Privileges vs. Rights.

[Garb]

Whatever. You're equivocating. I'm not playing.

How are the issues any different really? How about we punish the stupid actions instead of everybody who happens to be flying a plane, or for that matter, carrying a gun. If you act irresponsibly, take it away. Otherwise, let them be.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

How are the issues any different really? How about we punish the stupid actions instead of everybody who happens to be flying a plane, or for that matter, carrying a gun. If you act irresponsibly, take it away. Otherwise, let them be.

More straw men. How are we punishing anyone by saying that before you fly a plane over people's homes, businesses, and with other air traffic we would like to know that you know how to do it; that you are medically capable; that the plane you are flying is known to be airworthy; and that you have insurance in case there's an accident?

The jump from reasonable regulation of flying to carrying a gun is illogical. The issues are different by scope, complexity, and risk.

So are you promoting no regulation of anything? In what case do you believe that government preemption is reasonable?

 

[Garb]

More straw men. How are we punishing anyone by saying that before you fly a plane over people's homes, businesses, and with other air traffic we would like to know that you know how to do it; that you are medically capable; that the plane you are flying is known to be airworthy; and that you have insurance in case there's an accident?

The jump from reasonable regulation of flying to carrying a gun is illogical. The issues are different by scope, complexity, and risk.

So are you promoting no regulation of anything? In what case do you believe that government preemption is reasonable?

I guess it honestly depends on where the plane is being flown. In the middle of BFE, it's definitely a different story than it is in the city. On that note, I would consider it trespassing for someone to fly a cropduster through the airpsace on my property without my permission. So it would really be more of an ordinance issue. I definitely see what you're saying, but the government having complete control over whether or not I can fly a plane is over the top imo.

 

[Limpy88]

you guys keep bringing up home schools. you would have to be an idiot not to know about that. i was talking about public schools which most of the the ppl in the us attend. granted i didnt say it out right. i just assumed it that ppl understand what i meant.

 

[cadan]

The jump from reasonable regulation of flying to carrying a gun is illogical. The issues are different by scope, complexity, and risk.

The above sounds very utilitarian. IMHO this method is building on shaky ground. It is better to adopt and follow a principled approach to what is permissible and what is not. The human mind is very creative, and is very, very good at invent scenarios, fictitious or real, to step from one issue to another in other in such a way as to reveal the inconsistencies in utilitarian approaches.

So are you promoting no regulation of anything? In what case do you believe that government preemption is reasonable?

I would like to propose that the idea of rights is should normally be stated in the reverse of how it is. There is a positive and negative way to speak of rights: (1) I have a right to ___, or (2) I do not have a right to ____.

I think generally rights should not be thought of in the first (positive sense), but the latter negative sense. The trouble with the first way (e.g. "I have a right to health care") is that it is so easily misunderstood to mean that people have a valid claim to receive or act upon something. This can lead to all sorts of contradictions. I think we are better off thinking in terms of a "negative" right. Thus one should not say "I have a right to health care", but rather "I do not have the right to regulate the health care of someone else", or more generally "government does not have the right to regulate and/or administer the health care of a citizen."

In general, we should say that no one has the right to regulate or control the property belonging to someone else. Thus, yes I would affirm preemption should be rejected. So it was asked "Can someone fly a junk airplane over my house, in air I have not homesteaded and do not own?" A:Yes, but if he does crash and damage my property, then we will have a court case, and a settlement will follow in which restitution for damages would be made. The general concern of liability is, in my opinion, sufficient for an orderly society, although some sort of a debtors prison may be involved.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The above sounds very utilitarian. IMHO this method is building on shaky ground. It is better to adopt and follow a principled approach to what is permissible and what is not. The human mind is very creative, and is very, very good at invent scenarios, fictitious or real, to step from one issue to another in other in such a way as to reveal the inconsistencies in utilitarian approaches.

Your approach is on shaky ground. Saying A is not permitted therefore neither is B is a logical fallacy. Justifying that premise through a classification of method does not change the flawed premise.

I would like to propose that the idea of rights is should normally be stated in the reverse of how it is. There is a positive and negative way to speak of rights: (1) I have a right to ___, or (2) I do not have a right to ____.

I think generally rights should not be thought of in the first (positive sense), but the latter negative sense. The trouble with the first way (e.g. "I have a right to health care") is that it is so easily misunderstood to mean that people have a valid claim to receive or act upon something. This can lead to all sorts of contradictions. I think we are better off thinking in terms of a "negative" right. Thus one should not say "I have a right to health care", but rather "I do not have the right to regulate the health care of someone else", or more generally "government does not have the right to regulate and/or administer the health care of a citizen."

In general, we should say that no one has the right to regulate or control the property belonging to someone else. Thus, yes I would affirm preemption should be rejected. So it was asked "Can someone fly a junk airplane over my house, in air I have not homesteaded and do not own?" A:Yes, but if he does crash and damage my property, then we will have a court case, and a settlement will follow in which restitution for damages would be made. The general concern of liability is, in my opinion, sufficient for an orderly society, although some sort of a debtors prison may be involved.

Wordy. Interesting. Incorrect.

While the construct of your propositions are inverse, your application is not. Substuituting "government" for "I" changes the meaning of the proposition. Further, government has no rights - it has powers. It has the power to regulate behavior to reduce risk. We (more correctly our forefathers) ceded that power to the collective when the Constitution was ratified.

The proper inverse to your posit is "do the people have an interest in prohibiting certain behaviors, and therefore does the government have the power to regulate an action". There can be no debate that the people have a vested interest to ensure you cannot fly an airplane into your neighbor's home. It debatable whether you have the right to fly your own plane over your own property. Would that there were a net or some other barrier preventing your escape from the confines of your property, I would support the supposition that yes, you have a right to fly over your own property. As no such barrier exists (nor can it exist), we are back to the first question.

As to a court case, the consequences of your neighbor flying his unairworthy plane into your home and killing you or your family member(s) is so grave and irreversible that limited proactive prohibition and sanctions are warranted. Namely, that you have proof of knowledge how to operate your plane, proof that it has been sufficiently maintained, that you are insured, and any other reasonable regulation as be deemed by experts in the field. Are any and all restrictions reasonable? No. But neither is no restrictions.

Government sets policy. It is necessarily uniform, as you cannot have one standard for Peter and another for Paul. Where there is a need for regulation, it must be applied equally. This is required if for not other reason than our Constitution demands it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Flying is a right if you're a bird or a bat. Even if you own the plane and the ground that you take off and land on, you don't own the airspace. The people of the United States do. Just like the people of the United States own the road system. You requrie a license to use the roads administered by various levels of government. The same exists for flying. You require a pilot's license. Proof you are insured. Proof of medical fitness to fly, Proof your plane is fit to fly. If you don't have these things, you have to fly with someone who does.

Radio communications is analogous to flying. The people of the United States own the airwaves. Certain frequencies are reserved for certain types of devices. Without standards and restrictions in place devices like the television and cell phone would be impossible to build or use. Without protected spectrums who would build a radio business of any type? It would be an unmanagable and unworkable system.

I'm not a ham operator, but I would think if I had invested a ton of money for equipment I wouldn't want somone just going out and buying a radio and trampling on my comm. There are free ranging spectrum available for general use by people who don't know or wish to learn proper HAM etiquitte. Why is separate but equal in this case somehow infringing? I haven't put great thought into it but on the surface it seems practical and reasonable to restrict certain radio frequencies to specific use.

Licenses were not always required to use the roadways, you have in inalienable right to travel by what ever means you can afford, the gas you purchase is taxed and it is taxed heavily. If I need to work in Indy I have a right to work and a right to travel there and should not be charged a tax and required to get a license. NEEDING A LICENSE FOR DRIVING IS NO DIFFERENT THEN NEEDING A LICENSE TO OWN OR CARRY A FIREARM. YOU SHOULD NEED NEITHER.

 

[Bunnykid68]

More straw men. How are we punishing anyone by saying that before you fly a plane over people's homes, businesses, and with other air traffic we would like to know that you know how to do it; that you are medically capable; that the plane you are flying is known to be airworthy; and that you have insurance in case there's an accident?

The jump from reasonable regulation of flying to carrying a gun is illogical. The issues are different by scope, complexity, and risk.

So are you promoting no regulation of anything? In what case do you believe that government preemption is reasonable?

I have never conversed with you before, but I assume you carry a weapon on your person. How do I know that you are a person that should be carrying a weapon of any type? Because the STATE said you are ok? Crazy people all the time are approved by our completely unflawed Government and do irresponsible things all the time. I do not mean to yank your chain, but until I prove I shouldnt be doing something doesnt mean you should keep me from doing something.

Also assuming you have served this once great country, I thank you on behalf of myself and my family.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Licenses were not always required to use the roadways, you have in inalienable right to travel by what ever means you can afford, the gas you purchase is taxed and it is taxed heavily. If I need to work in Indy I have a right to work and a right to travel there and should not be charged a tax and required to get a license. NEEDING A LICENSE FOR DRIVING IS NO DIFFERENT THEN NEEDING A LICENSE TO OWN OR CARRY A FIREARM. YOU SHOULD NEED NEITHER.

Umm... No.

They are no different except that the right to keep and bare arms (not own and carry firearms BTW) is guaranteed by the Constitution while that same document is silent to any supposed right to operate a vehicle on public property without a license.

Now you can say that cars didn't exist when the Constitution was written and you'd be correct. But by making that claim you would posit that the Constitution is a living document open to interpretation based on prevailing and evolving community standards. Is that really what you mean?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Nope, they had horses and carriages and a right to travel freely. But since we built roads you would say I do not have a right to travel unless I had some arse sitting in a DMV saying I was qualified?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I have never conversed with you before, but I assume you carry a weapon on your person. How do I know that you are a person that should be carrying a weapon of any type? Because the STATE said you are ok? Crazy people all the time are approved by our completely unflawed Government and do irresponsible things all the time. I do not mean to yank your chain, but until I prove I shouldnt be doing something doesnt mean you should keep me from doing something.

Also assuming you have served this once great country, I thank you on behalf of myself and my family.

I'm not sure where you were going with your statement.

I don't carry a weapon. I carry several.

The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has ruled that you must be a proper person in order to exercise that right. The Federal government has exerted its power to limit the weapons that qualify. I legally own and possess most everything that is generally restricted. I accept these restrictions only because the futile attempt to challenge them could result in 10 years in prision. I don't have enough rides around the rock left that I am willing to take such a risk for no apparent payback. Therefore I've decided to play by their rules.

According to the law I am a proper person with the proper arms. What you do or do not know about me is irrelevent.

I don't know how this ties to believing that you shouldn't fly a plane over someone else's house if you lack any of the things I've listed previously.

I appreciate your thanks for defending this still great nation.

 

[cadan]

It has the power to regulate behavior to reduce risk. We (more correctly our forefathers) ceded that power to the collective when the Constitution was ratified.

Of course, our topic here is not what the government has the power to do, bur rather the rightful authority to do. Although I have a favorable opinion of the founding fathers and constitution, I do not see it as means of making the point you want to here. The reason is that it is not a document that I nor any other citizen living today signed as a contract and agreed to, so why then shall we consider ourselves, especially as citizens, bound by it? From where can one claim certain individuals, even via elections (50%+1) derive any right to regulate the affairs of others? Granted, one may say the politicans have "sworn to uphold and defend the consitution", so their actions are limited to that which the constituation authorizes - or they violate their oath. But even if i conceed everything above, it would fall short if the constitution does not authorize the government to regulated behavior to reduce risk. I don't recall that it did so, am I forgetting something?

The proper inverse to your posit is "do the people have an interest in prohibiting certain behaviors, and therefore does the government have the power to regulate an action[?]".

No.

There can be no debate that the people have a vested interest to ensure you cannot fly an airplane into your neighbor's home.

But nothing is ever going to ensure this. One can reduce the probability of this happening through regulations, etc, but it cannot eliminate the possibility. So when does do you posit individual rights trump societies or vice versa? When an accident has a one in ten chance of affecting someone else adversely? one in a hundred? one in ten thousand? one in a million? one in a trillion?

As to a court case, the consequences of your neighbor flying his unairworthy plane into your home and killing you or your family member(s) is so grave and irreversible that limited proactive prohibition and sanctions are warranted.

All of us are going to die sooner or later. The risk we face that the time comes sooner or later is simply a reality of life. Someone said: If a man sheds blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Life for Life. The consequences of accidents are severe, but such a deterrent factor is sufficient.

Government sets policy. It is necessarily uniform, as you cannot have one standard for Peter and another for Paul.

Again, yes government does this, but we are speaking here of what ought to be, and not what is. Private property is precisely that concept or institution which enables decentralization of power, and removal of a one-size fits all approach. When each person is sovereign over his property and affairs, and does not regulate others, there is liberty and as well of a state of affairs as we could hope for.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Another thought. I get said Driver License when I am 16, do I really need to keep renewing it every few years to make people feel better or is it just a way to gather funds for the State, much like renewing said gun permit? I proved 34 years ago in the States eyes I was ok to drive, what has changed? Other than the fact I have gotten older and I do not think most people 16 years old should not be driving. They are kids, they lack several rights that us adults enjoy.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Nope, they had horses and carriages and a right to travel freely. But since we built roads you would say I do not have a right to travel unless I had some arse sitting in a DMV saying I was qualified?

You still have a right to travel freely. Except in very limited circumstances you are not required to obtain permission before travelling from place to place. You may travel via any legal means of conveyance you can afford. You may be a passenger in a car without owning the vehicle, providing its insurance, or obtaining a license. If however you intend or actually operate the vehicle on open roads, you must necessarily submit to licensing.

Licensing is not an onerous restriction of any right since such rights do not exist. It is a required step in the process to securing the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

 

[rambone]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Bill of Rights]

More straw men. How are we punishing anyone by saying that before you fly a plane over people's homes, businesses, and with other air traffic we would like to know that you know how to do it; that you are medically capable; that the plane you are flying is known to be airworthy; and that you have insurance in case there's an accident?

The jump from reasonable regulation of flying to carrying a gun is illogical. The issues are different by scope, complexity, and risk.

So are you promoting no regulation of anything? In what case do you believe that government preemption is reasonable?

The thought that comes to mind for me, SFUSMC, is "prior restraint". It's not strictly correct, but speaking generally, the requirement of a license, prior knowledge of ability, medical clearance, vehicle clearance, insurance, etc. are all limitations on a right, the right of travel or of fair use of one's own property. In the example of the 10K acre farm and the cropduster, the pilot might unsafely fly the plane off the property and into the neighbor's house... of course, the same thing did happen a year or so ago in Anderson, when a medical helicopter crashed into someone's property. Fortunately, there were no deaths. All of the items you cited (as per my condensed listing of them), with the replacement of "firearm" for "vehicle", have been proposed by gun banners as controls upon our lawful behavior. This is not an abstract exercise: mandatory firearms training, mandatory licensure, verification of health (albeit mental, and that definition is nebulous), "firearm safety inspections", or so they're called so that the serial number and the owners name can be recorded by police, insurance requirements that were discussed and perhaps enforced in Chicago in light of the McDonald ruling. Frankly, I don't care what anyone would like to know before I exercise one or all of my rights; what he, she, they, or you would like to know is irrelevant to the existence of the right and my choice to exercise it. When my exercise of my rights affects you,(i.e. the proverbial swinging of the fist and the end of your nose), then it is your rights that matter. You may call this strawmanning, but the logic is identical, and while travel by plane is not specifically in the Constitution, the 9A says it doesn't need to be, while the 10A specifies that unless that power is granted the fed. gov in the Constitution, it is not theirs on which to speak. Sadly, the fact that something merely exists is taken to mean that it affects interstate commerce and thus is actionable by Congress.

The above sounds very utilitarian. IMHO this method is building on shaky ground. It is better to adopt and follow a principled approach to what is permissible and what is not. The human mind is very creative, and is very, very good at invent scenarios, fictitious or real, to step from one issue to another in other in such a way as to reveal the inconsistencies in utilitarian approaches.



I would like to propose that the idea of rights is should normally be stated in the reverse of how it is. There is a positive and negative way to speak of rights: (1) I have a right to ___, or (2) I do not have a right to ____.

I think generally rights should not be thought of in the first (positive sense), but the latter negative sense. The trouble with the first way (e.g. "I have a right to health care") is that it is so easily misunderstood to mean that people have a valid claim to receive or act upon something. This can lead to all sorts of contradictions. I think we are better off thinking in terms of a "negative" right. Thus one should not say "I have a right to health care", but rather "I do not have the right to regulate the health care of someone else", or more generally "government does not have the right to regulate and/or administer the health care of a citizen."

In general, we should say that no one has the right to regulate or control the property belonging to someone else. Thus, yes I would affirm preemption should be rejected. So it was asked "Can someone fly a junk airplane over my house, in air I have not homesteaded and do not own?" A:Yes, but if he does crash and damage my property, then we will have a court case, and a settlement will follow in which restitution for damages would be made. The general concern of liability is, in my opinion, sufficient for an orderly society, although some sort of a debtors prison may be involved.

^^This. If harm is done, liability is present. (Though as SFUSMC points out correctly, gov't has no rights at all, only powers and the correct term we should use, IMHO, is "authority", for gov't has much power, mostly abused and unauthorized by the Constitution)

Wordy. Interesting. Incorrect.

While the construct of your propositions are inverse, your application is not. Substuituting "government" for "I" changes the meaning of the proposition. Further, government has no rights - it has powers. It has the power to regulate behavior to reduce risk. We (more correctly our forefathers) ceded that power to the collective when the Constitution was ratified.

The proper inverse to your posit is "do the people have an interest in prohibiting certain behaviors, and therefore does the government have the power to regulate an action". There can be no debate that the people have a vested interest to ensure you cannot fly an airplane into your neighbor's home. It debatable whether you have the right to fly your own plane over your own property. Would that there were a net or some other barrier preventing your escape from the confines of your property, I would support the supposition that yes, you have a right to fly over your own property. As no such barrier exists (nor can it exist), we are back to the first question.

As to a court case, the consequences of your neighbor flying his unairworthy plane into your home and killing you or your family member(s) is so grave and irreversible that limited proactive prohibition and sanctions are warranted. Namely, that you have proof of knowledge how to operate your plane, proof that it has been sufficiently maintained, that you are insured, and any other reasonable regulation as be deemed by experts in the field. Are any and all restrictions reasonable? No. But neither is no restrictions.

Government sets policy. It is necessarily uniform, as you cannot have one standard for Peter and another for Paul. Where there is a need for regulation, it must be applied equally. This is required if for not other reason than our Constitution demands it.

Our forefathers ceded the power to regulate behavior to reduce risk in the Constitution? Please specify what you mean; I'm not being argumentative here, I just want to know to what Article and Section you refer.

You claim it is not debatable that the people have a vested interest in the exercise of rights. I disagree- I debate it. Until the exercise of those rights affects them, as above, they have no say. Your example of the net or barrier is concerning. It sounds like you're saying that individuals must be "properly" corralled, fenced, and controlled from without like cattle, but that within those bounds, they may do what they wish. This sounds like giving a child a choice of "You can wear the yellow shirt or the blue one" when the child wants to wear his Spider Man pajama top instead...while that's fitting for a parent to control and guide his/her own child, it is not fitting for government to do so to the citizens who create it and who it is supposed to serve.

Insofar as your court case, let us suppose that you have a plane, license, insurance, yadda yadda... jumped through all the hoops. Last week, you forgot to pay the insurance on it, and the policy has been cancelled. Not realizing this, you take your plane up, God forbid, some mishap occurs, and it crashes into my home. Hypothetically, you do not survive. Your estate has some assets, but nowhere near enough to pay to rebuild my home. What good has all of the precaution and government assurance and safety and whatever done to guarantee me or anyone anything? I submit that all of the regulation is solely feel-good crapola that assures no one of anything. Since it does not do what it was designed to do, why do we keep it? Solely because that is the paradigm to which we're accustomed?

...They are no different except that the right to keep and bare arms (not own and carry firearms BTW)...

How do you differentiate keeping from owning and bearing from carrying? Again, not being argumentative, I'm curious as to your definitions, especially in light of what I think I recall from the oral arguments in Heller, that to bear and to carry were the same and to keep and to own, likewise.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Radio communications is analogous to flying. The people of the United States own the airwaves. Certain frequencies are reserved for certain types of devices. Without standards and restrictions in place devices like the television and cell phone would be impossible to build or use. Without protected spectrums who would build a radio business of any type? It would be an unmanagable and unworkable system.

I'm not a ham operator, but I would think if I had invested a ton of money for equipment I wouldn't want somone just going out and buying a radio and trampling on my comm. There are free ranging spectrum available for general use by people who don't know or wish to learn proper HAM etiquitte. Why is separate but equal in this case somehow infringing? I haven't put great thought into it but on the surface it seems practical and reasonable to restrict certain radio frequencies to specific use.

I answered the other posts, forgetting I meant to come back to this one first.

What would be the incentive to create a radio business? I suppose, like any other matter, we can deal in persuasion or we can deal in force. If you and I each start a radio business and we both want a specific frequency, I suppose we could each come to the table and make a deal or we could share the channel like everyone else has to do or we could both change and instead of 92.7 mHz, you could you 92.9 and I, 92.5. This is what happens when people work together. Instead, we have force of government requiring this and mandating that.

You said you're not a HAM operator, and this is evident. No insult in that, BTW. (I hold an Extra license, but my only transceiver is a little 2m handheld, so I don't consider myself an operator, either, though I'm familiar with the agreed-upon rules-of-the-road, so to speak.) On those frequencies, whoever is there first has priority; even if I have a weekly or even a daily "net" on a specific frequency, if someone else is there first, I can ask them to change or I can change... I have no ability to force them to do so, nor do they have the ability to force me. It's simple etiquette. For this reason, regular nets have multiple redundancies in place... "If we can't meet on this frequency, we'll be on that one. If not there, then here. If not here, then thus. Further, the band plan is not defined by government but rather by the amateur community. Is there anything stopping someone with a "technician" license from transmitting on "extra" frequencies? Nope. If he's caught doing so, the FCC can pull his license, but nothing is stopping him from doing it even then.

In the final analysis, it's been said before that government is force. While there is a place (a small one) for force to be appropriate, I am of the belief that persuasion, etiquette, and common decency are preferable methods for people to interact.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The thought that comes to mind for me, SFUSMC, is "prior restraint". It's not strictly correct, but speaking generally, the requirement of a license, prior knowledge of ability, medical clearance, vehicle clearance, insurance, etc. are all limitations on a right, the right of travel or of fair use of one's own property. In the example of the 10K acre farm and the cropduster, the pilot might unsafely fly the plane off the property and into the neighbor's house... of course, the same thing did happen a year or so ago in Anderson, when a medical helicopter crashed into someone's property. Fortunately, there were no deaths. All of the items you cited (as per my condensed listing of them), with the replacement of "firearm" for "vehicle", have been proposed by gun banners as controls upon our lawful behavior. This is not an abstract exercise: mandatory firearms training, mandatory licensure, verification of health (albeit mental, and that definition is nebulous), "firearm safety inspections", or so they're called so that the serial number and the owners name can be recorded by police, insurance requirements that were discussed and perhaps enforced in Chicago in light of the McDonald ruling. Frankly, I don't care what anyone would like to know before I exercise one or all of my rights; what he, she, they, or you would like to know is irrelevant to the existence of the right and my choice to exercise it. When my exercise of my rights affects you,(i.e. the proverbial swinging of the fist and the end of your nose), then it is your rights that matter. You may call this strawmanning, but the logic is identical, and while travel by plane is not specifically in the Constitution, the 9A says it doesn't need to be, while the 10A specifies that unless that power is granted the fed. gov in the Constitution, it is not theirs on which to speak. Sadly, the fact that something merely exists is taken to mean that it affects interstate commerce and thus is actionable by Congress.

I'm having trouble keeping up with all the fallacies Bill. Flying an airplane over public property or private property (not your own) and driving a car on public roads HAS NEVER BEEN DECLARED A RIGHT. I challenge anyone to produce evidence to the contrary. Evidence. No circular arguments. No strawmen. No equivicating. No red herrings. No appeals to emotion, fear, ridicule, popularity or spite. Not 90 year old BS rulings from Virginia where the text of the decision is not available for scrutiny. Real evidence. So to start off I reject the premise that it is a right. Could it be determined to be one? Sure. But not based on any existing evidence I've seen.

Now as Blackhawk pointed out there are areas where you can fly (generally under 1200 feet) your own plane (ultralight-class) and with within unrestricted air space (not controlled by airports, not over populated areas, etc.) So the issue is moot. There are areas you can fly without license, maintenance records, insurance and other items needed to fly in restricted airspace.

The continual attempt to associate flying / driving licensing and firearms restriction is nothing but a red herring intended to appeal to emotion.

^^This. If harm is done, liability is present. (Though as SFUSMC points out correctly, gov't has no rights at all, only powers and the correct term we should use, IMHO, is "authority", for gov't has much power, mostly abused and unauthorized by the Constitution)

You may not like the word power and favor the word authority. The Founders disagreed. In fact they are not synonomous. Authority derives from and is dependent on power. You have no authority unless you first have power. The Constitution uses the word power 48 times. The word authority 8. No where is the word authority used in place of the word power, nor vis versa. Waxing eloquente does not alter the meaning of words.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in the Constuitution or you don't. I do.

Our forefathers ceded the power to regulate behavior to reduce risk in the Constitution? Please specify what you mean; I'm not being argumentative here, I just want to know to what Article and Section you refer.

Section 8 of the federal Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment (State's Rights) reserves all powers not delegated to the Constitution to the States. Powers. Not authority. Under the federal Constitution states are free to regulate however they choose as long as they do so within Constitutional parameters. Namely, that states not encroach on federal powers. Again, this is the governmental system our founders established.

There can be reasonable restriction of activities by the people, through their government. There are too many such restrictions, but to claim it must be all or nothing is a fallacious argument.

You claim it is not debatable that the people have a vested interest in the exercise of rights. I disagree. I debate it. Until the exercise of those rights affects them, as above, they have no say. Your example of the net or barrier is concerning. It sounds like you're saying that individuals must be "properly" corralled, fenced, and controlled from without like cattle, but that within those bounds, they may do what they wish. This sounds like giving a child a choice of "You can wear the yellow shirt or the blue one when the child wants to wear his Spider Man pajama top instead...while that's fitting for a parent to control and guide his/her own child, it is not fitting for government to do so to the citizens who create it and who it is supposed to serve.

Again, I reject the premise that rights exist where there are none. Unless and until rights heretofore nonexistent are found to exist, everything else is irrelevent.

Insofar as your court case, let us suppose that you have a plane, license, insurance, yadda yadda... jumped through all the hoops. Last week, you forgot to pay the insurance on it, and the policy has been cancelled. Not realizing this, you take your plane up, God forbid, some mishap occurs, and it crashes into my home. Hypothetically, you do not survive. Your estate has some assets, but nowhere near enough to pay to rebuild my home. What good has all of the precaution and government assurance and safety and whatever done to guarantee me or anyone anything? I submit that all of the regulation is solely feel-good crapola that assures no one of anything. Since it does not do what it was designed to do, why do we keep it? Solely because that is the paradigm to which we're accustomed?

Again, the red herring flys overhead.

...They are no different except that the right to keep and bare arms (not own and carry firearms BTW)...

How do you differentiate keeping from owning and bearing from carrying? Again, not being argumentative, I'm curious as to your definitions, especially in light of what I think I recall from the oral arguments in Heller, that to bear and to carry were the same and to keep and to own, likewise.

The claim was that the Constitution guaranteed the right to own and carry. The Constitution uses the words keep and bear arms. I was merely pointing out the difference between the claim and the truth.

Blessings,
Bill

I answered the other posts, forgetting I meant to come back to this one first.

What would be the incentive to create a radio business? I suppose, like any other matter, we can deal in persuasion or we can deal in force. If you and I each start a radio business and we both want a specific frequency, I suppose we could each come to the table and make a deal or we could share the channel like everyone else has to do or we could both change and instead of 92.7 mHz, you could you 92.9 and I, 92.5. This is what happens when people work together. Instead, we have force of government requiring this and mandating that.

We have government exerting authority to regulate an asset (radio waves) owned by the people. Would that it were as easy as let's all just get along. It isn't.

You said you're not a HAM operator, and this is evident. No insult in that, BTW. (I hold an Extra license, but my only transceiver is a little 2m handheld, so I don't consider myself an operator, either, though I'm familiar with the agreed-upon rules-of-the-road, so to speak.) On those frequencies, whoever is there first has priority; even if I have a weekly or even a daily "net" on a specific frequency, if someone else is there first, I can ask them to change or I can change... I have no ability to force them to do so, nor do they have the ability to force me. It's simple etiquette. For this reason, regular nets have multiple redundancies in place... "If we can't meet on this frequency, we'll be on that one. If not there, then here. If not here, then thus. Further, the band plan is not defined by government but rather by the amateur community. Is there anything stopping someone with a "technician" license from transmitting on "extra" frequencies? Nope. If he's caught doing so, the FCC can pull his license, but nothing is stopping him from doing it even then.

It's good that HAM operators tend to cooperate. What if they didn't? You rely on the goodness of others. Others who by the way have licenses to operate if I'm correct.

In the final analysis, it's been said before that government is force. While there is a place (a small one) for force to be appropriate, I am of the belief that persuasion, etiquette, and common decency are preferable methods for people to interact.

I too am all for unicorns and cotton candy. That is not the world we live in. At some point we must acknowledge reality, if only for sanity's sake.

Blessings,
Bill

I think we fundementally disagree on the definition of right. I believe declaring a right requires an analysis of impact to and on others. If there is no impact, the action or bevahior is a right. If there is potential that it can impact others, depending on the severity of the impact it may or may not be a right. It may be a privilige. It may necessitate some level of regulation by the people. It may be prohibited. These are all drawn out in analyzing the action and consequences.

I am not saying you have to prove something a right, but rather consider all aspects of the outcomes of engaing in a behavior before deciding so. You appear to declare everything a right and then place the burden of proof on others why they should enfringe your rights. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

The divergence in our positions make it interesting for debate.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This just from Wikipedia, but there were cars on public roads before licenses were required by the State.
The first driver's license of sorts was issued to the inventor of the modern automobile, Karl Benz, in 1888. Because the noise and smell of his Motorwagen resulted in complaints by the citizens of Mannheim, Benz requested and received written permission by the Grand Ducal authorities to operate his car on public roads.[1]
Up until the start of the 20th century, European authorities issued driver's licences similarly ad hoc, if at all.[1] The first locality to require a mandatory driving licence and testing was Prussia, on 29 September 1903. The Dampfkesselüberwachungsverein ("steam boiler supervision association") was charged with conducting the tests, which were mainly concerned with the drivers' mechanical aptitude.[1] In 1910, the German imperial government mandated the licensing of drivers on a national scale, establishing a system of tests and driver's education requirements that would serve as a model for the licensing laws of other countries.[1]
As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[2] On August 1, 1910, North America's first driver's licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs.[3] In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.[4]

 

[Bunnykid68]

Here is a link to just such an article with the court case listed concerning ones right to drive.

DRIVING: Rights vs Privilege