Tag: prison

Legalizing All Drugs is Morally and Practically Beneficial

By Indri Schaelicke | United States

Since the passage of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the War on Drugs has destroyed countless lives. This campaign often oversteps constitutional restrictions to searches and seizures without warrants or probable cause. Worse than this, however, is the pain it inflicts upon families. For mere use of an illicit substance, the state takes people away from their loved ones.

Impact on Family Structure

The War on Drugs has had significant impacts on the family structure. It also disproportionately affects the black population. According to the NAACP’s Criminal Justice Fact Sheet, in 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population. This far exceeds their less than 15% makeup of the general population.

Mass incarceration has shattered the black family structure. In 2014, 66% of black children lived in a single-parent family. Of course, incarceration is not the sole reason for this statistic. Nonetheless, when imprisonment of many members of a community becomes the norm, the loss of one parent becomes more acceptable. Mass incarceration has created a culture of broken families, which passes through generations. Family structure within a society is immensely difficult to rebuild once it falls apart.

Single-parent Households and Wealth

Obviously, single motherhood has effects on wealth. Half the potential income is being brought in, while many of the same needs of a typical “nuclear family” still apply. For example, that mother must solely still supply food, schooling, and housing. With one parent gone, income drops off greatly, limiting the family’s financial opportunity.

The War on Drugs Helps Gangs

The War on Drugs not only affects individual users but also impacts entire groups who traffick illicit substances. Illicit drug trade often involves murderers, conspirators, money launderers, and many other dangerous criminals. This makes sense, as the promise of imprisonment scares away safer and more reliable businessmen. The underground drug ring often creates tension that sparks frequent violent acts.

The legalization of all drugs, however, would eliminate the need for cartels. Gangs would not need to supply them, as the market would likely do so at much cheaper rates. Thus, gang violence would drop drastically, allowing inner-city communities to grow.

A Faulty Mission

The initial reasoning behind drug criminalization was that it would help to curb people’s addiction problems. However, this mission has clearly failed.

https://i1.wp.com/cdn.theatlantic.com/media/old_wire/img/upload/2012/10/12/drug-spending-v-addiction.gif?resize=845%2C475&ssl=1
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/old_wire/img/upload/2012/10/12/drug-spending-v-addiction.gif

Since Drug Prohibition began in 1970, drug addiction rates have not changed. Yet, the taxpayers throw more and more money at the problem. The government has entwined itself in the false notion that it can regulate personal choices. if someone wishes to use drugs, they will find a way to. The government, thus, simply cannot get rid of all drugs in existence and end drug use completely.

Instead, federal drug policy should focus on the rehabilitation of the victims of drug abuse; jailing someone for the victimless crime of drug use does not address why they are using in the first place. In fact, those in jail for drug use are likely to use drugs again once they get out. In many cases, prison even serves as a gateway for more severe crimes.

…One-half (50.0%) of federal drug trafficking offenders released in 2005 recidivated by being rearrested for a new crime or rearrested for a violation of supervision conditions. – United States Sentencing Commission, “Recidivism Among Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders“, 2017

While in jail, users connect with those who have committed far worse crimes. This inducts them into the world of crime. When they leave jail, these users reenter society with new connections to cartels, mobs, and other criminal organizations.

Basic Human Autonomy

Drug prohibition violates the principle that one should be allowed to do as they please with their own body, so long as they are not harming others or their property. When someone consumes a drug, they are willfully and knowingly accepting the potential for harm that may occur. Few people use drugs without awareness of the strongly negative impacts. The choice to use a drug does not necessarily affect others. Therefore, it is a victimless crime. Imprisoning people for their personal choices is both disruptive to society and highly immoral.

Ending the War on Drugs

Ending the War on Drugs has several practical benefits. One of these is the decreased cost of the massive prison and jail system in the U.S. today. If the federal government deregulated all drugs, they would not need money to jail people for their personal choices. Thus, they could greatly reduce taxes without adding to the deficit. The federal government currently spends about $182 billion each year on the justice system. Of that, $80.7 billion goes towards prisons and jails. A further $12.3 billion goes to health care for prisoners.
41.6% of all inmates currently in federal prison are there for drug-related offenses, the largest group of any offense. Removing 41.6% of a federal prison population of 181,193 would give over 75,000 inmates the justice they deserve. Moreover, it would drastically decrease the amount of funding jails would need to operate.

Limited Steps Forward

Thankfully, some people are realizing the downfalls of imprisoning people for marijuana, at least. Since 2012, 9 states have fully legalized the use of marijuana for any purpose. The first two states to do so, Colorado and Washington, achieved this via a ballot initiative. Clearly, societal perceptions about the use of weed are changing. Canada also recently became just the second country to legalize marijuana nationally, after only Uruguay. Furthermore, some towns are actually working towards legalizing psilocybin mushrooms, a psychedelic drug.

Regulations and Setbacks

The issue with much of the recent legalization legislation is that the government has enacted many regulations which dispensaries must follow. This imposes extra costs on the business, which raise the final sell price of marijuana. Legislative taxes are fairly easy to skirt anyways, defeating their purpose and harming the few who pay. This phenomenon has been more recently witnessed in Canada, where marijuana became legal on October 14th. Researchers from the University of Waterloo and the C.D. Howe Institute believed that suppliers would only meet between 30-60% of demand.

Legalize All Drugs

The legalization of marijuana has seen large success in terms of decreasing prison populations and requiring less revenue for running jail facilities. It’s time for the U.S. to take a more compassionate approach to dealing with addiction and substance abuse. The best way to do so? Legalize all drugs.


Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Who Would Sign the Social Contract?

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

The libertarian argues that the state is based completely on violence. From its starting point, it is a violent institution and has violated the rights of individuals in a coercive manner. When the state taxes, it is stealing, and there are no exceptions to this.

One must merely think about what taxes are and the consequences of not paying them to reach this simple conclusion. Regardless of the type of tax, when one does not pay, they face consequences. These penalties ultimately involve the threat and initiation of force. If one does not pay the tax, regardless of if it is property, income, or any other, the state will forcibly place the individual in a government prison.

If you have any doubts as to if this is actually the case, I urge you to not pay taxes. You are welcome to conduct the experiment on your own, but you will not win in the end.

Most do not contest the logic up until this point. They recognize that the state takes taxes coercively (by the threat of force). They also acknowledge that if any non-governmental individual were to do this, they would be a thief and should face punishment accordingly. If I were to steal money from another individual, I should have to give it back. It does not matter if I stole the money and then decided to fix their driveway or buy their healthcare. I took the money by the threat of force in the first place, and thus, it is unjust.

When the state decides to engage in the plunder of the masses, though, there is a societal acceptance. People give it all kinds of justifications. They dress it up religiously, saying that priests or God ordain the throne. Or, the court intellectuals disseminate information that indicates we are better off when the state steals from us. It is quite a clever ploy from their perspective. They give special privileges to the churches, which then say that the state has “God’s blessing.” For essentially this reason, we have the First Amendment separating the church and state.

Many believe that Jesus’s statement that we must “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” as a Christian endorsement of taxation (Matthew 22:21). But when one reads the Bible, they must read it in the context of the other Biblical commandments. One must realize that the Bible says “thou shalt not steal.” Jesus did not respond “yes” to the question “should we pay taxes.” Seeing as that all that belongs to Caesar (the state) has at once been stolen, it can clearly be understood that nothing is justly Caesar’s (the state’s).

However, the government does not stop at religion when seeking further ways to attempt to justify its own plunder. The state has insulated itself with court intellectuals. The government has gotten in bed with academia. Numerous subsidies and a system of tenure have allowed academia to have free range. In return, the intellectuals repeatedly endorse the state and its actions. With them, it is never a matter of whether or not we should have a specific state program, but rather, it is a matter of which version of a state program should we have.

The favorite intellectual pet of advocates of the state is the idea of the “social contract.” This idea that we have implicitly agreed to be governed falsely exists throughout our governmental system and goes back to Plato’s Crito. The U.S. Constitution even discusses the “consent of the governed.” Many political philosophers (notoriously Rousseau) have advocated such an idea. Ultimately, though, it is a bankrupt concept.

Engage in a brief intellectual exercise for a moment and entertain the idea of what such a contract would actually look like. If the social contract were a legitimate “sign here” contract, it would be laughable. No individual would sign such a contract, because what it would entail would be absurd. It would say that the institution providing services (the state) could change the price of its services at any time. The costs of the signing consumer would fluctuate and they would have no say in the matter.  As Hans Hermann Hoppe said,

Yet, who in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine unilaterally—and irrevocably—the sum that the protected must pay for his protection; and the fact is, no one ever has!

People who signed such a contract would be ultimately subject to the grim reaper of social Darwinism. It would be a fool’s contract.

It is such a terrible contract that nobody would ever sign it if someone was not forcing them to. There is no consent from anyone for such a terrible agreement, but yet, we are all subject to it.

I never consented to such a deal, and I still refuse. Yet they take my earnings by the threat of violence and waste it on things that have nothing to do with me. The theory of the social contract is foolish, and the masses should not hold it as a legitimately binding agreement.


Get awesome merchandise and help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy by donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

It’s Time to Replace our Outdated Prison System

By Daniel Szewc | Poland

The majority of the world’s modern justice systems, although punitive in nature, have a few major flaws.

Firstly, it is wrong to jail people for failing to pay their taxes. Ultimately, it does not matter how high the taxes were. This act puts someone in a cage, where his only option is to live off of state money. Though he is there in the first place for not giving the state enough money, he now can be the cause of even greater monetary losses. This is beyond paradoxical.

Bearing this in mind, we must now apply a similar argumentation for the crimes that have physical victims involved. In many countries, rapists and murderers live in prison for decades off of taxpayer money. This warrants a risk of them running away, which happened to Glen Stewart Godwin. Sentenced to prison for a brutal murder, he ran away in 1987 and then again in 1991, and hasn’t been found since. Stanislaw C.’s case is another excellent example. After serving a 25-year sentence for the murder of his wife, he murdered another woman because “he wanted to go back to prison”. It is impossible to justify murderers and rapists living off of tax money that the victims and their families helped to pay for.

According to psychology, surroundings influence behavioral patterns in an incredible manner. The more time one thief spends with others, the more likely he is to learn new methods of stealing and prepare to steal again. Understandably, in the current prison system, many of the thief’s fellow inmates may also be thieves, so this very thing may occur. In prison, it is also worth noting that the thief will be subject to potential drug addictions much more than in the outside world.

Well, what should we change the prison system for? There are only two types of punitive damage: moral damage and physical damage. The prison system takes a bite at the former, whilst leaving life lasting consequences. The only other option is to rely on the latter. Fines alone cannot exist as a judicial course of action for any crime, as such a system would mean that billionaires would be unpunishable. A physical punishment, on the other hand, is admittedly harsh and horrific. But the consequences of such when entering society are far lower than that from years in prison. Moreover, the punishments would be cost-effective and timely, robbing far less of the prisoner’s life and exposing them to a harsh environment for less time.

As for rapists, murderers, and pedophiles, a death penalty ensures no further harm. As civilised people, we cannot allow the possibility of such predators escaping. If there’s one place nobody can save you from, it’s your coffin. For example, one Polish murderer, Mr. Poznański, nearly killed a psychiatrist with a glass that he smashed whilst she was examining him. He had admitted to his prior murder long before the examination. With a guarantee of guilt, the death penalty saves future lives. Though unpopular, such a system actually does a better job in guarding life and liberty than the current prison disaster.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

The Best Way to Stop Crime Before it Happens

Thomas Calabro | United States

Perhaps one of the most polarizing debates in our political environment is how to prevent crime from happening. This is a legitimate issue to debate as we desire security from threats against us. But the fear of crime usually leads us to the inclination of sacrificing our constitutional freedoms for “security”. For most of these cases, the inclination is utilized by politicians who harp on these emotions to instill a greater requirement to implement their policies. They wish to be the heroes that stopped crime and saved our society violence by providing more tools for the local and federal governments, and seizing our rights to privacy, to bear arms, and to live peacefully.

There are those who oppose these policies and call for protecting our constitutional rights, these so called “heroes” rebuke by delegitimize the rights and liberties being violated. Those rights are portrayed as a risk for flourishing more crime, and are not even protected by the constitution. If this tactic of disparaging their opponents argument fails their next move is to simplify the argument to this context to either preserving liberty or obtaining security. But rather than using more direct approaches that sacrifices our rights, we should focus on the indirect approach of not creating the crime in the first place.

We should not support policies that create instability in the world, and lead to insurgency groups retaliating against us for creating chaos. It is easier to understand why radical groups rise up to attack an intruding country when you think in terms of China invading the US. This is a point that many view as equating the US to terrorists, but should be seen as an acknowledgment that many will react to situations in similar ways. Viewing those in the Middle East as different from us detracts the ability to fully understand their actions as very similar to what ours would have been if we were in that same scenario. We would not end terrorism by detracting from our current interventionist foreign policy, as that would likely not be the case. However, reducing instability in the world would prevent more groups from rising from power vacuums, especially those that are provided arms by the US, that will be used later against our troops.

We should start asking “Why” a perpetrator would commit a heinous crime rather than “How.” Looking at the psychological, social, and cultural issues of a group, and understanding why people from this group commit violent crimes, is a reasonable way to notice a pattern that ultimately leads to violence. Yet many refuse to look in this way and instead focus on the tools used in the process. The idea of prohibiting the use of this item from some, or even all, and hoping to stop a plotted attempt has grown popular in todays society, providing a “quick fix” that will supposedly save the day. But this not only threatens the individual liberty of each law abiding American, it also may have unintended consequences, simply leading some to find other ways to obtain these goods and perpetrate acts of evil. By looking at the causes of acts of violence, we may find a more disturbing fact in our society that drives people to take the lives of others, and create new strategies to fix this permanently.

Finally we should question whether the crime is really harmful. We should be a country  with citizens that abide to the laws, but the laws that we follow must be reasonable and follow the very principles of our country. We must understand that not all laws truly follow the principles of this country, and to keep them around is to approve of their purpose in our country.  If we are to uphold the principles of our Country to make the US a symbol of liberty, we should look at our past mistakes of infringing on American’s freedoms to make sure they are corrected in our present and will never happen again in our future.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source. 

71R Exclusive: Interview with Lyn Ulbricht of Free Ross

By Ryan Lau@agorisms

Lyn Ulbricht is the mother of Ross Ulbricht, who created the Silk Road, a deregulated online market built around Bitcoin. She is currently the head of Free Ross, an organization that seeks to reduce or end Ross’s sentence by encouraging the president to grant him clemency. She agreed to this interview with 71 Republic’s Ryan Lau to discuss the American justice system, its mistreatment of Ross, parallels to other figures such as Cody Wilson, and what courses of action supporters of Ross should take to make the world a better place for him and for all.

71R: Throughout most things I’ve read, Ross describes himself as a libertarian. Some sources go so far as to call him a crypto-anarchist. What do those labels mean to him, and what do they mean to you?

Ulbricht: You know, somebody asked him that when they were visiting him in prison; he said he doesn’t really feel comfortable with labels. So, he didn’t really specify, and I don’t really feel I can say what it means to him. I know that he is still committed to the principles of liberty, autonomy, and choice, as am I, as were our founders. In general, Ross is someone who is grounded in the principles of liberty and privacy. Because Silk Road was created to protect individual users, not to be a drug website.

71R: Of course.

Ulbricht: It became, not completely, but predominantly a drug website, mostly small, user amounts of marijuana. You wouldn’t know that from the media or the government, but that’s accurate. There were lots of other things on there. The point was privacy, and that goes hand in hand with freedom. How can we be free if we live in a surveillance state?

71R: Do you think that there is a compatibility of liberty and privacy with a state, or do you think that those two entirely oppose each other?

Ulbricht: I would have to think about that. I think that a lot of things the government is doing now are in direct opposition to the Constitution, to our Bill of Rights, and the principles that this country was founded on. Whether or not we need any government at all is something I am not completely sure of, but I’m not speaking for Ross. I think there are arguments on both sides, but we’ve gone so far away from what it was intended to be, that I think we’re in a lot of trouble.

71R: I would agree. Would you suggest, then, that we should adopt a model that moves away from the strong, centralized government of today and shrinks it as far as is practical?

Ulbricht: Yes. We can start by abiding by the Constitution. For example, take the drug war. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government has the authority to throw people in cages for using drugs. The fact is, when they prohibited alcohol, they had to amend the Constitution, and then when they realized it was only creating violence and more problems, they had to amend it again to repeal prohibition. Now with the drug war, they didn’t even bother with an amendment. They just gave themselves the authority and are doing this on a federal level, and a state level, in many states. This is not in the Constitution. That is just one example of the overreach that government is propagating now.

71R: Is the Constitution, then, an acceptable means of limiting government growth, when it hasn’t really done so in the past? Or should we look for a different model?

Ulbricht: Again, that’s a debate that I don’t know if I am prepared to speak about. A lot of people I really respect are not fans of the Constitution. However, a really good step would be to abide by the Constitution, which is what the government is supposedly legally obligated to do. Let’s see how that goes. It’s a tough question, but it seems like that would be a good start.

71R: For sure. Shifting gears a little bit, the actions of Free Ross surely occur, in part, out of your own love as a mother, as well as a desire for individual liberty, as you’ve said. Before this mistreatment occurred, did you have the same philosophy regarding rights and privacy? Essentially, how has Ross’s trial shaped your view on government and society as a whole?

Ulbricht: I would say I leaned libertarian. I took a test on where you fall on the political spectrum, and I fell pretty close to libertarian. My husband and I are entrepreneurs, we just like to be left alone for the most part, to live our lives and make our own choices. So, that’s always been my outlook. However, with what I’ve gone through with Ross, I’ve seen up close how the government operates now. I’m very alarmed – it’s hard to believe, until you actually see it. I went into this thinking, well of course, trials are fair, and everybody acts with integrity, and keeps their oath of integrity, and this will all be fine. And, that is not true.

71R: Right.

Ulbricht: Much of what’s going on now is so un-American, immoral, and counter to our values, that it’s shocked me. Once you’ve lived through something yourself, you can’t deny it, so yes, I see things differently.

71R: That’s completely understandable. So, you were saying that there was not a lot of integrity in the trial. Given the existence of the current legal system, what do you believe would have been the best action for the judge and the jury to make?

Ulbricht: Well, it would have been nice if the judge had allowed all of the evidence to be known to the jury, for a start. There were two corrupt agents who used their access to the Silk Road to steal over a million dollars. With their high level admin access, they also were able to act as different aliases, including Dread Pirate Roberts, who they led the jury to believe was solely Ross. They could act as Dread Pirate Roberts, they could change chats, pin numbers, passwords; they had keys, they had complete run of that site. And they could plant evidence, delete evidence, etc. And this was not permitted to be known to the jury. That’s outrageous to me! I didn’t know this at first. Nobody knew until two months after the trial, when it went public. But then it was too late.

71R: Of course, at that point.

Ulbricht: There were other things. The government’s narrative was very carefully crafted, and that’s what the jury was spoon-fed. And the defense was shot down, again and again, when they tried to challenge it. To me, it just seemed very unfair. I couldn’t believe it, actually. It was shocking. How about we get to hear all of the evidence? That would be a good start.

71R: Do you have any suspicions as to why the trial was done this way, why the evidence was denied and removed?

Ulbricht: No, I have nothing to say about any accusations of corruption or anything like that. I do think there was bias, though, on the part of the judge, Katherine Forrest. Chuck Schumer was behind this case. He recommended Forrest to her position on the bench. The lead prosecutor, Preet Bharara, was Chuck Schumer’s special counsel for years and owed his job to Schumer. Ross was brought from California, where he lived and was arrested, to Schumer’s state (New York). So there appears to be a political bias here. I think the prosecutors were dishonest, too. The trial prosecutor, Serrin Turner, didn’t even let the judge or the defense know about one of the corrupt agents until after the trial. He didn’t disclose that.

71R: And he did have knowledge of the agent’s corruption?

Ulbricht: Absolutely.

71R: The Free Ross website also mentions that there was a clear double standard, as most of the other higher-ups within the Silk Road were given lesser sentences than Ross, if any at all. Do you think that Ross’s case was more of a rule or an exception?

Ulbricht: It was an exception. He was the only defendant in the case that got this unbelievably barbaric sentence. Even Blake Benthall, who ran Silk Road 2.0, which the government called identical and actually said sold more drugs in a month and had more listings, was in custody for 13 days and then was released. He never went to trial, and now nobody knows where he is. I’m not saying I want him in jail, I’m saying that this is not equitable. We’re supposed to be treated equally under the law.

71R: Right.

Ulbricht: Ross is not actually in prison for dealing drugs. He’s in prison for running a website. The guy who was convicted for being the biggest drug seller on the Silk Road got ten years. He has the same offense level as Ross, but he got ten years. The government said to Ross, we’re making you an example. And the judge also said, you’re the first, so you need to be the example. You need to be the one who is sacrificed. This is not what you’re supposed to do in the justice system of the United States, just because you’re the first. It’s not even the law, they just said it.

I became convinced it was political, and about Bitcoin, not drugs, when I saw all of these other sentences. I thought, wait a second. This is so inequitable. What is this really about? And I believe it was about Bitcoin. Chuck Schumer was a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, and the banking committee, and I think that they were alarmed about this currency that they couldn’t control, that they couldn’t tax. It was suddenly becoming kind of big, and I think they had to stop it.

71R: What does that say to you about the current state of the American justice system, if they have to resort to those means?

Ulbricht: It says to me that we are in very great peril of losing our freedoms, and that more and more of us are in danger of being thrown in a cage. There’s a book called Three Felonies A Day that talks about how a person breaks laws every day and doesn’t even know it, because there are so many on the books. Nobody even knows how many. Between the government’s conspiracy laws, which is all of what Ross was convicted on, except for their kingpin charge, which is pretty absurd.

You can be in a conspiracy with very little connection to what was going on, and be given the same punishment as a person committing a crime. Conspiracy laws expand the criminal umbrella tremendously, and there are also things like the Three Strikes Law, which is absolutely evil. Thank you, Bill Clinton. So many people are languishing in prison for decades and decades because of that law.

There’s a guy named Jose that Ross knows in prison, and one of his strikes was residue on a dollar bill. Well, I can have residue on a dollar bill, if I get change at a 7/11, right?

71R: Sure thing.

Ulbricht: It’s absurd.

71R: And he was sentenced for that?

Ulbricht: Yes, it was one of his strikes in his life sentence. He’s a friend of Ross in there. Ross says he’s a totally peaceful, nice guy. He is one of the nonviolent drug offenders in there with him.

71R: They are in a picture together on his Twitter, right? Eight or so men lined up, all sentenced for non-violent crimes?

Ulbricht: Yes. And there’s another, also in the picture, named Tony, who is serving life for selling marijuana.

71R: Serving life for it?

Ulbricht: Yes, he’s already been in there for thirteen years, and the prison is in Colorado! So what it says to me, is that the criminal justice system is not about justice. The correctional system is not about correcting anything, in fact, it’s a criminal training ground. And, it’s about, as far as I can see, a tool for power and money. That’s what I think the drug war is, and mass incarceration. They’re making money and extending their power through human beings, and to me, that’s human trafficking.

71R: I would have to agree with you on that. Very much like Ross, Cody Wilson is also a firm believer in individual liberty and privacy. He currently stands uncharged, despite the fact that the state continues to hinder his progress. Do you believe that there is a parallel between the men, in goal, or outcome? In what ways are their actions similar?

Ulbricht: It reminds me of the people who fought the American Revolution. They were mostly the age of Cody, and Ross, and others. They were in their 20s, they were young, most of them. Some were even in their teens. And they were idealistic, and willing to take risks. I think that is at the core of Cody and Ross. They’re idealistic and care about big principles. You could argue about both of them, and how they chose to do those things. But at the core, I believe that that is who they are, and what they’re really about.

71R: If much of Ross’s sentencing, as you were saying, was to set an example and show control, do you believe Cody has reason to worry the state will treat him in a similar manner, for the same reasons?

Ulbricht: Sure he does. I am concerned for Cody, although hopefully that won’t happen. Hopefully he will be safe from that. But yes, he is very defiant, and is stepping up and challenging them. My experience is they don’t like that.

71R: Right. I have to say I have a very similar concern. The only thing left is something to charge him with.

Ulbricht: Right. I do think he’s very aware of it as well, so hopefully he’s being careful. Cody has this reputation as the most dangerous man in the world. I know Cody personally, and he’s a wonderful person. He’s a stellar person and I regard him very highly, and he’s not a dangerous person at all. And he cares about humanity. Just to say, Cody’s image in the media, which I think he somewhat promotes, is not really who he is, just like Ross’s image. The media portrays Ross as a kingpin, thug, all that, but he’s really one of the most laid back, sweet, peaceful guys you’d ever want to meet.

71R: Do you believe that Ross’s new presence on social media will help change the public’s view on him?

Ulbricht: I hope so. It was completely his idea, and I’m not really involved with it at all. At first I was nervous about it, because I’m always worried the government’s going to use something against him, because that’s pretty much how it is. Mainly, he said, look, I want people to know who I am. I’ve had to be silent all these years and let everybody else say who I am. He just wants to be like a regular person on Twitter. I don’t expect him to get political, or anything like that. I think it’s more about just communicating who he is as a human being, and a regular guy.

When it comes down to it, we are all individuals, we’re all who we are. And so, I think that he felt so cut off, and now he is really enjoying having the interaction. Now, he’s not on the internet. This is through someone else, who is posting, and the comments are mailed to him. I hope it does help people understand him better. Ross’s whole philosophy is peaceful, use no force, voluntary interaction. I don’t think there are many kingpins who have that philosophy! It’s pretty much about force and violence for them. I hope it helps, because it’s been very damaging. A lot of the media just cares about sensationalism and clickbait and then it gets to be how people think it really is.

71R: To wrap up, what is the best course of action, if there is one, for someone trying to promote privacy rights and individual liberty? Is electoral politics a legitimate route? Or should they take more voluntary action through a social movement or create some sort of program like Ross or Cody?

Ulbricht: I’m no expert on this, but I think it’s a blend. I’m trying to do this now, for Ross. We’re out of the judicial realm now, and into the public arena more. At the end of the day, it is the politics that’s going to determine law, and have the force behind it. At the same time, public opinion influences politics. So, the two really go hand in hand.

I would, though, urge anyone who is thinking about this kind of thing to please stay within the bounds of the law. Do not break the law. You need to do your work, for your principles, within the law. I think it’s a dual approach, at least what I’m trying to do. I think one influences the other. Public opinion influences politics, which then influences the law. It is up to Congress to change the law, and they respond to public pressure.

Also, our petition to grant Ross clemency is a key part of blending the social and the political movements. We want to influence the president and convince him that commuting Ross’s sentence is a worthy thing to do. If we have half a million people signing it, I think it would have impact. Our goal is to say that this sentence is wrong, and to please commute Ross’s sentence. If people would please share it and sign it, that would be great. We would really appreciate it. That’s a very important focus right now. Clemency is one of Ross’s last chances, and we need to get the president’s attention.

71R: You believe that it can be done, with enough signatures?

Ulbricht: I think it would certainly help.

71R: Thank you very much for all of your time!

Ulbricht: Thank you for doing this, for caring about getting the truth out there. I really appreciate it.


Please sign the petition to grant Ross Ulbricht clemency, which you can find here.

More information on the fight to free Ross Ulbricht is available here.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source