 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mark Sletten
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 43
Location: St. Jacob, IL (Near St. Louis, MO)
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:47 am Post subject: Cirruss Accident question |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Chuck Jensen wrote: Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since it has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to be of minimal harm to the commonweal. We live in a great country because (for the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to be harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a whole. In many other countries, the starting point is everything is prohibited unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it. |
And yet in your own words Chuck, you describe a nation, ours, where activities are “permitted.” The idea that any activity must pass public review before it’s “allowed” is the first step down the slippery slope we as a nation find ourselves – amid the bureaucracy that rules all our lives today.
In fact, it is not the “public” that grants us the privilege to fly; it is the Federal Aviation Administration – whose members aren’t elected by anyone. Indeed, as we all know, the vast “majority” you say granted our flying privileges hasn’t a clue what or how the FAA goes about its bureaucratic duties.
I don’t mean to beat up on you Chuck – this is a societal problem (in my opinion) that’s been developing for decades. The “public” has become so dependant on its – our – government to tell it when, how, why, where and who may or may not do what, it’s forgotten – in fact fears – what it means to act and think freely and independently.
I don’t believe myself either a purist or realist – I try not to be any “ist” if possible. But no one with open eyes can fail to see we, as a nation, HAVE given up rights in the name of security. We HAVE compromised to feel safer. I ask, safer from what?
The first time we agreed a nameless, baseless, ignorant, seemingly inarguable fear, a bogeyman, is sound basis to restrict ANY activity, we gave up the ideal – the very bedrock at the foundation of our nation – of individual liberty; liberty and freedom to pursue happiness without undue hassle by people, organizations, agencies and governments over whom we have no control.
The terrorists who’ve been attacking this nation for years understand something very clearly we as a free, comfortable and relatively safe society seem to have forgotten; once released from the depths of ignorant imagination, irrational fear is a powerful motivator. One feels motivated to do… something… anything… the classic fight or flight response. Our military efforts in the Middle East notwithstanding, I say we here at home have chosen to run away and hide. Rather than stand up, face our fears and acknowledge we can’t protect everyone all the time, we are trying to do just that.
It’s a hard habit to break… and one our government has engaged in for a long time. Helmet laws… seatbelt laws… any law you can think of that protects you from yourself is indicative of the problem. To argue against any “safety” law seems crazy and “out there,” but I would love to’ve been there had someone told General George Washington, one of the best horsemen of his time, he had to wear a helmet while galloping over the hills and thru the dales on one of his beloved fox hunts. What’s changed between now and then? Can we not allow people to choose their own level of risk?
I don’t argue there should be no restriction on activities that could result in harm to another; automobiles, tractor-trailers, boats, airplanes – they all have the potential to harm others not involved in their operation. But I say before we started writing laws we already had a system in place to deal with those situations where an operator might have acted negligently… the courts. The courts forced each and every one of us to exercise the RESPONSIBILITY inherent in our FREEDOM to restrict our own activities.
Our focus as a nation has changed though. Instead of allowing the pursuit of happiness and using the courts to punish those who act stupidly and negligently, we seek to restrict “dangerous” activity BEFORE any one is injured in the name of SAFETY. And this despite the fact that aircraft, boats, automobiles and even the three-wheeled ATVs now banned in our country can all be operated with relatively low risk to others – even if the risk is high the operator – so long as the operator understands his or her responsibility. Instead, we now count on the government to protect us. When something goes wrong, it’s someone else’s fault – and now the courts are relegated to determining if the manufacturer of a product or device successfully deduced, in advance, every possible asinine and irresponsible way its product might be used. It’s called Tort. Why do we do this?
Ask yourself, should you have to accept restrictions on your legitimate activities because of someone else’s irrational fear? I’m with George (Washington that is), it’s ludicrous… sad, ludicrous and very Orwellian.
The Declaration of Independence claimed, among other things, that people should be allowed to go about their lives unencumbered with restrictions imposed by a non-representative government – can you say FAA? It also says: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Why do we allow the FAA – or any other non-elected government institution – to dole out “privileges” that our forefathers considered inalienable rights? Because we, as a society (no offense to your Mr Jensen) are afraid… afraid of our birthright. Afraid of “unrestricted freedom.” The largesse of our hard-working forefathers has allowed us to become ignorant, lazy and apathetic – much like sheep protected from the wolves by the shepherd.
A free, law-abiding society can never be truly ruled by any government. Those in power know this. A government’s only power over its people is the power to punish. Bureaucrats know this instinctively. They know the only way they’ll have the power to punish is to make laws that are punishable. So maybe not on purpose, maybe not by design, but over a slow evolution, our government continues to make laws, regulations, rules and restrictions and creates a nation of punishable criminals. Can we remember them all? Remember, ignorance of the law isn’t a proper defense. Can you say IRS? And what about the laws we disregard on a regular basis? How many of you exceed the speed limit? Use twice the recommended fertilizer on the lawn? Take twice the dosage of Motrin when you have a particularly bad headache?
How much do we compromise before we say enough?
Please accept this as a criticism of society as a whole and not a tirade against you personally Chuck. Your comment sparked a deeply held personal belief that we as a nation have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the line. If we’re to get back on track we’ll have to act soon because I fear the point of no return is fast approaching.
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:36 am Post subject: Cirruss Accident question |
|
|
Mark Sletten wrote:
Chuck Jensen wrote:
| Quote: | | Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind |
| Quote: | | ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since it |
| Quote: | | has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to be of |
| Quote: | | minimal harm to the commonweal. We live in a great country because (for |
| Quote: | | the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to be |
| Quote: | | harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a whole. |
| Quote: | | In many other countries, the starting point is everything is prohibited |
| Quote: | | unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it. |
And yet in your own words Chuck, you describe a nation, ours, where activities are “permitted.” The idea that any activity must pass public review before it’s “allowed” is the first step down the slippery slope we as a nation find ourselves – amid the bureaucracy that rules all our lives today.
In fact, it is not the “public” that grants us the privilege to fly; it is the Federal Aviation Administration – whose members aren’t elected by anyone. Indeed, as we all know, the vast “majority” you say granted our flying privileges hasn’t a clue what or how the FAA goes about its bureaucratic duties.
[b]The FAA is not 'elected' but they are appointed by elected officials which is consistent with virtually every branch of government and must be so. There are millions of federal government employees, yet a few hundred, at most, are actually elected. These elected individuals are to speak and act on our behalf, so the FAA is not directly elected, but they draw their power and authority from the elected officials that are elected, so the FAA isn't illegitimate any more than the local medical examiner, high school principal, head of your state highway commission or the head of Homeland Security.[/b]
I don’t mean to beat up on you Chuck – this is a societal problem (in my opinion) that’s been developing for decades. The “public” has become so dependant on its – our – government to tell it when, how, why, where and who may or may not do what, it’s forgotten – in fact fears – what it means to act and think freely and independently.
People may be blinded by beliefs and strongly held beliefs that are not always based on fact, but I don't know that fear is causing people to speak out. I've not noticed any reticence on this forum. You and I can speak unkindly of the FAA without fear of a knock on the door (....for the most part).
I don’t believe myself either a purist or realist – I try not to be any “ist” if possible. But no one with open eyes can fail to see we, as a nation, HAVE given up rights in the name of security. We HAVE compromised to feel safer. I ask, safer from what?
The first time we agreed a nameless, baseless, ignorant, seemingly inarguable fear, a bogeyman, is sound basis to restrict ANY activity, we gave up the ideal – the very bedrock at the foundation of our nation – of individual liberty; liberty and freedom to pursue happiness without undue hassle by people, organizations, agencies and governments over whom we have no control.
The terrorists who’ve been attacking this nation for years understand something very clearly we as a free, comfortable and relatively safe society seem to have forgotten; once released from the depths of ignorant imagination, irrational fear is a powerful motivator. One feels motivated to do… something… anything… the classic fight or flight response. Our military efforts in the Middle East notwithstanding, I say we here at home have chosen to run away and hide. Rather than stand up, face our fears and acknowledge we can’t protect everyone all the time, we are trying to do just that.
Without commenting on those making spurious claims of having 'made us safe since 9/11', I believe the real reason for our safety is that very openness and freedom of our society that makes penetrating and operating in our society very difficult for those with bad intentions. After 9/11, I was concerned that our wide ranging freedoms would enable terrorist to treat us like setting pigeons. Instead, our tolerance, inclusiveness and receptiveness to new ideas and thoughts have left few small, isolated islands from which ideologs can operate without discovery. I can safely assure you that Homeland Security and the billions of dollars frittered away in its name is not what has made us safe....WE are what has made us safe. Yes, someday attach(s) will occur, but they will be news because of their infrequency.
It’s a hard habit to break… and one our government has engaged in for a long time. Helmet laws… seatbelt laws… any law you can think of that protects you from yourself is indicative of the problem. To argue against any “safety” law seems crazy and “out there,” but I would love to’ve been there had someone told General George Washington, one of the best horsemen of his time, he had to wear a helmet while galloping over the hills and thru the dales on one of his beloved fox hunts. What’s changed between now and then? Can we not allow people to choose their own level of risk?
Ah, yes, the helmet laws. The arguments are rampant about and individuals right to go ride a motorcycle, an estimably dangerous activity, without infringement on ones freedom by having to wear a helmet. The second round of the argument is 'if I want to scramble my brains is an accident, its my business." The problem is, it's not just YOUR business. When inarguable statistics show that the number and severity of head injuries escalate when helmets are not worn, then it becomes societies problem. The same statistics show that a relatively high fraction of motorcyclists that don't wear helmets also don't carry insurance, so when one's brains are scrambled, it is left to society to pick up the tab for hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars of medical costs for vegetable care. At that point, society/government gains a right, even obligation to say, 'if you are going to ride a motorcycle, known to be dangerous and cause serious head injuries, then you must wear a helmet that will mitigate, if not prevent such injuries.' And, even if the cyclist does have insurance to cover his medical costs, by not wearing a helmet (a minor infringement) and increasing the cost of his post-accident care, then he causes my premiums to increase. So, when an individual asserts a right to not have to wear a helmet, I would like to know what he is going to do to protect my rights to not have to pay for his extra medical costs? I'm not interested in banning motorcycles, so the compromise I'm willing to make is, if you'll wear a helmet required by law, I'll help pay for care. In the interest of full disclosure, I've owned three motorcycles. I enjoyed the heck out of them but with the wisdom gained with age, came to the conclusion that the pleasure gain did not compensate for the risk--in other words, I became a chicken.
I don’t argue there should be no restriction on activities that could result in harm to another; automobiles, tractor-trailers, boats, airplanes – they all have the potential to harm others not involved in their operation. But I say before we started writing laws we already had a system in place to deal with those situations where an operator might have acted negligently… the courts. The courts forced each and every one of us to exercise the RESPONSIBILITY inherent in our FREEDOM to restrict our own activities.
Our focus as a nation has changed though. Instead of allowing the pursuit of happiness and using the courts to punish those who act stupidly and negligently, we seek to restrict “dangerous” activity BEFORE any one is injured in the name of SAFETY. And this despite the fact that aircraft, boats, automobiles and even the three-wheeled ATVs now banned in our country can all be operated with relatively low risk to others – even if the risk is high the operator – so long as the operator understands his or her responsibility. Instead, we now count on the government to protect us. When something goes wrong, it’s someone else’s fault – and now the courts are relegated to determining if the manufacturer of a product or device successfully deduced, in advance, every possible asinine and irresponsible way its product might be used. It’s called Tort. Why do we do this?
In most instances, restricting activities before one is injured is based on an established pattern that those who have have already engaged in that activity were often injured. This is the well accepted safety measure of learning from other's mistakes so we don't have to repeat them. This is a prized behavior in the individual (and why we take extensive pilot training and read articles like "Never Again")--there is no reason that government shouldn't exhibit the same behavior wherein they discourage people from engaging in unnecessarily dangerous behavior.
Ask yourself, should you have to accept restrictions on your legitimate activities because of someone else’s irrational fear? I’m with George (Washington that is), it’s ludicrous… sad, ludicrous and very Orwellian.
The Declaration of Independence claimed, among other things, that people should be allowed to go about their lives unencumbered with restrictions imposed by a non-representative government – can you say FAA? It also says: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Yes, but as discussed, FAA is representative government, even if they don't always represent us in the fashion we think reasonable. As far as altering or abolishing government when it becomes destructive, that system is already in place....it's called elections. Just because elections don't always come out the way that we think they should, doesn't mean that they don't work. My election finger is already itchy and the 7th is still three weeks away!
Why do we allow the FAA – or any other non-elected government institution – to dole out “privileges” that our forefathers considered inalienable rights? Because we, as a society (no offense to your Mr Jensen) are afraid… afraid of our birthright. Afraid of “unrestricted freedom.” The largesse of our hard-working forefathers has allowed us to become ignorant, lazy and apathetic – much like sheep protected from the wolves by the shepherd.
Mark, you can be sure that I'm not offended. There are probably times I should be, but I'm not. The exchange of ideas and perspectives are never offending. Nor am I afraid of 'unrestricted freedom', though I have great reservations about other exercising their birthright, especially if owning a car, driving it, operating it in a wild manner and driving 85 mph through a school zone (all restricted by government) is considered one of those birthrights. Where does birthright and unrestricted freedom end and common sense and responsibility begin...that is what each individual and our government has to continually sort out. It's never easy and never ending, but claims of unlimited, unrestricted rights are unworkable--very attractive to the ear, but somewhat less attractive if put to practice.
A free, law-abiding society can never be truly ruled by any government. Those in power know this. A government’s only power over its people is the power to punish. Bureaucrats know this instinctively. They know the only way they’ll have the power to punish is to make laws that are punishable. So maybe not on purpose, maybe not by design, but over a slow evolution, our government continues to make laws, regulations, rules and restrictions and creates a nation of punishable criminals. Can we remember them all? Remember, ignorance of the law isn’t a proper defense. Can you say IRS? And what about the laws we disregard on a regular basis? How many of you exceed the speed limit? Use twice the recommended fertilizer on the lawn? Take twice the dosage of Motrin when you have a particularly bad headache?
Your reference to a 'law abiding society can never be ruled by government' is an interesting observation, particularly so when it was the Government that made the laws that are abided by in the first place. Rhetorically, how can we be free is we are abiding by the laws made by government? Are not those laws abridging our freedom? In short, the answer is yes, but it is a necessary compromise for an ordered, safe, free society. Government just happens to be the arbiter in the middle of all of our individual rights.
How much do we compromise before we say enough?
We compromise by allowing an ineffectual ADIZ around DC, but we say 'enough' when they try to make it permanent, knowing that future change of something that is temporary is always possible, but once permanent....well it's permanent, so that's when we through down the gauntlet.
Please accept this as a criticism of society as a whole and not a tirade against you personally Chuck. Your comment sparked a deeply held personal belief that we as a nation have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the line. If we’re to get back on track we’ll have to act soon because I fear the point of no return is fast approaching.
Mark, no personal criticism perceived. I share your concern that some wrong turns have been taken and I intend to grab the steering wheel on the 7th, but the greatness of this country is we are constantly turning. Despite continual predictions of our imminent 'going to hell in a hand basket', we still seem to be doing pretty well, at least in comparisons to most others.
Despite the viewpoints I've espoused, please know that I am NOT a fan of government..big, small or otherwise. I simply view it as a necessary evil that requires constant monitoring to see that it does it's job properly. As a recent comedic movie trailer states, 'politicians are like baby diapers...they both need to be changed regularly...and for the same reason.'
Chuck Jensen
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
[quote]
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Watson
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 290
Location: Seattle, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: Cirruss Accident question |
|
|
Excellent discussion of the issue of regulation, Mark. You may be familiar with a book with a title that escapes me at the moment, written by an economist maybe eight or ten years ago, that demonstrated that product safety evolved much faster in the absence of regulations than it does when we have such things as helmet, seatbelt, smoke detector and various other laws to protect us from our own ignorance (or worse). Certainly we can see it in certified vs. experimental aviation, but it applies across the board – food, housing, drugs, and all the other areas where a regulated economy freezes innovation at the last (hopefully) good idea before the bureaucracy decided to save us from ourselves. The flaw in their argument that is fatal to the great innovations that we will never see is that we are as reckless, ignorant, or just plain stupid as they are, or more generously, as they think we are.
But be aware that there are some on this list that some on this list that think plastic airplanes ought to be outlawed. (Just kidding……I hope!)
Terry
Do not archive
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:48 am Post subject: Cirruss Accident question |
|
|
In a message dated 10/15/2006 5:28:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, terry(at)tcwatson.com writes:
| Quote: |
Certainly we can see it in certified vs. experimental aviation, but it applies across the board – food, housing, drugs, and all the other areas where a regulated economy freezes innovation at the last (hopefully) good idea before the bureaucracy decided to save us from ourselves. The flaw in their argument that is fatal to the great innovations that we will never see is that we are as reckless, ignorant, or just plain stupid as they are, or more generously, as they think we are.
But be aware that there are some on this list that some on this list that think plastic airplanes ought to be outlawed. (Just kidding……I hope!)
Terry |
===========================================
Good points Terry:
It was just PLAIN OLD STUPIDITY. And one thing that we all should realize is "You cannot legislate common sense". If we could we would get rid of 95% of the politicians throughout our government. Yet, our common sense does not prevail ... We keep electing these big mouth idiots like Chuck Shulmer and Weiner. SOooo who are the stupid ones now?
As for your last statement ... We are NOT too far away; In, NJ we have Lautenberg he has been anti aviation ALL of his two lives in the Senate. And incase you haven't been keeping up with politics and the EPA, by 2010 they (Senate & EPA) have deemed (passed a law) ALL GAS will have ethanol ... ALL meaning AvGas also. How do you think that is going to affect the GA industry?
As a side note - Take a look at the number of APs, NJ use to have and how many now, only 25 to 30 years later, we lost about 65% ... Now look at how many pop-up sunburn communities NJ has now. And where were they built? We use to be know as "The Garden State". Now we are "Urban Sprawl", Highest Taxes in the Nation, Highest Car Insurance in the Nation and probably the Highest Corruption in the Nation.
Sorry to get political, but politicians have learned how to fight ... Attack the small guy who as they see it ... Has money to burn.
We do not have the size, power or money as say the NRA. We are the small unorganized guy.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: Cirruss Accident question |
|
|
You guys should have been recycled back to beer cans a long time ago. I know of no plastic airplanes. (yes.. I'm kidding also)
Bruce
www.glasair.org
[quote]
--
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
