Fentanyl Is Smuggled for U.S. Citizens By U.S. Citizens, Not Asylum Seekers

But Boers are a yes because the values of slavers and authoritarians most closely align with your own.

LOL

I see you believe that slavery was unique to some cultures when it was a universal practice and the Africans were the ones selling the slaves to the Europeans.

And they are NOT authoritarians, they had a liberty culture very close to America's.

The fact that they didn't want to hand control of their country to the communists who took it over and destroyed it didn't make them "authoritarians" either.
Most of the blacks who took over were migrants from the north who they should have kept out and expelled but that their elites wanted to use for cheap labor, kind of like exactly what is happening here.
 
Americans have a right to free movement in our country and I have always said so.
What are you raving about now?

Oh, so very weasel-y as usual. I didn't ask if they did but what you thought of it.

How small do you think the slaves' cages should be?
 
That tone is not called for.

My tone was not malicious, but simply defending myself, not that it much matters:

[MENTION=1874]Brian4Liberty[/MENTION]: "Your beltway "libertarian" source for studies to push the globalist, corporatist establishment agenda."

My response: I just see the bigger picture. The left hand feeds the right hand which feeds the left. At that point, it doesn't matter from who or where articles come from, it is the ability to put the pieces of the puzzle together to see where it's headed.

There will always be overlap between globalist agendas, and the left-jackboot and the right-jackboot. As a person who embraces sovereign individualism, NAP, and TAXATION-THEFT, the only workable solution [that will never come about] is to stop all funding, and try to get others to understand this as well. So, to think or believe that I "support the globalist agenda" is simply wrong and absurd.


You do seem to embrace some form of irrationality because what you posted originally... well, that dog don't fly and that bird don't hunt.

What is it you are attempting to convey here? It is not exactly clear, especially judging by the OP. You may believe in freedom, but by the same token you may not quite have the right grasp of what that entails. But why not do a dullard such as myself a big favor and give a swing at clarification.`

My weekly liberty group had a discussion last week about fentanyl [among other topics] so I decided to research data. As I stated previously, many of the articles pointed back to CATO and NPR, and one at Forbes. It was interesting that I did not find anything from "the right", so the first thing that came to mind was the continued failed "War on Drugs".

I was encouraged to read a couple of the responses, [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION] Post #19, and your Post #134. But, as I typically encounter, rather than Americans take ownership/responsibility, they typically want to blame others and/or shoot to kill.

Finally, it is interesting that here on this forum, I am constantly bombarded with accusations that I am a "commie" and seem to push the globalist agenda, simply because I do not vote for kings and rulers and I believe that all taxation = theft. "Stop the Funding" sounds good in theory, but most people seem to not want that to happen - they would sooner vote for another politician to save them.
 
That's the same "caught at the port of entry" garbage as the OP.

It's all the stuff that comes across the wide open border that is the real vast majority of it.
The only garbage is your response. Stop making things up because you want to appear right. It's about how much each group is bringing in.
 
The only garbage is your response. Stop making things up because you want to appear right.

He can't. He's too arrogant to say nothing, which is why he'll never be a competent smuggler.

Even if someone could and did pass out surveys to successful smugglers, they obviously wouldn't answer them honestly. It would land them in prison next time through.

There are no hard numbers to crunch.
 
I see I'm not the only one who picked up on that.



The only viable solution is the simplest: decriminalize it all. There will be unpleasant consequences, mostly mass overdosing, but if you think circumspectly on it, you will find that the problem is self-correcting in time.

We the glorious "people" of America have ever so studiously and steadfastly worked ourselves into the corner in which we now find ourselves. Getting out will not, CANNOT, in any way imaginable, have no associated costs. Quite the contrary, the cost shall be perforce high, not because it must be due to the nature of the circumstance, but due to the human propensity for acting as if we had no brains of which to speak. 99.99% of all human misery and misfortune comes to us by our own hands. How often do meteors fall and destroy entire cities? Earthquakes? Plagues? Vast conflagrations of a non-war cause? Very few, and yet we live in poverty, disease, addiction, graft, and broadly distributed unhappiness in spite of that $3,000.00 cell phone in our pockets and the teal BMW.

WE are the problem, and only we are the solution. It is as simple as that. We choose, and thus far the level of death and misery are not high enough to impel us as a population to put our condition on a better footing. So be it.

That joyful tirade being done, how have you been? I've not seen you post in a long while.

How sweet of you to note that I'm only here once in in a while and to ask how I've how I've been. I stay sane by taking the position of an observer and the more I do that, the better off I am. Other than compassion for the living beings in my immediate environment, I've noticed that the less I allow myself to become passionately involved in world issues, the better off I am and the more objective I am.

I don't know if you watched that video I posted, above, Vancouver is Dying (there's another called Seattle is Dying, which is similar), but I'm not convinced the legalize everything approach is the answer. It's sure not working in the shitlib cities and is turning them in sewers of human misery. Crime is a big by-product not because the addicts need to steal to buy drugs but because most addicts are mentally ill - many severely so and violent. So, it doesn't look like this problem takes care of itself. Then there's there's kids. Teenagers are really vulnerable because kids just do stupid shit (I know I did) and now they're dying of fentanyl overdoes, accidentally.
 
I find the choice of wording in the title most curious. "Asylum seekers"... who, exactly, are they? I do not for one moment believe that all the unlawful aliens are seekers of political asylum. That means the actual seekers are a subset of the total, giving rise to the question of what proportion are genuine, vis-à-vis those who have come unlawfully for other, unclear reasons. My strong suspicion is that they are a vanishingly small percentage.

That said, the wording of the title seems to be peddling something which, had the wording more closely reflected the reality, people would not be buying.

As to the problem, the solution is simple, if not quite altogether palatable from certain standpoints: decriminalize all drugs. "Oh my GOD, NO!!!" many will say, citing the horrors. Indeed it would be so... for a while. And I say allow those who would destroy themselves to do so. Is it horrible? It is, but warring against those hell-bent to engage in such matters is a fruitless endeavor, as the past fifty years of the so-called "drug war" has demonstrated in such stark and glaring terms. Those who support the prohibitions seem to come from three main camps, all of which are sadly mistaken. The one honestly believes in the wrongness of drugs and that because it is wrong, it must be prohibited. These people are opposed to liberty, much as some of them might deny it. The other are those who see no other way of saving their own from the threat of addiction and all that follows therefrom, and are hanging on to the force response like grim death. They are in a frenzy, terrified, and the more they fear the prospect, the harder they cleave to force as the solution. And of course the third group are those who profit from the trade. Decriminalization would spell the end of their profits.

Decriminalize and eat the bitter consequence of unleashing that particular liberty upon a population that is generally unprepared for it. Allow hundreds of thousands or even millions to die, no safety nets whatsoever, and clean that gene pool which has turned so deep and emerald a green. Those with basic sense will learn and our world will become a better place in the longer run, the price of our former stupidity and corruption being the lives of so many others who chose foolishly.

We've been insulated from hard, cold reality going on 100 years in terms of such personal choices and the consequences that usually follow forthwith. It is time for America and the rest of humanity in the so-called "first world" to grow the hell up and cop some responsibility for ourselves as individuals. Want to inject heroin? By all means do so, but when you OD and nobody comes to your rescue, make your peace with God and accept whatever it is that comes next. And if you survive, take what you will from the experience. Learn. Don't learn. Nobody from "government" is going to aid and abet you, nor will they toss you into a cell. You are free to live, or to destroy yourself as you please. But bear in mind that under such conditions of liberty, which must exist not in lopsided fashion, but in balanced completeness, when you bring harm to others, you will be held feet to the fire to account for what you have done, and your state of incapacitation would not be used in a court to mitigate your culpability as it tends now to be, but rather to aggravate the severity of your actions.

Liberty is the only viable solution, and liberty demands responsibility and accountability by all, upon all.

So I say let the fur fly, come what may. What we are experiencing now is living death.

Okay, I totally get your argument but it doesn't take into account the impact on others who are subjected to the homeless mentally ill drugs addicts. Crime, drugged out loons all over public spaces, shitting on the streets (no place else to do it), needles all over and even the occasional kid or dog poisoned by fentanyl that someone left on the ground in a park. What do you do about that?
 
And then they impose a global tyranny on the divided and balkanized individuals.

I was interested in what you said that I had highlighted in bold:

make believe that only personal property exists and that destroying collective territorial ownership is defending it

What exactly did you mean by that? It caught my attention because some remarks I've seen here, regarding private property vs public or the dastardly "commons" (I'm not a Libertarian but have seen that phrase "the tragedy of the commons). I saw someone here state that the oceans should be divided into private property which is insane but that anyone thinks that way is of interest to me. I don't like the idea of government owned (controlled) but do like the idea of nobody and no entity owning parts of the earth. What all that has to do PAF and his wanting to move about freely (public property) vs his arguments for the right to private property, I'm not clear on (in my own head).
 
One of the problems are blanket solutions and people meddling into the affairs of other people and areas.

- Getting the fed.gov out of this would go a long way. Getting the state out of it would be beneficial as well.

- It would keep money local where it could be more wisely and efficiently spent. Towns and cities where there is not a wide-spread problem would not be tax-burdened by other areas and states.

- Towns and cities would enact, or not, their own ordinances such as that of small-cell communities.

- People in communities would be forced to be more responsible, and if they don't, it's on them if they let it go to muck. I have my own community to worry about, not some town on the other side of the country where I seldom if ever interact.

The first step would be to worry about your own home and your own community. It is good to reference other areas for lessons learned, but those areas should not be any of your business to meddle in, such as that of foreign affairs.


January 4, 2023

Among people aged 12 or older in 2021, 61.2 million people (or 21.9 percent of the population) used illicit drugs in the past year. The most commonly used illicit drug was marijuana, which 52.5 million people used. Nearly 2 in 5 young adults 18 to 25 used illicit drugs in the past year; 1 in 3 young adults 18 to 25 used marijuana in the past year.

9.2 million people 12 and older misused opioids in the past year.

46.3 million people aged 12 or older (or 16.5 percent of the population) met the applicable DSM-5 criteria for having a substance use disorder in the past year, including 29.5 million people who were classified as having an alcohol use disorder and 24 million people who were classified as having a drug use disorder.

The percentage of people who were classified as having a past year substance use disorder, including alcohol use and/or drug use disorder, was highest among young adults aged 18 to 25 compared to youth and adults 26 and older.

In 2021, 94% of people aged 12 or older with a substance use disorder did not receive any treatment. Nearly all people with a substance use disorder who did not get treatment at a specialty facility did not think they needed treatment.

More data here:

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023...mental-illness-substance-use-levels-2021.html
 
I don't like the idea of government owned (controlled) but do like the idea of nobody and no entity owning parts of the earth. What all that has to do PAF and his wanting to move about freely (public property) vs his arguments for the right to private property, I'm not clear on (in my own head).

Simplistically put: 1. My freedom to travel freely on public land without "papers please" holds dear to my individual rights which are outline in the Bill of Rights. 2. Without Private Property Rights, you are a slave.

Look up Walter Block on Open Borders and Property Rights, and Tom Woods on Small-Cell Communities.
 
I was interested in what you said that I had highlighted in bold:

make believe that only personal property exists and that destroying collective territorial ownership is defending it

What exactly did you mean by that?

- It would keep money local where it could be more wisely and efficiently spent. Towns and cities where there is not a wide-spread problem would not be tax-burdened by other areas and states.

Swordy is a nationalist, first and foremost, and that sort of talk makes him craz(ier) because the border is where he figures all the action must be to support his desired zero tolerance policy. He can't even conceive of a stateless society that manages to repel invaders. To him, everyone else owes border communities protection, and border communities owe it to everyone else to endure the resulting inconveniences. That's the price you pay to have a nation to live in.

Think of the conversation between two people passionate about avoiding a problem with mice in the house. One believes the only sure solution is permitting no point of entry, sealing every nook, cranny and mortar chink of the foundation (hermetically if possible). The other knows mice either die off or leave (or a little of both) if you make sure there's nothing in the place they can get at to eat.
 
Last edited:
Think of the conversation between two people passionate about avoiding a problem with mice in the house. One believes the only sure solution is permitting no point of entry, sealing every nook, cranny and mortar chink of the foundation (hermetically if possible). The other knows mice either die off or leave (or a little of both) if you make sure there's nothing in the place they can get at to eat.

And while those two are conversing, a third housemate is diligently and continuously bringing more mice into the house ...
 
And while those two are conversing, a third housemate is diligently and continuously bringing more mice into the house ...

They can work for it, or starve. But I am not going to condone giving them a free card just to be considered "legal".
 
Back
Top