4 ms·

Ofcourse there is a downside... The loss of liberty being the most basic and obvious. The FAA regulating, or banning something is them taking a liberty from m

Ofcourse there is a downside... The loss of liberty being the most basic and obvious. The FAA regulating, or banning something is them taking a liberty from me. In a free society in order to take my liberty it must only be done after all other avenues of solving the perceived problem have been explored and eliminated. It damn sure should not be allowed simply out of "an abundance of caution" over a perceived problems that may not actually exist. Under your world view everything is banned by default unless the government chooses to allow it... That is the opposite of a free society.

Ntrails 11y ago
Whilst I concur that there has to be a minimum risk level for something to require "the banhammer" I'm probably ok with that being a weighted result of probability and consequence. Which when it comes to planes in the US takes on an almost mythical level of fear for obvious reasons. Freedom to do as you please is not a real thing - you have to temper that freedom with the requirement to consider the impact on other people. Because you[1] are not special, and your freedoms are no more important than their freedoms. [1] Sorry I don't really mean to target at YOU but it's a narrative way to make the point. I'm sure you're very special <3
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >freedom to do as you please is not a real thing - you have to temper that freedom with the requirement to consider the impact on other people. Because you[1] are not special, and your freedoms are no more important than their freedoms. that can be a very dangerous statement depending on how you define or assess "impact on other people" To me, I should be free to do as I please unless my actions cause or can be proven to likely cause serious injury or death to another person, or cause actual articuable direct damage to another persons legally obtained property. When you say "impact" another person, that could mean me simply typing an controversial opinion into an online forum, should the government be allowed to ban my opinion simply because it "impacts" a person that reads it? On the topic of Drones, I believe a more defined Airspace is enough. Carve out simple rules and enforce those simple rules. the FAA today is over complicating the issue, and is putting in place rules that will do nothing to increase actual safety, or address any actual safety issue. The Registration for example is a massive privacy violation with no real world impact on safety. the FAA, like the FCC has mismanaged the public resource they were charged with managing.
Johnny555 11y ago
That's a downside to you, not to the FAA - they aren't responsible for your liberty unless you tell them that's their responsibility.

Ntrails 11y ago

Whilst I concur that there has to be a minimum risk level for something to require "the banhammer" I'm probably ok with that being a weighted result of probability and consequence. Which when it comes to planes in the US takes on an almost mythical level of fear for obvious reasons. Freedom to do as you please is not a real thing - you have to temper that freedom with the requirement to consider the impact on other people. Because you[1] are not special, and your freedoms are no more important than their freedoms. [1] Sorry I don't really mean to target at YOU but it's a narrative way to make the point. I'm sure you're very special <3

the_ancient 11y ago
>freedom to do as you please is not a real thing - you have to temper that freedom with the requirement to consider the impact on other people. Because you[1] are not special, and your freedoms are no more important than their freedoms. that can be a very dangerous statement depending on how you define or assess "impact on other people" To me, I should be free to do as I please unless my actions cause or can be proven to likely cause serious injury or death to another person, or cause actual articuable direct damage to another persons legally obtained property. When you say "impact" another person, that could mean me simply typing an controversial opinion into an online forum, should the government be allowed to ban my opinion simply because it "impacts" a person that reads it? On the topic of Drones, I believe a more defined Airspace is enough. Carve out simple rules and enforce those simple rules. the FAA today is over complicating the issue, and is putting in place rules that will do nothing to increase actual safety, or address any actual safety issue. The Registration for example is a massive privacy violation with no real world impact on safety. the FAA, like the FCC has mismanaged the public resource they were charged with managing.

Johnny555 11y ago

That's a downside to you, not to the FAA - they aren't responsible for your liberty unless you tell them that's their responsibility.