You must truly be new around here, I thought you were just a new screen name for an old poster. Several around here call for no government or no government capable of protecting civil rights.
How many human accomplishments can you name that weren't predicated on government?
There is a strong contigant of anachro capitalist libertarians here who do essentially argue for no government. I grant that those thoughts are outside of the mainstream in general political thought, but around here the views are well represented by a number of prolific posters.
Ok, look at that one issue. I think you could make a strong case that regulating flying machines is an issue that falls under national defence. Probably also resolving disputes, and justice via public safety and privacy arguments. This seems like the sort of thing you would want controlled to some degree.
Almost none in my view. Maybe some rudimentary accomplishments like the arrow head or fire. But most things are predicated on civilization and that requires government.
This seems a poor argument. Your saying you are mad that government regulates things when they become significant enough to present a problem. That's a feature, not a flaw.
I can't speak to the specifics of the program intelligently. But we were talking conceptually about government power. Conceptually regulating drones would seem to fit your definition of things the government should concern themselves about, don't you agree?
Have you seen some of the drones they are working on that are the size of a small bird or even a dragon fly? I could envision some real issues if anyone can fly one of those in your personal air space.
Who deals with other air vehicles? Are pilots licensed by states or the FAA? Generally speaking I'm not a big fan of 50 laws when one will do.
Fair point, but then why a state law and not a municipal? If California can come up with a law that covers Los Angels and Death Valley, then the same sort of law could cover New York City and Ottumwa, Iowa. One law doesn't need to have only one set of rules. Laws can have flexibility and multiple circumstance built in.
I don't know about that. We already agreed it's the sort of thing the government should do. Air planes are federal despite not being mentioned specifically. National defence is a prime concern with drones and that's a federal responsibility. Over all I'd say drone policy is a poor example of federal government overreach.
I see that point too. But it seems a technicality more than a clear violation of federalism to me. And you still have the national defence argument placing it in the federal realm.
Where do you turn when you feel your rights are violated if not the courts or police or your representatives?Government protects civil rights?
Which is a good argument to stop running and participate in our representative government.
But that's what your plan would get. You want a government too weak to survive. Own the repercussions of your policies.
