Politicians have many tricks of their sleeves that they often utilize to subjugate us to their tyranny. Many of those tricks involve legislation. Proposed bills that are well-intentioned are often poisoned by an amendment or killed by leadership. Some bills seem benign or mild, but contain inconspicuous language which would bring about unprecedented levels of tyranny if passed into law. Two interesting bills happened to jump out at me when I was doing so bill review today.
Proposed by four Republicans and three Democrats, House Bill 499 “prohibits the state from using face recognition technology.”
But does it really?
It only took a quick glance at this horrible legislation to find some massive problems. The bill says that “No officer or employee of a state agency shall use facial recognition technology to engage in ongoing surveillance…”
Before I even get to the major issue, we must define ‘ongoing surveillance’. The bill itself says that this means surveillance occurring for more than 72 hours straight. So, this bill already allows police or any government agent to use facial recognition technology for 71 hours at a time. No thanks!
The very next section totally nullifies the whole bill, though. It says that police are exempt from this new law as long as they are using the facial recognition “in support of a law enforcement activity”. Of course, we know that all activities conducted by law enforcement are ‘law enforcement activities’. This seems to grant law enforcement a 100% exception to this new ‘legislation’.
My third major issue with HB499 is another common finding with legislation that claims to restrain a government agency or personnel; it has no punishment in place for violating the new law. Whenever politicians proposed bills that restrain individuals, there is a clearly defined punishment for violating the law, such as a fine and/or prison. When the government proposes a bill that claims to restrain the government (although this bill does not even seek to restrain the government at all) there is often no punishment at all for violating the law. This is a major reason why politicians do not obey the laws that are supposed to restrain them, which is generally the Constitution. Imagine what this world would look like if politicians were thrown in prison whenever they violated the Constitution!
Although this bill may have been initially proposed with good intentions by the sponsors, I will not be supporting it.
The second horrible bill I came across today was House Bill 209. It was sponsored by one Democratic State Representative named Kat McGhee. This bill was not well-intended. The sponsor wants the government to use men with guns (police) to control every transaction; McGhee and the Democrats do not believe in self-ownership or the right to choose freely. The legislation proposes that anyone who engages in ‘music therapy’ apply to the government for a license, which involves a fee, of course. Unless the gangsters known as ‘government officials’ approve the application, it would be a crime for a person to help another with the therapeutic benefits of music. If I use music to help you with your anxiety, I would become a criminal, if this communist sociopath has her way.
But this terrible legislation violates liberty on a much deeper level. The bill says that “No person without a license as a music therapist shall use the title “music therapist” or similar title or practice music therapy”.
Do you see the issue with that sentence? This legislation seriously criminalizes the act of saying or expressing a two-word phrase or any similar phrase. If this is not a violation of free speech, then what is?
Mcghee sponsored the same bill last year, but it failed to pass into law.
This is not the first time that this type of backdoor free speech criminalization was snuck into a bill by a Democrat. In December of 2019, I warned readers that a bill forcing ‘locksmiths’ to obtain licenses from government gangsters had the same verbiage in it.
The bill does not include a specific punishment, so it is unclear what would be the fate of a person if they dared violate the gangsters who demand control over whether they can earn a living.
What’s the point of all of this?
Does any of this matter?
The first bill is irrelevant, and the second bill probably won’t pass. Or it might. Who knows? Who cares? If it doesn’t pass this year, Dictator Sununu could easily declare by executive order that music therapy must be licensed or totally banned. Maybe the federal government will soon begin to pass laws or regulations on music therapists and other poor souls who try to earn an honest living.
I do not believe that freedom could be preserved by winning in the political, legislative, or judicial arenas. The state has billions of levels of bureaucracy and the federal government is a trillion times worse. Even if we could stop all anti-liberty legislation from passing from here on out, and even if we pass 100 good bills each year, we still cannot save New Hampshire, let alone DC.
If we are to preserve freedom for the next generation, we must think much bigger than the traditional failed methods of ‘just vote harder’ or ‘support good legislation’. That does not work, and could not work.
We must begin by withdrawing from the union. Once sovereign, New Hampshire could enjoy unimaginable freedom and prosperity. Additionally, we would then have a much better opportunity to weaken the state government and empower individuals by returning their natural rights and freedoms to their rightful owners.
If you want to learn more about why we must secede from the union – and how we might accomplish this daunting task, please read my brand new book, The Blueprint For Liberty.
The post Why You Should Care About Legislation And Why It’s Irrelevant appeared first on The Liberty Block.