base698

I've said over and over the illegal immigration issue isn't my pet issue.

I had not complained. I asked and you responded with standard NPC about government's definition of free speech.

Elon wasn't in the previous admin. We had that discussion previously. Ron Paul is an advisor so I'm irrationally hopeful.

I assume this is unrealized gain. I was assuming 10% realized return on a net worth of $9b across all billionaires. If you want to get all Kulak on it and take unrealized gain, then yes you could pay the debt.

I was asking if you had read or were familiar with enlightenment philosophers and their reasoning about what Freedom of Speech is and should be. You seem very not smart for someone casting aspersions about intelligence. > Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

You could tax all our billionaires at 90% and it wouldn't put a dent on our interest payment on the debt. In addition, I would bet those funds end up ear marked for whatever corrupt grift they come up with. Maybe it would be used for studying trans inclusive FBOs related to the propensity of skydiving acceptance of alphabet people.

By here do you mean DZ.com? Did you read or do you remember On Liberty?

I've stated over and over when given the choice between treatment with housing and staying on the street, they choose to stay on the street. They may not like it at first, but the decision they make is to continue with addiction and not seek treatment. Addicts given food stamps will sell them to enterprising restaurants for pennies on the dollar so the restaurants can buy rice. There are other benefits that incentivizes an addict not to seek treatment and stay on the street. Sometime in the last 20 years the containment of skid row (and similar areas) was allowed to spill out into the rest of the cities. If you want to let them wallow in misery at least go back to that. It used to be they weren't allowed to wonder out of the bad areas. The tolerance and treating it like a victimless crime is what got us here.

If that's the threat do drug addicts in general go other places? Would that free the police to intervene with the violent and dangerous ones? We can discuss root cause when addicts aren't attacking people and sexually assaulting them near their homes. No one has been able to reverse the trend and lots of excuses get made. This is not about newly homeless people it's about and environment that incentivizes and tolerates addiction at the expense of everyone else. This is refused as well.

The law can certainly never be changed. We are talking hypothetically about how you could solve it I thought. Yes, it is illegal now. We have thousands of homeless people strewn through residential areas. Some of them are violent drug addicts. Others just steal bicycles and catalytic converters. They refuse shelter and prefer to stay in the street. The prisons are full, the police are busy. Innocent people in the residential neighborhoods are harmed by this situation. It's been going on a decade. Do you wait to build more jails? Hire more police? Build a camp in the desert?

Ok then. If you find a guy who has murdered and dismembered his wife, is he defenseless once he is in jail and away from the scene of the crime? Guess we need to let him go too.

Defenseless person is point of contention. I've made references to dangerous schizo multiple times in this very thread. Do you consider a dangerous schizo drug addict defenseless? What about a corner boy selling crack and fentanyl in the open at 8am on a weekday?

That is not what I said at all. Did you happen to visit a West coast major city in the last decade?

I'm not painting them all that way. I'm referring to a specific class of them, namely the schizo ones setting buildings on fire because they are getting high in their homeless encampments. Letting these people, the dangerous ones, on the street is a danger to the ones that do need help.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178908000037 So across all crime 3-4 times greater commiting of crimes. Do you think a standard gun owner is 3-4 times likely to commit a crime? Given the volume of gun owners relative to addicts what do you predict the murder rate to be of that were true? https://www.quora.com/Of-all-the-gun-crimes-committed-what-percentage-is-done-by-normal-law-abiding-citizens According to this concealed carry permit holders are 1/300 times as likely as a random person to commit a crime. Free guns for the nation!

Right, but you either give people agency and responsibilities for their actions or they destroy everything around them. People on cancer don't steal catalytic converters, smoke meth on public transit and punch random people on the street. I've never seen a cancer patient try to masturbate on an old lady in public.

I said move them. Away from the people they can harm by shitting in the street and causing general chaos. The punishment is to get them to move to a non residential area. There are tons of videos of addicts saying they prefer to be homeless, and also plenty that refuse shelter because they can't bring drugs. If the choice is burning down an animal shelter because addicts start a fire in the middle of an LA or moving them to an area they can't damage others, I'll take that.

The schizos that terrorized people in Santa Monica are. How did you derive everyone? I have specifically advocated for moving crazy schizos that shit in the street.

Did you miss the part where I found a dead homeless person and got needles thrown at me when walking to a doctor's appointment? My views on this stem from living around it and watching schizo drug addicts attack people. Right now addicts and innocents are harmed. You can fix one side of the problem by moving people.

Would you prefer to let people rot in the misery of addiction on the street?

Life is a series of trade offs. Right now people are impacted by drug addicts over running their communities. One side is arguing for 100% rights and 0% responsibility. If someone takes no responsibility, they get no rights. If the drug addicts go have cuddle puddles on BLM land we wouldn't be having this conversation and we could argue about whether to give $14 billion or just $20 billion to save the homeless with "smart solutions".

Reporting for duty!

Send them to labor camps? Move them with force if they don't accept treatment. How is that, NOT A CLUE? We went over this, that's not my pet issue. Something between whatever Homan says and this: https://x.com/Lead_Flinger/status/1858238662594744370

It's the low income people in apartments that suffer the most. But maybe you mean, "can afford housing" be it renter or homewoner. I'm fine letting people party on BLM land, just not in residential neighborhoods where Jenny can get stuck by a needle or see a naked drug addict. To expand on it a bit, my penalties above were for residential areas. If you find a private plot of land or BLM land that doesn't impact the surrounding community, no penalties and have at it.