3 ms·

I can't imagine why you're being downvoted. This is the most important part of the discussion. We cannot abide a society in which the state claims domain over

by jMyles 12y ago

I can't imagine why you're being downvoted. This is the most important part of the discussion. We cannot abide a society in which the state claims domain over all the air. The FCC already does this in a sense with airwaves.

cylinder 12y ago
What? That's what government does. Government represents people and regulates what people can and cannot do with land, sky, water, oil, gas, each other, themselves, etc. Are you an anarchist?
- jrockway 12y ago
  And I'm sure he'll be the first to want the government to step in when his hotel starts blocking personal hotspots. Regulation is not a bad thing. Sometimes long-term planning is required.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    > And I'm sure he'll be the first to want the government to step in when his hotel starts blocking personal hotspots. Why do you say this? When have I ever indicated this? If it is possible for a hotel to block RF that I want to transmit or receive, then obviously I have checked into the wrong hotel.
- jMyles 12y ago
  > Are you an anarchist? I don't think it's quite that simple. I like simple, pragmatic solutions. Generally, yes, I think that the internet(s) will replace government, and I think that this situation is desirable. I'm concerned that the government will arm the skies and that the people on the ground will become targets. I think that's a reasonable concern. It makes more sense to me to ban weapons in the skies altogether. Whatever happens, I think it's important that there's one set of rules for everyone, whether they happen to be acting on behalf of the 'state' or not.
untog 12y ago
What exactly is the alternative to the state claiming domain over all the air? Everyone owns the air rights above their property? I'd love to see how those negotiations work out when you want to land a plane.
- stevesearer 12y ago
  I'm curious at what point ones property line ends vertically both above and beneath ground level. People are able to build structures in both directions at great depths and elevations in the cases of mines and skyscrapers. Perhaps in the case of airplanes flying or building a subway system there is just some sort of easement or eminent domain ruling applied? If anyone has some resources on this topic, I'd be interested in reading them.
- jMyles 12y ago
  I imagine that there will be an array of property arrangements. The important part, though, is that there's one set of rules that applies to everybody. Not "no weapons" unless you claim to be "the State" and then suddenly you can shoot pepper spray and TASER cartridges from the sky.
panzagl 12y ago
Wow, you'll really flip when you find out you find out about mineral and water rights.

by jMyles 12y ago

cylinder 12y ago

What? That's what government does. Government represents people and regulates what people can and cannot do with land, sky, water, oil, gas, each other, themselves, etc. Are you an anarchist?

jrockway 12y ago
And I'm sure he'll be the first to want the government to step in when his hotel starts blocking personal hotspots. Regulation is not a bad thing. Sometimes long-term planning is required.
- jMyles 12y ago
  > And I'm sure he'll be the first to want the government to step in when his hotel starts blocking personal hotspots. Why do you say this? When have I ever indicated this? If it is possible for a hotel to block RF that I want to transmit or receive, then obviously I have checked into the wrong hotel.
jMyles 12y ago
> Are you an anarchist? I don't think it's quite that simple. I like simple, pragmatic solutions. Generally, yes, I think that the internet(s) will replace government, and I think that this situation is desirable. I'm concerned that the government will arm the skies and that the people on the ground will become targets. I think that's a reasonable concern. It makes more sense to me to ban weapons in the skies altogether. Whatever happens, I think it's important that there's one set of rules for everyone, whether they happen to be acting on behalf of the 'state' or not.

untog 12y ago

What exactly is the alternative to the state claiming domain over all the air? Everyone owns the air rights above their property? I'd love to see how those negotiations work out when you want to land a plane.

stevesearer 12y ago
I'm curious at what point ones property line ends vertically both above and beneath ground level. People are able to build structures in both directions at great depths and elevations in the cases of mines and skyscrapers. Perhaps in the case of airplanes flying or building a subway system there is just some sort of easement or eminent domain ruling applied? If anyone has some resources on this topic, I'd be interested in reading them.
jMyles 12y ago
I imagine that there will be an array of property arrangements. The important part, though, is that there's one set of rules that applies to everybody. Not "no weapons" unless you claim to be "the State" and then suddenly you can shoot pepper spray and TASER cartridges from the sky.

panzagl 12y ago

Wow, you'll really flip when you find out you find out about mineral and water rights.