> Some of us see a major difference between selling heroin to someone, and building the marketplace from which these victim's freely bought drugs.

Let's say I "build a network" of mules, planes, trucks, trafficking routes, and people who handle the distribution of drugs. I provide all the logistics to make the drugs go from supplier to end user.

So, a marketplace of sorts... in the real world, not on the Internet.

But, I don't actually sell the drugs to the end user on the street corner. That's someone else.

But a cut of each of those sales rolls up to me, and without me, those sales aren't happening (sure they could happen via someone else, but this particular network exists because I built it and I run it)..

I am what is referred to as a "drug lord".

How am I not responsible for heroin getting into the hands of vulnerable addicts?

Pray tell, what is the difference between operating an electronic market where people can buy drugs and operating a physical one (say, a street corner) where people can do the same?

Operating a street corner? You mean like in the capacity of a city municipality, providing sidewalk, road, drainage infrastructure, perhaps some street lighting.

Is this a serious question?

What does it mean to be "operating an electronic market"? Are you under the impression he was physically intermediating these transactions in some way? That the drugs passed through his hands?

That's one difference.

> What does it mean to be "operating an electronic market"?

Ask Ross Ulbricht

> Are you under the impression [...] That the drugs passed through his hands?

They never said that, and it doesn't have to for being partially responsible. The Pirate Bay didn't host any copyrighted material, but the founders "were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine." Hosting the website where the issue is rampant is sufficient; no infringing material (drugs or movies) have to pass through your hands

But I think we might be in agreement here since you said above that Ross had some responsibility. I also don't think it's the same as handing out the drugs yourself

huge difference. People can sell drugs on facebook marketplace but that doesn't mean that Zuckerberg is a drug dealer. The difference is you bear responsibility for what you do.

> People can sell drugs on facebook marketplace but that doesn't mean that Zuckerberg is a drug dealer

In our legal system, they are in fact partially responsible if they don't disallow it and don't act upon reports. I'm not sure there is a difference whether it's physical or digital

fine, partially responsible is still a huge difference

How so? Why would an owner of a market with physical dimensions, held every Saturday or whatever, be any more or less responsible for what changes hands there?

if the owner of a market isn't actually dealing drugs, whether the market is physical or electronic, that is different than if the "owner" of a street corner is either dealing himself or actively supervising those who are dealing for him

Isn't scale a difference? How much damage can one guy do from a street corner VS the other guy operating a large marketplace where anyone can buy anything from anywhere?

Are you saying people who lay paving blocks or asphalt on a street should be guilty of drug dealing?

One is the capital class, the other is not.

> Some of us see a major difference between selling heroin to someone, and building the marketplace from which these victim's freely bought drugs.

I kinda do see your point, but I think I reach the opposite conclusion. If you are one person on a street corner it's one thing, if you enable a whole electronic marketplace you have a much larger effect.

Then again we should decide whether it's a bad thing to sell drugs, but if it is I would see him as more culpable than a random street dealer.

Yeah, that’s the part the legal system has a hard time with. We don’t have definitions or suitable penalties for these things

I mean, I’m not sure Pablo Escobar ever sold drugs or murdered anybody with his own hands. Metaphorically though there was a ton of blood on his hands. Charles Manson allegedly never killed anybody himself either. But we generally agree these guys were bad for society.

I’m generally lasseiz-faire about drugs, and I generally put the onus of responsibility on the person choosing to ingest them.

But there are some drugs, like opioids, that kind of transcend that. They cannot reasonably be safely used in a recreational manner, and are objectively a cancer to society.

I don't see the difference between building a marketplace in which people freely buy drugs from you and building a marketplace in which people freely buy drugs from people who aren't you.