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

[acptulsa]

They can - but why should they?

They're not going to starve - the third housemate is also feeding them cheese he stole from the other two.

What he said.VV

Click...click...BOOM.

 

[PAF]

They can - but why should they?

They're not going to starve - the third housemate is also feeding them cheese he stole from the other two.

Then as devil's advocate, and what [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION] referenced what Swordy would do, let's hermetically seal everything, enforce the Constitution-Free Zone and trash the Bill of Rights, utilize more eminent domain, pump more tax dollars into 24/7 full surveillance and hire as many DHS, BP and government employees than ever before. Perhaps the American Section 8 folks will realize the rising cost of meat and agriculture and work the jobs the migrants once had.

Other than that, I throw my hands in the air.

Anyway, it is what it is. I ain't gonna solve it anymore than you ;-)

 

[acptulsa]

Anyway, it is what it is. I ain't gonna solve it anymore than you ;-)

I want to lock up the cheese.

I wanted to lock up the cheese in 1988 when I first voted for Ron Paul.

I want a refrigerated safe. Lock up the damned cheese.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

...

... 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.
...

While I like this in principle, isn't this exactly what has been happening in practice?

Northern blue states and cities set their own rules. Sanctuary Cities, "everyone is welcome" and "Humans are not Illegal" signs. Then they laugh when border states have to deal with an influx. When they get their share, they close their borders, shut down planes and buses, and in the case of Martha's Vineyard, deport all of them within 24 hours ("voluntarily to a military base").

Certainly, Texas very well may have closed their border long ago if the Federal Government did not exist in it's current form. And that is the battle that is finally taking place right now, but that's another thread...

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

Correction, bring mice into your house, while laughing about it from their house, aka a sanctuary community that doesn't allow immigrants.

 

[acptulsa]

Correction, bring mice into your house, while laughing about it from their house, aka a sanctuary community that doesn't allow immigrants.

The hypocrisy of the "... but NIMBY" crowd.

Just the thing for reckless activists. Get done what you want done and never see the suffering it caused to everyone else involved.

This reminds me of The Grapes of Wrath. Unscrupulous providers of immigrant pickers kept advertising for Okies to trek west, knowing they already had plenty of pickers, just to drive wages down. Except now the bleeding heart sheep are jumping up and down about it.

 

[CCTelander]

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

Evict the third housemate.

 

[susano]

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 feel the same though when it comes to moving about unimpeded, I think reality butts up against the ideal.

 

[osan]

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".

Fair enough, but I'd be very wary of CATO and I would not trust NOR to tell me water is wet.

I don't think anyone nominally intelligent needs such sources in any event. It is clear that the war on drugs constitutes a gross violation of human rights. I don't like seeing people ruin themselves, but what I like or don't like really isn't relevant to the question. A man holds every right to destroy himself, regardless of how appalling one may find it.

I was encouraged to read a couple of the responses, @acptulsa 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.

We all have our problems and idiosyncrasies. The world has mostly turned its back to rational morality. Being a scoundrel seems to have become the new virtue.

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.

Care must always be taken that we not miscommunicate. This goes for all. Communication as art is fading into the mists in favor of the rank brawling now so ubiquitous across the network.

A return to the art, as well as good manners is well recommended for everyone. I feel confident making the broad brush assertion that the current common modes of communication have proven themselves failed. Grace and rationality is the only good way.

 

[susano]

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

Oh, dear. This makes me realize I'm the equivalent of a do-gooder NGO because we actually did have mice in our house and I fed them, lol. I can't kill anything and my reasoning was that with food and water in one spot they wouldn't go about chewing wires and whatnot. I did use other strategies to get rid of them and they're gone now.

https://imgur.com/Un6mXvI

 

[susano]

They can - but why should they?

They're not going to starve - the third housemate is also feeding them cheese he stole from the other two.

THIS

 

[PAF]

I don't like seeing people ruin themselves, but what I like or don't like really isn't relevant to the question. A man holds every right to destroy himself, regardless of how appalling one may find it.

THIS ^^

Evict the third housemate.

THIS ^^

 

[osan]

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.

Do recall that the Framers made it quite explicitly clear that a people cannot be free AND stupid/immoral. The former and the latter are absolutely and irreconcilably incompatible. Lowering the bar only delays the inevitable, which of course is annihilation.

I don't suggest we simply cut loose and foist full-suit liberty on a world nowhere nearly prepared for it, though my inner sadist does hold a certain fascination with the idea. Rather, a gradual turn toward the light in order to allow the culture to acclimate would be prudent, though I do believe we have a price to pay, and not only will it be high, it ought to be. And I would start with something like drugs. Let the lesser sorts kill themselves off... or get smart in a hurry. We have lived on the extended credit of our willful stupidity and rank corruption for a long time. Now the bill id come due and the price is high. We cannot restore ourselves at no cost. We cannot even do so at moderate cost. The price of our rot and filth is grand and cannot be avoided. We can pay and regain ourselves, or we can pay, lay down to die, and leave our posterity nothing better than a burned out hulk as our legacy to them. The choice is ours and there will be no escaping it. I doubt God is going to pop out from behind a cloud, vanquish all tyrants, end all tyranny, and wave his magic wand and cause us all to become suddenly moral and intelligent. I also doubt infallible aliens are going to land on the South Lawn to rescue us from our rotten selves. This is 100% on each and every one of us, and thus far we are failing miserably.

 

[susano]

Do recall that the Framers made it quite explicitly clear that a people cannot be free AND stupid/immoral. The former and the latter are absolutely and irreconcilably incompatible. Lowering the bar only delays the inevitable, which of course is annihilation.

I don't suggest we simply cut loose and foist full-suit liberty on a world nowhere nearly prepared for it, though my inner sadist does hold a certain fascination with the idea. Rather, a gradual turn toward the light in order to allow the culture to acclimate would be prudent, though I do believe we have a price to pay, and not only will it be high, it ought to be. And I would start with something like drugs. Let the lesser sorts kill themselves off... or get smart in a hurry. We have lived on the extended credit of our willful stupidity and rank corruption for a long time. Now the bill id come due and the price is high. We cannot restore ourselves at no cost. We cannot even do so at moderate cost. The price of our rot and filth is grand and cannot be avoided. We can pay and regain ourselves, or we can pay, lay down to die, and leave our posterity nothing better than a burned out hulk as our legacy to them. The choice is ours and there will be no escaping it. I doubt God is going to pop out from behind a cloud, vanquish all tyrants, end all tyranny, and wave his magic wand and cause us all to become suddenly moral and intelligent. I also doubt infallible aliens are going to land on the South Lawn to rescue us from our rotten selves. This is 100% on each and every one of us, and thus far we are failing miserably.

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote (James Madison, I believe) about a moral people and I do understand your position. The problem is that when a place legalizes hard drugs, the whole place goes to shit, not just those taking the drugs. Hard core drug use and addiction go hand in hand with mental illness and you end up with homeless crazies all over the streets, in the parks, woods, etc. It's so bad that even the open air insane asylum, otherwise know as as Portland OR, wants to reverse their permissive or non existent drug laws. if anything goes, then anything will go and you begin to attract those seeking that environment. Again, I don't have an answer and understand that "the war on drugs" is a racket.

 

[osan]

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?

Going tyrant is certainly not the way. Liberty is the only viable solution. Let the loons kill themselves and when they threaten others, shoot the ghosts from their carcasses.

We are so trained to the lefty's way of thinking, we forget about notions such as right and wrong; the propriety of defending that which is good by whatever means is necessary; that decent and rational people hold every facility and faculty for making those decisions, most especially in the immediacy of a given moment of threat. We have tacitly accepted the implication that we are obliged to bear risks to our lives for the sake of criminals, which in my estimation may be the biggest and most foul lie ever peddled to humanity. In a very general sense, our mean modes of thought in America are so incalculably screwed up, it is a wonder we've not imploded already. But fear not, for we are coming close to it, and for what?

 

[osan]

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote (James Madison, I believe) about a moral people and I do understand your position. The problem is that when a place legalizes hard drugs, the whole place goes to shit, not just those taking the drugs. Hard core drug use and addiction go hand in hand with mental illness and you end up with homeless crazies all over the streets, in the parks, woods, etc. It's so bad that even the open air insane asylum, otherwise know as as Portland OR, wants to reverse their permissive or non existent drug laws. if anything goes, then anything will go and you begin to attract those seeking that environment. Again, I don't have an answer and understand that "the war on drugs" is a racket.

I see your point, but maintain that any other mode of address will provide less favorable results. Half measures have proven their less-than-zero value. We put ourselves into this corner. We will have to pay the price if we want out.

 

[susano]

Going tyrant is certainly not the way. Liberty is the only viable solution. Let the loons kill themselves and when they threaten others, shoot the ghosts from their carcasses.

We are so trained to the lefty's way of thinking, we forget about notions such as right and wrong; the propriety of defending that which is good by whatever means is necessary; that decent and rational people hold every facility and faculty for making those decisions, most especially in the immediacy of a given moment of threat. We have tacitly accepted the implication that we are obliged to bear risks to our lives for the sake of criminals, which in my estimation may be the biggest and most foul lie ever peddled to humanity. In a very general sense, our mean modes of thought in America are so incalculably screwed up, it is a wonder we've not imploded already. But fear not, for we are coming close to it, and for what?

Somebody at GLP made a post about this and suggested the only thing to do is round 'em up and put them in camps, feed, offer showers and toilets, addiction help for that small percentage who would participate, job training for the employable (also a small percentage, imo) . Well, how does that sound? Not good but I thought he had offered the only viable solution I'd seen. Thank God I don't live in a big city and have to encounter this (though did when in LA) but for those who do, they should not have to be threatened by the criminally insane; their kids shouldn't be subjected to dangerous homeless addicts when they go outside; their property shouldn't be stolen; they shouldn't have to navigate shit on the sidewalks, etc, etc, etc. If the mentally ill homeless addicts can't get it together, is something like camps - strictly for the safety of others - a tyrannical move?

 

[PAF]

^^^^ [MENTION=25257]osan[/MENTION] words of wisdom... right on ^^^^

 

[osan]

Somebody at GLP made a post about this and suggested the only thing to do is round 'em up and put them in camps, feed, offer showers and toilets, addiction help for that small percentage who would participate, job training for the employable (also a small percentage, imo) . Well, how does that sound? Not good but I thought he had offered the only viable solution I'd seen. Thank God I don't live in a big city and have to encounter this (though did when in LA) but for those who do, they should not have to be threatened by the criminally insane; their kids shouldn't be subjected to dangerous homeless addicts when they go outside; their property shouldn't be stolen; they shouldn't have to navigate shit on the sidewalks, etc, etc, etc. If the mentally ill homeless addicts can't get it together, is something like camps - strictly for the safety of others - a tyrannical move?

Once again I take your concerns well, understand them, and agree that the problems are severe. And yet again I must point out for the third time that we have made a pact with the devil and if we want out, we will have to pay the price. That price is going to cost lives, potentially a great many of them. If we behave as rotten curs, what difference does it make that we act so in spite of the fact that we are really decent people who fail to take right action? The effect is the same. Intention counts for nothing.

The problems constitute a Gordian Knot of intertwined shit, the undoing of which could take a very long time, if even it were to prove possible in some piecemeal and measured fashion, which I very seriously doubt, given the realities of our current mean moral condition. Just imagine the vermin of DC actually introducing measures that made rational sense for moving the people of American back toward a state of proper freedom. Not going to happen. That is why this whole deal is on US, 100%. Theye are not going to help us, for to do so would be to kill themselves. Do we for a moment think that Theye are going to do that?

Now consider just one of the countless impediments. A man attempts to mug you, rape you, threatens your child. You hold every proper right to remove life from that individual and to act with the intention of removing that life. Yet if you say that you shot to kill, you will face murder charges in a vast plurality of jurisdictions. You will be made the criminal for having had the temerity to defend yourself and yours from destruction or even minor harm. A prosecutor will paint you as the devil in the flesh because you refused to accept the tacit mandate requiring you to subject yourself to the predations of criminals where the harm to you is deemed by some scumbag legislator or jurist to be "acceptable". This doesn't rise to outrage. Your right to destroy any and all threats, regardless of degree, because nobody holds the right to bring injury to you, is disparaged at the very least. In some jurisdictions like Chicago and NYC, you are by implication obliged to surrender you bodily integrity and your very life upon demand to any scumbag filth who wishes you harm. "Insanity" does not begin to cover this, nor does "evil". This is ill of a unique and singular class to which no numerical or literary value could begin to assess. It sends to hell every notion of the sacred ever held by any human being since the beginning of time. It says your life is not really yours. So far as I am concerned, every proponent and enforcer of this tacit mandate should be taken to a cold place and quietly removed from the Book of Life, no exceptions and no mercy. This way of thinking makes stage 4 spinal cancer attractive by comparison. I could go on for weeks about this and not even scratch the surface. And yet, those who go on of the horrors of abortion would from the other sides of their mouths voice their agreements with the idiot notions of "proportionality" and all the other raving evils related to the tacit mandate that you give your life up on demand to the virulent criminals.

The safety of others for whom you make your impassioned plea is secondary to freedom because it depends precisely upon that freedom for its optimal assurance. Those people who don't want to have to feel threatened need to begin taking their safety into their own hands, which requires the means for so doing. Learning the arts of defense. Acquiring the means of exercise. Becoming proficient with those means. Learning strategy, learning the basics of proper human relations, and acquiring a strong philosophical basis for living as a Freeman. But these things are far too much to expect from Johnny Q. who wants the benefits without having to bear the costs and other burdens. This is a condition that cannot exist, as it is... shall we say, thermodynamically impossible? So what we have here is a raft of corrupt whiners who whinge and carry on like spoiled brats for "freedom", yet refuse those aspects they find unpalatable. Can't have it that way. No es possible.

It's all very simple: we either take back what is ours, or we relegate ourselves to effective slave status. Once again, the choice is ours. It always was.

 

[susano]

Once again I take your concerns well, understand them, and agree that the problems are severe. And yet again I must point out for the third time that we have made a pact with the devil and if we want out, we will have to pay the price. That price is going to cost lives, potentially a great many of them. If we behave as rotten curs, what difference does it make that we act so in spite of the fact that we are really decent people who fail to take right action? The effect is the same. Intention counts for nothing.

The problems constitute a Gordian Knot of intertwined $#@!, the undoing of which could take a very long time, if even it were to prove possible in some piecemeal and measured fashion, which I very seriously doubt, given the realities of our current mean moral condition. Just imagine the vermin of DC actually introducing measures that made rational sense for moving the people of American back toward a state of proper freedom. Not going to happen. That is why this whole deal is on US, 100%. Theye are not going to help us, for to do so would be to kill themselves. Do we for a moment think that Theye are going to do that?

Now consider just one of the countless impediments. A man attempts to mug you, rape you, threatens your child. You hold every proper right to remove life from that individual and to act with the intention of removing that life. Yet if you say that you shot to kill, you will face murder charges in a vast plurality of jurisdictions. You will be made the criminal for having had the temerity to defend yourself and yours from destruction or even minor harm. A prosecutor will paint you as the devil in the flesh because you refused to accept the tacit mandate requiring you to subject yourself to the predations of criminals where the harm to you is deemed by some scumbag legislator or jurist to be "acceptable". This doesn't rise to outrage. Your right to destroy any and all threats, regardless of degree, because nobody holds the right to bring injury to you, is disparaged at the very least. In some jurisdictions like Chicago and NYC, you are by implication obliged to surrender you bodily integrity and your very life upon demand to any scumbag filth who wishes you harm. "Insanity" does not begin to cover this, nor does "evil". This is ill of a unique and singular class to which no numerical or literary value could begin to assess. It sends to hell every notion of the sacred ever held by any human being since the beginning of time. It says your life is not really yours. So far as I am concerned, every proponent and enforcer of this tacit mandate should be taken to a cold place and quietly removed from the Book of Life, no exceptions and no mercy. This way of thinking makes stage 4 spinal cancer attractive by comparison. I could go on for weeks about this and not even scratch the surface. And yet, those who go on of the horrors of abortion would from the other sides of their mouths voice their agreements with the idiot notions of "proportionality" and all the other raving evils related to the tacit mandate that you give your life up on demand to the virulent criminals.

The safety of others for whom you make your impassioned plea is secondary to freedom because it depends precisely upon that freedom for its optimal assurance. Those people who don't want to have to feel threatened need to begin taking their safety into their own hands, which requires the means for so doing. Learning the arts of defense. Acquiring the means of exercise. Becoming proficient with those means. Learning strategy, learning the basics of proper human relations, and acquiring a strong philosophical basis for living as a Freeman. But these things are far too much to expect from Johnny Q. who wants the benefits without having to bear the costs and other burdens. This is a condition that cannot exist, as it is... shall we say, thermodynamically impossible? So what we have here is a raft of corrupt whiners who whinge and carry on like spoiled brats for "freedom", yet refuse those aspects they find unpalatable. Can't have it that way. No es possible.

It's all very simple: we either take back what is ours, or we relegate ourselves to effective slave status. Once again, the choice is ours. It always was.

Okay, then, in the context of your comment I would say the GLP poster's suggestion is entirely sensible. Instead of somebody's 80 year old mom having to get weapons and self defense training, get the riff raff off the streets. Instead of jail, the camp (which would be semi-jail). To do it would very much be taking action and self defense. It seems far more practical than a kind of every man, woman and child having to be a trained soldier in order to be able to walk down the street.

 

[osan]

Somebody at GLP made a post about this and suggested the only thing to do is round 'em up and put them in camps, feed, offer showers and toilets, addiction help for that small percentage who would participate, job training for the employable (also a small percentage, imo) . Well, how does that sound? Not good but I thought he had offered the only viable solution I'd seen. Thank God I don't live in a big city and have to encounter this (though did when in LA) but for those who do, they should not have to be threatened by the criminally insane; their kids shouldn't be subjected to dangerous homeless addicts when they go outside; their property shouldn't be stolen; they shouldn't have to navigate shit on the sidewalks, etc, etc, etc. If the mentally ill homeless addicts can't get it together, is something like camps - strictly for the safety of others - a tyrannical move?

Please forgive my failure to answer that specific question. I will do do now.

No. The move is not in itself tyrannical. Removing those who threaten the rights of others and placing them in some condition where they can no longer pose such threats is a perfectly reasonable solution. The problem is not the solution per sé, but how it is applied. We have issues of competency and of morality. Competent and morally honorable people will apply the solution justly. Those of a lesser caliber will take the path of the old Soviet Union and use such camps in the way the Russians employed mental hospitals to squelch and punish those whose opinions they found disagreeable.

So once again we see that we are our own worst enemies. We wed ourselves to our various corruptions, the ones which we rationalize with our endless torrents of self-justifying bullshit in the effort to convince ourselves that what we do isn't really that bad, or worse yet, is actually virtuous. I've done it, as have ll others, to one degree or another. But I'm working like hell to make my amends, even if my sins have not been as bad as those of some others. Far too few are willing to recognize their corruptions, much less acknowledge them, and less still to resolve to make such amends. They just want the 24x365 screwfest where life is a perpetual orgasm with no cost whatsoever.

De-balling evil is each man's responsibility. This is the true meaning of being one's brother's keeper, not giving him money for heroin or booze and interfering with his self-destructive behaviors. Defending the integrity of your rights is defending my own. We used to call this sort of thing "enlightened self-interest". It seems a great many of us have forgotten this idea, preferring the 1980s-born notion of fuck everyone else, I'm in it for me alone and the rest of you can eat it and die.

We, each and every one of us, choose.

Every.

Single.

Moment.

And just for the record, it appears I'm no better than anyone else in this respect.