much exactly the same sort
of point that's been made with regards to extremest violence carried out in
the name of Christian or Muslim traditions. Or corporate violence against
individuals or groups. Or nationalist violence carried out by the any of a
number of countries: Argentina, Syria, Egypt, the US, UK, Belgium, Japan,
Germany, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, the USSR, South Africa, .... I'm not singling
anyone out here, there's plenty of outrage to go around.

Yours, however, is misplaced.

~~~
VMG
> Turned out to be a contract-killing, drug-dealing, law breaking psychopath.

Libertarians like myself generally don't have a problem with the drug-dealing
and law-breaking part. The contract-killing is unfortunate, I agree.

~~~
dredmorbius
If you're going to go around getting people hooked on highly _physically_
addictive (and quite possibly deadly) substances (cocaine, heroin, meth), not
just ganja, My book of business ethics says you're around to pick up the
pieces afterwards.

Criminalizing drug usage is the wrong way to go. Making sure the market is
very, very, very highly regulated, _including_ producer and retailer
liabilities for consequences, is required if you're going to address the
tremendous negative externalities of drug use. And yes, I hold tobacco,
alcohol, and (lawful) pharmaceutical industries to the same standard, noting
that they largely fail to meet it.

Ulbricht's utter hypocrisy regards nonviolence is particularly telling.

~~~
VMG
What about sugar? Caffeine? Computer games?

If you legalize drug usage and still criminalize distribution, there will be
black markets and the associated externalities of militarized gangs.

But fundamentally, I think we have different assumptions about free will and
personal responsibility.

~~~
dredmorbius
_What about sugar ..._

Your tu quoque fallacy doesn't make the negative consequences of addictive and
life-threatening drug abuse any less severe. I was actually hoping to head off
such a response with my observation that I'd include other harmful but legal
substances among my list of those for which producers and merchants would be
considered liable for consequences.

Naturally, I'd include other harmful substances, and there's ample evidence
that sugar is one (diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and other consequences) among
them. The jury's largely out on caffeine, but should it come in I'd add it.
Though I'm not a gamer, I've actually got a bit of respect for the extent to
which both gaming and CGI have advanced the state of information technology.

I've written before on the general problem of the dopamine-industrial complex:

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/8doc5ZPu...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/8doc5ZPuGgg)

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/TfoQaboP...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/TfoQaboPBpx)

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/L6rNWuFo...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/L6rNWuFojQf)

 _criminalize distribution_

You are intentionally misrepresenting my explicit statement: "Criminalizing
drug usage is the wrong way to go. Making sure the market is very, very, very
highly regulated, including producer and retailer liabilities for
consequences, is required". I appreciate honest representation of views,
though sadly, it seems to be a persistently lacking trait in conversations
I've had with Libertarians, as a simple observation of fact.

My own views of free will and responsibility are informed by considerable
research and investigation on the matter. It's a complex phenomenon not
particularly amenable to a priori assumptions "not subject to verification or
falsification on the ground of experience and facts"

[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Even_they_admit...](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Even_they_admit_they_just_pulled_this_stuff_out_of_their_asses)

~~~
VMG
> You are intentionally misrepresenting my explicit statement

I don't think I am -- in a very (very, very) regulated environment, the cost
of substances which have perceived high externalities and are available on the
regulated market will be much higher than the cost of the same substances on
the black market. Or people will shift to alternatives and start sniffing
glue.

Another difficulty is measuring the harm of drugs against the benefits -- how
much do you factor in the subjective pleasure of the individual? What about
the art, music and literature that was created by people under the influence
of drugs?

> My own views of free will and responsibility are informed by considerable
> research and investigation on the matter.

I infer that you reject the notion of free will in certain circumstances, for
example when the individual is under the influence of mind-altering
substances. Does this also shape your opinion on free speech? (This is purely
out of curiosity and completely tangential to other issues)

~~~
dredmorbius
Re: costs on regulated markets are higher than on black market.

Decriminalization of pot has _decreased_ marijuana prices. One of the reasons
it's been opposed. To the extent of causing concerns among producers, if I
recall stories correctly.

Re: glue sniffing.

Who's producing that glue? Yes, under dire and bleak circumstances people will
resort to all sorts of destructive distractions. Wood alcohol and Krokodil are
other examples. For cases in which there isn't a commercial provider, clearly,
the manufacturer / merchant responsibility approach wouldn't apply. You'd
_still_ treat the _addiction_ element as a health issue, not a criminal one.
Parents drugging their kids might be another matter.

Re: creatives and drugs

I'm specifically talking about negative effects. If it turns out someone's
_not_ incurring a negative consequence, then fine. But the alcoholic author
who rots their liver while gilding their prose should have a significant
portion of health costs covered by the alcohol industry. You can spin your
angels on pinheads and generate hypotheticals all you want, but at root what
I'm talking about is a clearly articulable net social cost and a
responsibility for that cost. You soil your social nest, you pay to clean it
up. You know: accepting persona responsibility.

I infer that you ask vaguely leading questions without taking a clear stand on
your own position. State yours.

~~~
VMG
Re: regulated markets

Pot prices are low because they aren't taxed according to your suggested
system. Once you start factoring in all the perceived negative effects the
drug has on it's users (ignoring the positive effects, as you said), the price
shoots up. Silk Roads will continue to exist.

Re: glue sniffing

So under your system, substances that can be abused as drugs while not
marketed as drugs (also "bath salts") will be much cheaper than the regulated,
taxed alternatives.

Let my clarify my position: regulation and heavy taxation of drugs is
ineffective, unjustified and will have bad outcomes. Society fares better if
individuals are made responsible for their choices.

~~~
dredmorbius
_regulation and heavy taxation of drugs is ineffective, unjustified and will
have bad outcomes._

Alcohol is regulated and taxed. Tobacco is regulated and taxed. Decongestants,
cough syrup, and spray paint (not a drug, but a problematic retail good) are
regulated, if not uniformly taxed.

There are limits to effective regulation, yes, but that's no reason to throw
your hands in the air and abandon all of it, which is what you seem to advise.
You're continuing to misrepresent my statement (I'm not "ignoring" positive
effects, I _am_ capturing negative externalities). And you've dodged and
avoided the matter of personal responsibility as I've iterated it several
times in accruing those negative externalities to those on whom the
responsibility for them lies.

Why in your scheme of things should the cost of social ills be allocated to
all while the benefits accrue only to a select few? That's precisely the same
situation as exists in much of the present global financial markets where
financial gains are privatized while losses are socialized. This generates
marked adverse incentive and moral hazard problems. In some circumstances (but
not all) the mechanism of that has been government action, but the point is
that regulation and action can have the effect of capturing or socializing
externalities.

My argument is that the capitalist market system works best when both profits
_and_ costs can be appropriately allocated to those on whom they are
attributable. There are many cases where this requires significant
intervention in market mechanisms, usually where boundaries of property (e.g.,
public health, pollution, broadcast of authored works) cannot be otherwise
readily determined or enforced.

There's a reason Libertarianism remains a largely prepubescent pipe dream.
It's a fantasy world.

------
broolstoryco
much substance

~~~
ogreyonder
Normally I'd downvote the doge on HN, but this is particularly apt.

The article abuses the word "derp" to sound hip, makes weak shots at people
and ideas left and right (without ever arriving at an argument), and generally
rambles on for a whole page.

What a waste, how did this make HN top 20?

~~~
medecau
> krugman.nyt

