So “privacy for me but not for thee”? Despite your feelings about the individuals involved (which are fair enough) you do see that’s exactly as bad as the “laws for thee but not for me” that we rail against? Balancing these rules is one of those thorny problems we have to address if we ever want things to get better for the majority, but just saying “you’re filthy rich so you don’t get privacy” isn’t the way. Neither is saying that they can hide completely.
Nevermind the billionaires, they’re just being used as scapegoats to distract you. You don’t beat an unfair and unjust system by creating a new unfair and unjust system, so the rules need to apply to everyone, no matter how annoying that feels, otherwise, you may find yourself or someone you care about in the out group and suffering because of it.
If we want privacy, everyone gets the same right. If we want free speech, everyone gets free speech (that’s the one that I find hardest to reconcile. If we want people to be able to protest or raise issues freely does that alao mean we must grant the same to those who spew hate and seek to twist the minds of others? How do we balance that?).
I don’t know what the ‘perfect’ system looks like, or even if there is such a thing. What we have now isn’t it, but saying ‘that group over there should have less rights than me’ isn’t the way either.
I hope I’m not whining. I am saying we should apply the same rules to, and ensure the same rights for, everybody though; not doing so is a large part of how we got here in the first place.
You or I can travel anonymously, or at least without our movements being tracked by the public. If we want to deny that to certain people, or to certain modes of transport, we should have a clear reason why and ensure that it’s effects are balanced with it’s benefits. As I mentioned in one of my comments above, if we want to hold people accountable when they use certain types of transport, that’s fine, and if removing their anonymity is the way we want to do it, that’s fine too, but we should apply it all the way down, from planes to cars.
They have the same protection as everyone else all the way up to chartering a flight. They lose privacy for the privilege of owning an entire jet. We also lose privacy for owning certain things, like home ownership is all public record.
But they are sad that their small-scale climate disaster flights are recorded, so they get their own law.
Home ownership is a good example of what I mean about making the rules apply to everyone, and it applies to all types of houses, from the smallest to rhe largest, the most efficient to the least. This is an equitable rule.
Applying the same logic to transportation would mean making all car and bike ownership records public too, which I don’t think it a great idea. As I mentioned before, if we want to make the loss of anonymity the penalty for owning a massively polluting vehicle we should apply it to all significantly polluting vehicles including planes, yachts, trucks and maybe even excessively large cars. The problem is where to draw the line.
As far as I can see, the current change just brings plane ownership in line with other vehicles, and so, even though I appreciate being able to track some of these people, without rules applying to other vehicle types, it seems fair to me.
So “privacy for me but not for thee”? Despite your feelings about the individuals involved (which are fair enough) you do see that’s exactly as bad as the “laws for thee but not for me” that we rail against? Balancing these rules is one of those thorny problems we have to address if we ever want things to get better for the majority, but just saying “you’re filthy rich so you don’t get privacy” isn’t the way. Neither is saying that they can hide completely.
Won’t someone think of the billionaires?!
Nevermind the billionaires, they’re just being used as scapegoats to distract you. You don’t beat an unfair and unjust system by creating a new unfair and unjust system, so the rules need to apply to everyone, no matter how annoying that feels, otherwise, you may find yourself or someone you care about in the out group and suffering because of it.
If we want privacy, everyone gets the same right. If we want free speech, everyone gets free speech (that’s the one that I find hardest to reconcile. If we want people to be able to protest or raise issues freely does that alao mean we must grant the same to those who spew hate and seek to twist the minds of others? How do we balance that?).
I don’t know what the ‘perfect’ system looks like, or even if there is such a thing. What we have now isn’t it, but saying ‘that group over there should have less rights than me’ isn’t the way either.
You are whining about double standards in a thread about a federal law specifically to protect billionaires’ feelings.
I hope I’m not whining. I am saying we should apply the same rules to, and ensure the same rights for, everybody though; not doing so is a large part of how we got here in the first place.
You or I can travel anonymously, or at least without our movements being tracked by the public. If we want to deny that to certain people, or to certain modes of transport, we should have a clear reason why and ensure that it’s effects are balanced with it’s benefits. As I mentioned in one of my comments above, if we want to hold people accountable when they use certain types of transport, that’s fine, and if removing their anonymity is the way we want to do it, that’s fine too, but we should apply it all the way down, from planes to cars.
They have the same protection as everyone else all the way up to chartering a flight. They lose privacy for the privilege of owning an entire jet. We also lose privacy for owning certain things, like home ownership is all public record.
But they are sad that their small-scale climate disaster flights are recorded, so they get their own law.
Home ownership is a good example of what I mean about making the rules apply to everyone, and it applies to all types of houses, from the smallest to rhe largest, the most efficient to the least. This is an equitable rule.
Applying the same logic to transportation would mean making all car and bike ownership records public too, which I don’t think it a great idea. As I mentioned before, if we want to make the loss of anonymity the penalty for owning a massively polluting vehicle we should apply it to all significantly polluting vehicles including planes, yachts, trucks and maybe even excessively large cars. The problem is where to draw the line.
As far as I can see, the current change just brings plane ownership in line with other vehicles, and so, even though I appreciate being able to track some of these people, without rules applying to other vehicle types, it seems fair to me.