Many of those statements aren't things where I merely disagree. They are factually false. There are plenty of examples of cartels forming in free markets without government intervention. The Silicon Valley wage fixing agreements is one recent example, but there are lots of others. It is quite, quite possible to do DoS attacks on Tor services (you don't even need the "distributed" part, but could do it anyway if you wanted to). Libertarianism is not the same thing as agorism under any definition I know of. He says in those articles he wouldn't allow weapons to be sold that were designed for use on crowds, but the Armory sold sub-machine guns. And so on.

Look, it's OK to be emotionally invested in some of the ideas Ulbricht stood for. That doesn't change the fact that many of the statements he made are flat wrong or simply contradictory.

> the statements he made are flat wrong or simply contradictory.

and it's OK because we all do this. I always find that kind of comment a bit too harsh because we always tend to forget people we judge are just humans like us.

I'm sure you have contradictions of your own in your own lifestyle. And I'm sure you would look stupid by your non/partial knowledge of some subjects to some people... Doesn't mean that you are stupid.

Also a private journal is something non-relevant because if you have one (I do have mine) take a look at what you wrote a few weeks or months or years ago and you will see they generally look pretty stupid, or they were in the moment, or you just didn't care because you thought no one would be reading it.

Those quotes aren't from his private journal. I'd be much more lenient on him if they were. They are from interviews and public postings where he is trying to explain what the Silk Road stands for, in public. That's exactly the time when he needs to be really sure why he's doing what he's doing and have a coherent, convincing theory of it. That's what a smart person would have. But he didn't.