There's reason why a drone rules are in place. One YouTuber can spoil the fun for all :(

[Chaosrider]

And trying to mitigate "stupid" even if it can't be fixed, is one of the main purposes of an elected government.

Sort of...

I think the main purpose of the Feds should be national defense, and the main focus of state and local governments should be to protect their citizens against violent action by another.

And sometimes, mitigating stupid supports that purpose.

Thx,

TCS

 

[sar104]

Sort of...

I think the main purpose of the Feds should be national defense, and the main focus of state and local governments should be to protect their citizens against violent action by another.

And sometimes, mitigating stupid supports that purpose.

Thx,

TCS

And what about traffic laws? Are those overreach? Building codes, given the recent topical example? And countless other examples that go far beyond just protecting from violent action. You only have to look at the state of countries that have not managed to implement such a framework. You won't find a single one that looks like a civilized society.

 

[JackL]

Recreational Flyers are not allowed to fly over moving traffic. Also at Flushing Meadows Corona Park, you can only fly within a registered AMA field in this park. Every where else there are No Drone signs posted. This YouTuber decides to fly outside the boundary - again, you are only allowed to fly within the confines of the flying field which is really small by the way. Occasionally, flights taking off from LGA fly over that lake during the ascend process.

Clearly I need someone with a camera to orbit me while I am flying to make my videos pop... Can't imagine flying over that busy highway and posting it on Youtube. People never fail to amaze me.

 

[Chaosrider]

And what about traffic laws? Are those overreach? Building codes, given the recent topical example? And countless other examples that go far beyond just protecting from violent action. You only have to look at the state of countries that have not managed to implement such a framework. You won't find a single one that looks like a civilized society.

My philosophical view is that any law that isn't reliably enforced, is a suggestion. Hence, most traffic laws are suggestions.

Building codes, it depends. If a building practice has substantial risk of imposing serious externalities on others, then sure, that practice should be banned. In a private development, however, people should be largely free to require or permit what they want. My wife and I owned a townhouse 100 years ago, and it had an HOA. I went to one of the meetings just to make sure they were sensible people, which they were. But they drafted me to be on the board, and then to be treasure.

Philosophically, government action is only justified when doing something people can't do for themselves, and most government action, isn't that.

TCS

 

[sar104]

My philosophical view is that any law that isn't reliably enforced, is a suggestion. Hence, most traffic laws are suggestions.

You are definitely not a philosopher. By definition they are not suggestions. You don't get fined/jailed/banned from driving for ignoring suggestions.

Building codes, it depends. If a building practice has substantial risk of imposing serious externalities on others, then sure, that practice should be banned. In a private development, however, people should be largely free to require or permit what they want.

So private owners should be able to build whatever they like - no code requirements or permits needed? Of course they should also never be allowed to invite guests into their unregulated buildings, or sell them, or be covered by medical insurance when their unregulated buildings collapse on them, or expect any emergency services support. Sounds fine to me.

My wife and I owned a townhouse 100 years ago, and it had an HOA. I went to one of the meetings just to make sure they were sensible people, which they were. But they drafted me to be on the board, and then to be treasure.

I'm sure you were a complete treasure.

Philosophically, government action is only justified when doing something people can't do for themselves, and most government action, isn't that.

TCS

Like the application of logical thinking, apparently.

 

[Chaosrider]

You are definitely not a philosopher. By definition they are not suggestions. You don't get fined/jailed/banned from driving for ignoring suggestions.

So private owners should be able to build whatever they like - no code requirements or permits needed? Of course they should also never be allowed to invite guests into their unregulated buildings, or sell them, or be covered by medical insurance when their unregulated buildings collapse on them, or expect any emergency services support. Sounds fine to me.

I'm sure you were a complete treasure.

Like the application of logical thinking, apparently.

I'm not sure you know what philosophy is really about. My father taught Logic and the Philosophy of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. I took my first course in symbolic logic in the 8th grade. The head of the Philosophy department at UCLA tried to recruit me to be a Philosophy major after I aced his final exam, and I said I'd love to, but there's no money in it. He just laughed.

Your comments on the building code issue suggest that you're responding to something someone else said. If you want to respond to what *I* said, then I will cheerfully reply.

Cheers!



TCS

 

[sar104]

I'm not sure you know what philosophy is really about. My father taught Logic and the Philosophy of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. I took my first course in symbolic logic in the 8th grade. The head of the Philosophy department at UCLA tried to recruit me to be a Philosophy major after I aced his final exam, and I said I'd love to, but there's no money in it. He just laughed.

You claim a lot of qualifications and skills, mostly flatly contradicted by the random contents of your posts. Your credibility drops with almost everything you post.

Your comments on the building code issue suggest that you're responding to something someone else said. If you want to respond to what *I* said, then I will cheerfully reply.

I quoted your post verbatim, so yes - I was replying to you.

 

[Chaosrider]

You claim a lot of qualifications and skills, mostly flatly contradicted by the random contents of your posts. Your credibility drops with almost everything you post.

I quoted your post verbatim, so yes - I was replying to you.

Well, no you didn't. If you had read my post, including the part about building restrictions being OK when they impose significant negative externalities, you wouldn't have said this:

"So private owners should be able to build whatever they like - no code requirements or permits needed?"

...since I already specified a set of conditions where they couldn't do that.

If you want to continue this witty reparte, start a thread in the "Off Topic" section, and I'll respond there. If you let me know that you did that, since I don't normally check the "Off Topic" section.

TCS

 

[sar104]

Well, no you didn't. If you had read my post, including the part about building restrictions being OK when they impose significant negative externalities, you wouldn't have said this:

"So private owners should be able to build whatever they like - no code requirements or permits needed?"

...since I already specified a set of conditions where they couldn't do that.

If you want to continue this witty reparte, start a thread in the "Off Topic" section, and I'll respond there. If you let me know that you did that, since I don't normally check the "Off Topic" section.

TCS

You claimed that you had studied logic, so there's an almost painful irony to the number of logical fallacies that you have employed in just your recent posts in this thread, none of which are even remotely witty.

And while I quoted you verbatim, you instead chose to cherry pick when quoting me in a weak attempt to deflect my argument. I'm not going to debate you further, and in fact you are now on my ignore list since I'm tired of watching you stink up thread after thread with your pontificating drivel. I just don't have the time or motivation to deal with the sheer volume of it.

 

[DoomMeister]

How about we all get back to the original topic and lay off if the personal attacks on each other. I believe the ones this is directed at can take the feud to another place besides the forum.