The Washington Post article did a great job summarizing what I would expect to happen from the FBI shutting down the illicit online drug market. Meanwhile, it felt like the article claimed that the FBI shutting down the first Silkroad caused the online drug market to explode, but where is such evidence? Maybe the online drug business would have expanded even more without the FBI shutting down the first Silkroad or much less, but that other side of the issue didn’t seem to get the deserved exploration. It appears many assumptions were made in the course of the article, and assumptions are just assumptions. Just because there was some user that collected some data about Silkroad 2.0 doesn’t mean that user’s numbers were accurate and truthful. Independent investigations would have proved to be more valuable than simply relying on what some user says because there is no guarantee there is no interest or conviction that is swaying what is written by that user. How do we know the FBI was wrong? There are many bright FBI employees, and someone just saying that what they do is wrong seems to neglect their knowledge and experience. How do we know the assumptions stated by the article are correct and that what the RBI does is incorrect? I, obviously, do not know much about law enforcement to make some assumption and tell someone with knowledge and experience fighting crime what to do. How would an engineer, nurse, teacher, doctor, or lawyer like being told what to do and what not to do by someone that not have the credentials? What I’m saying is there are always at least two sides to something, and it can only be beneficial to have that approach on many issues of economics, or anything else. All in all, the FBI did shut down something that was illegal, and that is part of their job description.