If user fees go into effect I'm done

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
ktbr opined

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.


Goes against "the all are created equal" bit

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:41:19 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It
does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to
resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries
ago.

Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.

In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
over just a single issue.

A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
this case the Dutch and the French.
The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.

People power.

ktbr writes:

Actually, the problems arise when a lot of people get all sorts of
medical care and drugs and are not required to pay for it or even
pay back the taxpayers who did have to pay.

If they are not greedy or corrupt, they won't get any more than they require.

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

Chris wrote:


Goes against "the all are created equal" bit

All are created equal. It doesn't mean all have to stay equal.

Mxsmanic wrote:
ktbr writes:

Actually, the problems arise when a lot of people get all sorts of
medical care and drugs and are not required to pay for it or even
pay back the taxpayers who did have to pay.

If they are not greedy or corrupt, they won't get any more than they
require.

I'd bet ignorance is right up there as well.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I'd bet ignorance is right up there as well.

I dunno. Perhaps hypochondria or other factors play a role. Although it's
hard for me personally to imagine, I know that some people enjoy the attention
they receive in a hospital, and may find any excuse to go there. The same can
be true of going to the doctor or dentist. Some people like being attended
to, even in an environment usually associated with illness and discomfort.

Another factor is the widespread belief that there must be no limits on the
care given to anyone, no matter what the cost or impracticality. Everyone
expects himself or his loved ones to receive extraordinary care. Thus a great
deal of money is spent on treatments that may make little or no practical
difference, such as sustaining people in persistent vegetative states for
years because nobody is willing to pull the plug. Often this type of care is
both chronic and cripplingly expensive.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I'd bet ignorance is right up there as well.

I dunno. Perhaps hypochondria or other factors play a role.
Although it's hard for me personally to imagine, I know that some
people enjoy the attention they receive in a hospital, and may find
any excuse to go there. The same can be true of going to the doctor
or dentist. Some people like being attended to, even in an
environment usually associated with illness and discomfort.

Another factor is the widespread belief that there must be no limits
on the care given to anyone, no matter what the cost or
impracticality. Everyone expects himself or his loved ones to
receive extraordinary care. Thus a great deal of money is spent on
treatments that may make little or no practical difference, such as
sustaining people in persistent vegetative states for years because
nobody is willing to pull the plug. Often this type of care is both
chronic and cripplingly expensive.

Hence ignorance.

On 2007-02-13, Chris wrote:
A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
this case the Dutch and the French.
The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.

The US constitution begins: "We the people..."

The proposed EU constitution begins: "HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE
BELGIANS..."

I think that tells you all you need to know about why it was
resoundingly rejected by 'we the people', despite the good bits (yes,
the EU constitution actually has some good bits).

In principle, I think that the EU is a good idea.
I like the idea of free movement of *PEOPLE* and goods. I like the fact
that I can move to, say, the Czech republic and work there with no
restrictions. However, the other political baggage of the EU is not so
welcome. While I would in principle like to see European countries be in
a close alliance, I strongly object to the way the EU is run now - it's
an undemocratic, unaccountable bureaucrat's gravy train. The
constitution starting with "His Majesty the King of the Belgians" just
goes on to rub this in - the EU is not being run by the people for the
people, it's just a bureaucrat's charter.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2007-02-12, Sam Spade wrote:
Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

Of course it isn't because it affects *them*. People are quite willing
to tell other people how to behave and telling other people to pay extra
money, but they aren't so keen when it happens to *them*.

For instance, witness the flap about commercial air travel and global
warming in Britain. The British government and press are banging on
almost non-stop about how terrible commercial air travel is on the
environment - and the government indeed increased taxes on commercial
air travel as a "green tax". It's nothing of the sort though.

Commercial air travel is responsible for something like 8% of the UK's
CO2 emissions. Domestic use is responsible for 30% of the UK's CO2
emissions. Completely *banning* commercial air travel will have less of
an effect (especially considering the travel will still have to happen
somehow, and will just move to some other form of transport) than simply
reducing domestic use of energy by half.

So why is the government targeting commercial air travel with such
vigour, but not going after domestic use, when even a complete ban on
commercial air travel will have less than half of the CO2 reduction of
reducing domestic energy use by half?

Because that way, people don't have to do anything. They feel good
because big, evil airline are being attacked - yet they aren't prepared
to do their own bit which would have demonstrably a far larger effect.
When it comes to the reduction of energy usage, everyone wants *other*
people to reduce their energy usage.

So in effect, the new 'green tax' imposed on airlines recently is
nothing of the sort - it's just more revenue for the government pot
(because it won't reduce air travel, and even if it did, the effect
would be too small to measure).

As far as the FAA et al. - they exist solely for the benefit of
airlines. GA would continue just fine (probably better, in fact) if the
FAA and all its services disappeared tomorrow. The airlines would be
paralyzed. Since the FAA exists solely for the benefit of airlines, then
the airlines can pay for the FAA.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:


As far as the FAA et al. - they exist solely for the benefit of
airlines. GA would continue just fine (probably better, in fact) if the
FAA and all its services disappeared tomorrow. The airlines would be
paralyzed. Since the FAA exists solely for the benefit of airlines, then
the airlines can pay for the FAA.


A bit over the top. Nonetheless, you are about 90% on target!