Chuckie is at it again!

Discussion
1

Hello all,

It seems that serial legislator, US Senator from New York, Chuckie "No Law is Too Good to Pass" Schumer is at it again. As reported in Metro, New York City's #1 Free Daily Newspaper, "After tragedy, law named for Avonte," January 27, 2014; see: http://newyork.metro.us/digital_launch.aspx?eid=362e913e-4c4c-48be-80c4-2db48c5d9f82. This time Mr. Schumer wants to pass a law (which he "considerately" named "Avonte's Law") to allow "parents of children with autism to participate in a voluntary tracking program that could help authorities immediately find them if they go missing." Are we talking Orwellian "Newspeak"? When is a law "voluntary"?

Still, here is another example of politicians, such as Mr. Schumer, who say they want to "help us" (know any politician who say they want to "hurt us"?). But to do this, they must enact innumerable laws and regulations. But however much politicians, e.g. Mr. Schumer, claim to "help us" with their laws and regulations, the real and only reason for them is to enable politicians, e.g. Mr. Schumer, to gain power: power to control us; power to exploit us; and power to sell favors. And they also help politicians condition us to obedience. And while there are many misguided advocates of laws and regulations, who sincerely believe they're beneficial, they're merely dupes of the power seekers. This was probably not the case with Vanessa Fontaine, Avonte's mother. But Mr. Schumer had no doubt used her (and posthumously used Avonte) as a prop and a dupe for his personal aggrandizement. I'm sorry if I seem disrespectful to Mrs. Fontaine, but this is the truth.

Still, as for obedience, it must be remembered that every law and regulation requires obedience. It must also be remembered that disobedience could result in extortion, kidnap or murder—all crimes that the government can legally commit against us as "fines," "jail sentences," or "executions."

I wonder if Mr. Schumer is aware of these "insignificant consequences" of all the laws he compulsively passed and continues to pass.

Thanks for reading.

Alton

2

Thank you for writing this, Alton.

If something is "voluntary" then no law is necessary. Whenever a law is passed that "allows" something to happen "voluntarily" I am immediately suspicious. It brings to mind visions of minions and bureaucrats misleading parents by telling them "its the law" or "the law allows us to . . . ". Yes, indeed, the "voluntariness" dupes the legislators who otherwise would not pass it if it were mandatory. What those legislators SHOULD do, however, is not pass the law!

Nina

"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to
believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset
forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if
it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war."
-Bill St. Clair-

3

Hi Nina,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, a "voluntary law" is certainly an oxymoron. And the idea that many people, including "minions and bureaucrats," have that "the law allows us to . . . ," shows a profound misunderstanding of what this "land of the free and home of the brave" is all about. Namely, laws aren't supposed to "allow" us to do anything, and certainly laws as enacted by politicians don't give us rights or freedoms. We the People have all the rights and freedoms. Politicians and their laws can only take away or circumscribe our rights and freedoms. This is especially true with our ECONOMIC rights and freedoms.

(Indeed, the same newspaper I mentioned, Metro, published in its January 10, 2014 edition my letter on that very subject. You can read it here: http://newyork.metro.us/digital_launch.aspx?eid=c58c260c-30e4-4a6e-ab29-ef4f3f255dbb. On the left of the page is a tab for "archives." If you click on that and then click on the next two or three editions, you'll see letters published as "rebuttals" to my letters. Sadly, they're all from apologists for big government. I sent in replies, but none were published.)

Also, I learned years ago that saying you want to "legalize drugs" is wrong, because we always had the right and freedom to use any drug we want. The government took away that right and freedom by criminalizing it. Thus, it would be more correct to say, we want to "decriminalize drugs." I know it may sound like playing with words or splitting hairs, but if you think about it, it will make sense.

Still, I liked your admonition best: "What those legislators SHOULD do, however, is not pass the law!" But since legislators like Senator Schumer will continue to compulsively pass laws, there should be a way to limit how many and what kinds of laws they pass. Gee, isn't that what the US Constitution is supposed to do?

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. (And that Bill St. Clair is an insightful man. I don't think I ever heard of him, until today.)

Alton