I like Ross Ulbricht. I do. I think he went up against what is, frankly, an unjust system that had to get rid of him for fear that he would bring it crumbling down.



Ulbricht is not that much different in my mind from people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Daniel Ellsberg. Did those men all undermine U.S. laws? Yes. But the laws they undermined were, for the most part, bad laws.



Ulbricht's case is admittedly different from those of the above men in that he went too far in pursuit of what

I like Ross Ulbricht. I do. I think he went up against what is, frankly, an unjust system that had to get rid of him for fear that he would bring it crumbling down.



Ulbricht is not that much different in my mind from people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Daniel Ellsberg. Did those men all undermine U.S. laws? Yes. But the laws they undermined were, for the most part, bad laws.



Ulbricht's case is admittedly different from those of the above men in that he went too far in pursuit of what he viewed to be right. Believing that drugs should be legal and allowing for the sale of such drugs to anyone who wanted them is something that I think is very defensible, given that I share Ulbricht's libertarian views ... to an extent.



People should be able to do whatever they want to themselves, provided it doesn't hurt anyone else. And no, I don't think that you can defend not giving people the right to make those decisions because "it might hurt those who love them". Sure it might, and it has, but ultimately that doesn't matters less than giving people their rights.



How a "free" country can defend a policy — like the U.S. policy on drugs and the insanely harsh sentences levied on those who are caught buying, selling, or even carrying such drugs — as being in the public interest is being questioned more and more these days, which is undoubtedly a good thing. This made me think back to that great masterpiece of cable television, "The Wire", and the solution the "good" cops in the show had to Baltimore's drug problem, which was to make drug use legal in certain parts of the city — legal to sell, legal to buy, and clean needles for everyone! Being the American tragedy it was, fans of "The Wire" will recall that that solution was quickly killed by the powers above.



But as "The Wire" and real life have made abundantly clear in the decades since its implementation, the U.S. policy on drugs simply doesn't make sense. I'm not arguing that we should go back to prohibition, but it's become such a cliche to say that alcohol has had a far more devasting effect on people's lives than drug use because it's already something we all already know to be true. So there were times that this book had me cheering for Ulbricht in his battle with a corrupt system.



But Ulbricht went too far.



Sure, people should be allowed to inject whatever terrible poison they want into their bodies and suffer the consequences, but allowing guns to be freely sold to anyone who wants one is totally different. Why? Because the entire purpose of a gun is to inflict harm on others (except in those exceptionally rare cases when someone is buying a gun to commit suicide — in which case I believe the right to kill yourself should similarly be granted to anyone who wants it, though perhaps a far kinder, less messy suicide than that which would result from a gunshot).



I think those second amendment advocates who believe in stockpiling guns because they'll one day need them to rise up against a tyrannical government are idiots. Do you see how militarized even local police forces are today? I don't care what kind of assault weapons you have, it wouldn't even be a fight.



But where Ulbricht really stepped over the line — far, far over the line — was in his ordering hits on former employees who'd gone rogue. The problem with acting outside of the law, even if the law you're subverting is a terrible one, is that doing so often requires you to break other, sometimes good, laws — like those criminalizing murder.



So this was a difficult read. Difficult because while I agreed with Ulbricht on his initial "America's war against drugs is idiotic — I'm going to make it easier for everyone to buy drugs" flouting of U.S. law, he quickly went too far and, rightly, ended up suffering the consequences. Ultimately though, I don't blame Ross Ulbricht, but rather the U.S. Government for its bad laws.



The whole case reminded me of the movie "The Untouchables".



In the film, Eliot Ness, played by Kevin Costner, informs the officers assigned to assist in his case against the legendary crime boss and bootlegger Al Capone that he won't tolerate them drinking because it's against the law. At the end of the film, having successfully put Capone behind bars, Ness is asked by a reporter upon leaving the courthouse what he'll do now that America's prohibition against alcohol is set to be overturned. Ness' response? "I think I'll have a drink".



Ness to a large extent was embodying, I believe, those working to enforce U.S. laws even today. He wasn't against drinking because he believed drinking to be bad in and of itself. He was against drinking because it was against the law. In other words, he was a good soldier just following orders because he believed in the authority of those issuing them.



A good soldier following orders issued by a "good" government is awarded medals and applauded.



But when does a good government become a bad one?