There are some in the more anarchist fringes of the Bitcoin "community" that like to argue Bitcoin is a means to stop government and free people. The flaw in this is the hypocrisy these individuals display.

If we say agree to sell a dangerous item. a good that could endanger others, we have an obligation to ensure in any system that the carrier knows the risk that they face and may take appropriate counters to mitigate that risk. If we, for example sell fireworks to a party and send these long distances, there are multiple contracts in play. One is that between the firework seller and the buyer, and the other is that of the carrier and individual delivering the item.

If Alice agrees to purchase explosives (this is dangerous goods) from say Ryōkai, she is not the party shipping the goods unless she has arranged to collect them. So, we will investigate the instance of Alice and Ryōkai contracting and where Alice is to receive the goods she has purchased from Ryōkai. Here, the seller is responsible for arranging the safe transfer of goods.

The only way that Ryōkai may complete this transfer without sending the goods himself (personally) is to contract another party to complete this task.

Explosives (and Fireworks are just that) can be extremely dangerous and deaths have resulted even when these goods have been handled well.

To send them, in the post, or by DHL is thus placing the delivery driver at grave risk unrewarded, and without knowledge of the danger they face. That driver would take extra precautions and charge more if the nature of the product they carried was disclosed. As a result, the contract that Ryōkai has made with the courier (say Bob) is created based on a misrepresentation and fraud.

Ryōkai would likely quote Murray Rothbard who was "morally neutral with respect to the particular values and goals at which a person aims as long as the individual does not initiate the use of force or fraud against other people". And this is the rub, Ryōkai has committed a fraud against Bob.

Ryōkai has also perjured himself.

When you send a parcel you agree to a contract. Unless it is specified, this involves the making of a false declaration. Every postal parcel is sent with an agreement and attestation that the goods are safe. That there are no explosives. You sign this and Bob agrees to carry your items on the presumption that he is safe, that not undue danger is posed to his person.

We have similar provisions in the UK . What this means is, although will attest his honour and lack of guilt if discovered and charged as a consequence of his own dishonest actions, the truth is, Ryōkai has committed a fraud, placed others in danger unjustly and used them and taken away from others.

How is this better than any common thief?

So, to conclude, when you hear someone such as Ryōkai complain that they have been ill treated as a consequence of merely selling goods across a state line, remember that the fact is, they have been punished for both a fraud as well as placing other people at risk of bodily harm, loss and even death. That, in fact Ryōkai has committed a form of theft, a larceny against Bob as Bob was subject to a contract under conditions of fraud.



