What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Flying is my right

Please read the posting rules.

Morning all,

I think I've been lenient and shown restraint on several of the posts in this thread - posts that really shouldn't have been posted. Some, while not RV-related, were wonderfully informative and a pleasure to read. Having said that, many of them are 'over the line' and I'm going to have to start removing posts if the rules aren't followed more closely.

Discussions of the Constitution, illegal aliens, religions are not appropriate on this board.

Please understand I don't enjoy being the bad cop. Just make sure you've seen the rules (specifically the part about what is 'over the line').

Best,
Doug (owner)
 
Well considered restraint.

Looking in from the outside, I have found this discussion, though not strictly RV related, mature and unbelievably well informed.
DR. You have my respect and admiration for standing in the wings and letting it run and only stepping in as an absolute last resort.
We all love RVs and aviation, but demonstrably, that is not the sole connection. I am always amazed how many other interests we share.
In this case I have huge admiration for the knowledge displayed on this particular post in such a non-partisan way, by what is in reality such a disparate bunch of blokes.
I would like to join the discussion, but think it would be prudent, as an Aussie, to leave it until I join you for a beer in the bar somewhere, someday.
Pete.
PS. Doug, it?s not morning. It?s 2122hrs; whilst I watch Ironflight?s colleagues.
P
 
Doug-

As a great credit to the restaint and character of the people on this board, I believe that all of the discussion in this thread has been absolutely relevant to aviation and that all involved have acted responsibly by not attacking anyone else, but rather calmly and rationally sharing various viewpoints. I've learned a lot, and I would very humbly ask that you consider allowing it to continue so long as it gets neither emotional or agressive toward any particular person or point of view.

Cheers,
Dave
 
I agree with you completely, Dave. There was one post which I thought crossed the line...and I deleted it. I've throroughly enjoyed the discussion, and as long as it can be tied to aviation in some way, look forward to its continuation.

b,
d
 
Wonderful, Doug. Thank you. It's a breath of fresh air to be able to have reasoned dialog as it relates to aviation and politics together without being attacked or watching others be attacked for a given point of view. Thanks for taking the position on it that you have.

Dave
 
Reading through this discussion, I can't help but wondering what the disagreement is. The first thing to do in any debate is to clearly define the terms you are using. Many, many arguments occur between people who do not disagree on anything fundamentally; they are just using terms in a different sense.

I can't see any consistent way in which "right" can be defined differently from "privelage", and so to me the entire debate has been vacuous.

We live in a civilization/society (for the purpose here, let's define "society" as a group of people living in a common geographical area, organizing themselves by mutually agreed customs, laws and patterns of behaviour). By necessity, a society places restrictions on what its members can and cannot do (laws). Without such restrictions, you would have anarcy, which by definition is antonymous with "civilization". A "right" or "privelage" is something which society allows a given member to do (i.e. that which is not prohibited by a law). So how does a right differ from a privelage?

You might want to define "right" as something that EVERY member of society is allowed to do without society's deliberate restriction. But if that is the definition of "right", then (at least in the U.S. where capitol punishment exists) there is no such thing as a "right". The state can even take away the right to breathe from some members (those conviceted of a capital crime).

So, if you want to argue about whether flying is a "right" or a "privelage", first you have to clearly and unambiguosly define what you mean by the terms "right" and "privelage". The definitions of "right" and "privelage" should have a clear distinction if there is to be any argument. Then we just see which definition applies to the activity of flying!
 
prkaye said:
Reading through this discussion, I can't help but wondering what the disagreement is. The first thing to do in any debate is to clearly define the terms you are using. Many, many arguments occur between people who do not disagree on anything fundamentally; they are just using terms in a different sense.

I can't see any consistent way in which "right" can be defined differently from "privelage", and so to me the entire debate has been vacuous.

We live in a civilization/society (for the purpose here, let's define "society" as a group of people living in a common geographical area, organizing themselves by mutually agreed customs, laws and patterns of behaviour). By necessity, a society places restrictions on what its members can and cannot do (laws). Without such restrictions, you would have anarcy, which by definition is antonymous with "civilization". A "right" or "privelage" is something which society allows a given member to do (i.e. that which is not prohibited by a law). So how does a right differ from a privelage?

You might want to define "right" as something that EVERY member of society is allowed to do without society's deliberate restriction. But if that is the definition of "right", then (at least in the U.S. where capitol punishment exists) there is no such thing as a "right". The state can even take away the right to breathe from some members (those conviceted of a capital crime).

So, if you want to argue about whether flying is a "right" or a "privelage", first you have to clearly and unambiguosly define what you mean by the terms "right" and "privelage". The definitions of "right" and "privelage" should have a clear distinction if there is to be any argument. Then we just see which definition applies to the activity of flying!
Actually, I thought Gary Sobek provided a good definition for the terms that were originally being debated. Below were his links to definitions of right and privilege. I thought they were very distinct in their definitive definition of the two words. IMO these two definitions adequately defined the terms well. Phil, are you now saying that something is amiss with these terms as defined by the example definitions that were given?

RV6_flyer said:
Right = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Right&x=0&y=0

Privilege = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=privilege&x=25&y=15

My United States of America Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Adminstration license says: "... has been found to be properly qualified to exercise the privileges of ..."
 
well, for the purposes of our discussion, of the definitions of "Right" on that link, I would say either #18 or #19 apply:

18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

As for privilege, the first three definitions define "Privilege" as a special kind of "right" !

1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.

So where is the distinction? Is flying a right? Well, it is if you have a pilot's license... in which case it is a right, which also happens to be a privilege. According to the above three definitions a privilege is also a right. I think the argument is pretty vacuous because we all agree that we should be allowed to fly if we can do without harm or danger to society. Whether to call it a "right" or a "privilege" is just a matter of which definitions you want to pull out of those long lists... noting that there is a lot of overlap between the definitions in the lists!

Anyway, my main confusion is over how people seem to get so impassioned when arguing over subtle points of definition (I can think of one very contraversial topic in Canadian politics that is a wonderul example of this, but we'd better not go there...)

oh... this thread has also reminded me that I cannot spell!
 
prkaye said:
oh... this thread has also reminded me that I cannot spell!
Yes, that is why I have to run my words through Microsoft Word's spellchecker before I dare post here. I would hate to think what my posts would look like, or if they would even be legible, if I did not do so.
:D
 
Rights?

Well, if the Canadians can chime in, so can the Aussies.
A perspective from without.
Rights are very significant in the USA. The wisdom of your forefathers to enshrine in the constitution, what was NOT a right in the Old World, has assured this.
However, if a right is NOT mentioned in the constitution, you still have it, unless it is specifically prohibited. ie. To take your dog for a walk, I doubt, is in your constitution. But as soon as you make it a Right to take your dog for a walk, legislation will follow to specify some sort of conditions under which you can walk your dog.
So to outsiders it appears that in the USA if anyone tampers with the legislation, then people see it as fiddling with their rights.
Similarly, the view from within the USA seems to be that countries without specific ?Freedoms? enshrined in the constitution, don?t have them, which is patently not true.
The down side of Carving Rights in Stone and so defining them specifically, (ie. You must have a pilots Licence) is that you start to do what you set out not to do. Restrict people.
But to an Aussie a privilege is greater than a right.
I am sure the right to fly is not in our constitution.
But, I am privileged.
I am one of a small percentage of Australians that enjoy the privilege of being allowed to fly.
I earned it.
I think the real beef here is not rights, but people tampering with your privilege to fly
Pete.
 
Negative

**** no. I gave mine in happily.
It's just that I don't want DR to have a reason to close the topic.
Keep it nice and clean Capt.
Pete.
 
OZ RV Pop.

I'll try and find out.
But I did hear that there is more RVs / head of pop than in the US.
Mind you there is only 20 million of us... Not counting the 'roos.
Pete
 
Back
Top