Re: [Vision2020] Legistlative update V from Rep. Trail - Feb 7-11

[James Nelson]

Visionaries,

Fiat Lux makes an excellent point that could apply to the shadowy 
circumstances surrounding NSA. Lux observes, “Might we better serve 
ourselves to enact laws that deny benefits to those who willfully 
engage in such risky behaviors and suffer the injurious 
consequences of their choices? . . . Simply enacting a helmet law 
is not enough to make the die-hard, wind in their hair crowd 
actually wear a helmet. Furthermore, issuance of a citation for the 
violation of a helmet law seems irrelevant if the violator is brain 
dead or deceased?”

I agree; we should enact laws that deny benefits to those who 
willfully engage in crimes and misdemeanors. But more importantly, 
we should exact the letter of the law in punishing those who 
violate it. For example, if the City concludes that NSA’s 
activities in the Verizon building are illegal, then NSA should be 
compelled to immediately abate their operation, because re-zoning 
Friendship Square to accommodate the Kirk’s breach will not prevent 
them from breaking the law in the future. Indeed, if we change the 
law to indulge criminals, then we will embolden them to commit more 
crimes. This would positively encourage more lawlessness, which 
would undermine the very foundation of our government.

Take the Sudetenland for an example, after all Hitler did. The 
Allies thought that re-zoning Czechoslovakia would placate Hitler’s 
quest for world domination. Indeed, we have all seen the 
black-and-white footage of Neville Chamberlain promising “peace in 
our time” as he waved the Munich Pact in the air. Eleven months 
later, however, the Luftwaffe filled the air as German Stukas dive 
bombed Poland.

History teaches an easy lesson: if you re-zone real estate because 
you want to avoid conflict with an aggressive political power, then 
rest assured that your cowardice only prolonged the inevitable. One 
day you will have to engage the aggressor because his appetite 
cannot be satisfied. He will want more, especially when his agenda 
calls for it.

Lux asks rhetorically, “Are more and more ‘paternalistic laws’ the 
solution?” And the answer is “no.” We should not set precedent by 
coddling Doug Wilson and his ilk. If they broke the law, they 
should be held accountable just like the rest of us. And if we do 
not hold them to account, then we will be forced to learn a very 
hard lesson: You get more of what you subsidize and less of what 
you penalize.

Sincerely,

James Nelson
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm