If user fees go into effect I'm done

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.



Not at all. The way freedom of speech works (apart from the fact that
the concept doesn't apply to discussions between people anyway) is this:
You may say whatever you want and you will not be prohibited from saying
anything - but you can fully expect to be judged on it and to be held
accountable for it. Freedom of speech comes with freedom of judgement -
like it or not.

That's exactly what happens here with each and every of your posts. I
can understand you don't like the results...

;-)

ktbr wrote in
:

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap,
move out and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

That attitude remonds me of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Interesting comparison.

Do you equate charging a fee for service to genocidal murder?

If the government were intent upon enslaving and/or murdering all pilots,
my feelings would be different. But the reality is that they want to recoup
some of the costs associated with providing weather and traffic services by
charging a fee for said provided service. It's not as outrageous as you
make it - most people in the US pay tolls to drive on certain roads, pay
for tickets to ride public transportation, and pay a 911 surcharge to the
phone company for the privilege of not having to remember quite as many
numbers to dial if they are in danger.

While I wish that these services might still be given away, the reality is
that the best that I can hope for is that the fee is equitable and fair,
and that they don't try to gouge me just because they listen to people like
Manix and think that anyone who flies must be extraordinarily wealthy.

On Feb 9, 3:21 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
....

I haven't read the current proposal, but initially the Reason
Foundation's Norm Poole said that GA would be exempt from user fees.

Norm Poole, eh?

On Feb 11, 5:28 pm, "Chris" wrote:
"Everett M. Greene" wrote in g-pacwest.com...



"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Blueskies" wrote

So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free
service,
and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
problem...

Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay
for
it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch
die
and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each
use
of Flight Watch.

Just how much competition do you expect there would be to
provide Flight Watch service? Would there be even be one
company willing to provide it?

The incremental cost to the government to provide Flight
Watch is minimal -- the facilities and personnel are
already in place. The cost to replicate the facilities
and staff the operation for a private company would be
quite high as would be the fees necessary for the provider
to make a profit.

What is the size of the contract the FAA has with Lockheed? I thought the
Flight Watch service had already been let out for a profit. I cannot
imagine Lockheed doing the job to breakeven.

From http://www.faa.gov/aca/perf_decision/Dennis%20DeGaetano.pdf I
found:

"... The total evaluated cosyt of the 5-year contrac, with 5
additional optiuonb years, awarded baed on best value, is $1.9
billion. ..."

Some more references to AFSS and A-76 in general:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/.../ato/aca/afss/
transition/realigned_discontinued/media/Detailed%20Realigned%20and
%20Discontinued%20Activities.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/library/office_pu...ions/a76/view/
a76_brochure.cfm

http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_repor...lan2006/media/
ATOFY06BPFINAL.pdf


HTH.

Regards,
Jon

Mxsmanic wrote:

A civil war is extremely unlikely. The usual pattern is a succession of
increasingly troublesome crises, terminating with the end of democratic
government and a new dictatorship. Democracies are their own worst enemies,
and they tend to regularly self-destruct. The problem with giving everyone a
voice is that many people are stupid.


I have to agree with you completely on that.

It benefits a government for its subjects to be ignorant, and if you can
control the educational system then you can insure a continued dumbing
down of society to a point that rebelion is less likely. Like piglets
sucking on a hogs teats, the people can be placated in various ways.

There truly *should* be some sort of test before one can vote so as
to weed out the both the ignorant and the stupid people.

Peter R. wrote:


As a self-employed individual who lives in another fouled up state (New
York), I totally share your pain. Family health insurance in these parts is
about 1,300/month, unless one wants to flirt with very large deductibles -
something I am currently doing.


Sounds like Hillary should be in charge of the entire Unitede States
seeing as how she's done such a great job with health care in New York.

ktbr writes:

It benefits a government for its subjects to be ignorant, and if you can
control the educational system then you can insure a continued dumbing
down of society to a point that rebelion is less likely.

Yes. That's why widespread lack of education (particularly illiteracy, and
particularly among women) is seen in countries with high rates of corruption
and severely autocratic regimes.

Like piglets sucking on a hogs teats, the people can be placated in
various ways.

Bread and circuses. Many people care about little else, and will always vote
in favor of this. Even in Russia, there are people who pine for the old days
of the Soviet Union: sure, you didn't have much freedom, but you didn't really
have to work hard, you couldn't go broke, etc., because the state looked after
you.

There truly *should* be some sort of test before one can vote so as
to weed out the both the ignorant and the stupid people.

Yes, but unfortunately those tests invariably become corrupt, as they are used
to create a voting elite, rather than to assess competence to vote. The
problem is that the tests are usually imposed by the same people who are
elected by the voting, which is a conflict of interest.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

Do you equate charging a fee for service to genocidal murder?

In terms of how governments are allowed to slip towards dictatorships, yes.
The Nazis came to power in large part through complacency, and the willingness
of the people to trade freedom for a (false) sense of "security."

If the government were intent upon enslaving and/or murdering all pilots,
my feelings would be different. But the reality is that they want to recoup
some of the costs associated with providing weather and traffic services by
charging a fee for said provided service.

They are already doing that, else the services would not exist. It's only a
question of who is charged for the costs.

It's important to find a balance between charging all people for a service,
including those who never use it, and charging only the people who actually
use it. The former is unfair to some extent (although the per capita cost may
be very small), and the latter can be unfair if the charges per capita turn
out to be extremely high.

Suppose you have a service X that is used only by GA pilots. Should GA pilots
alone pay for the service, at $1000 per GA pilot (and zero for everyone else),
or should all entities operating aircraft pay for it, at $10 per GA pilot (and
$10 for all airline passengers), or should all taxpayers pay for it, at $0.01
per pilot (and $0.01 for everyone else)? Where do you draw the line?

While I wish that these services might still be given away, the reality is
that the best that I can hope for is that the fee is equitable and fair,
and that they don't try to gouge me just because they listen to people like
Manix and think that anyone who flies must be extraordinarily wealthy.

Not extraordinarily wealthy, but much more wealthy than average, especially if
they fly more than a few hours per year.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Yes, but unfortunately those tests invariably become corrupt, as they are used
to create a voting elite, rather than to assess competence to vote. The
problem is that the tests are usually imposed by the same people who are
elected by the voting, which is a conflict of interest.


True enough... Perhaps there should be a merit based approach to
voting to allow for cancelling out the ignorant. Sort of allow
for Darwin's theory to have its productive influence on govenrment,
instead of the reverse effect as is now the case.

As an example: If you _graduate_ from High School you get one vote.

Then, you can get additional votes like:

Service in the military - you get an additional vote.
Graduate from college - get an additional vote.
For each $10,000 in taxes you paid - get an additional vote.
For each child you raised who becomes a productive citizen
you get an additional vote.


You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon, and one vote for each $10,000 in welfare
benefits you were given.... if you pay it back then you get an
extra vote that year.

In this way people would be more vested in their country and have
incentives to work hard, make good decisions. I believe you would
still need term limits however.

Mxsmanic wrote:


Does it occur to anyone that $15,000 is way too much to spend on
normal health care?

Yes, I'd be willing bet all of us do. Though the other two options, no
insurance or a state run program, are also not my idea of great ideas
either.