jcoloccia said:
Without getting into the debate, I just think it's interesting to note that lately I've had the subject of "What would it take for you to move from the United States?" come up several times (I've been in Europe for 3 weeks). The three things I came up with were:
1) Take away my free speech
2) Take away my gun (the fact I only use it once a year for target practice is beside the point)
3) Take away my flying
I'd be gone in an instant.
Any politicians out there feel like championing an amendment for #3 also?
Well, if anything stirs up the hornet's nest of debate on an airplane flying/building web forum it will surely be this question.
Lowpass, I understand where you are coming from. However, if you decide to argue the issue of whether we have a
"right" or a
"privilege" to fly based upon the
Constitution of the United States, I don't think your argument for flying being a "Constitutional right" will stand up. the Constitutional argument would have to be based on the fact that the Constitution (or ammendments to the Constitution) specifically address the act of flying as a right granted to all Americans. It clearly does not do so.
Considering the fact that it was written about 130 years before the first flight, it is understandable that the right to fly was not addressed. So
Jcoloccia's 3rd point on his list is a valid request. The only way this argument can hold any
Constitutional grounds is if an ammendment is ratified that spells out our "right to fly" as a constitutional right.
Captainron's statement is correct in the context of the world in which we currently live in. Our ability to fly is a
privilege bestowed upon us by the government institutions we have set up. To argue that our "right" to fly is the same as our "right" to bear arms, for free speech, for freedom of religion is an erroneous assumption. These are all spelled out in the Constitution. Flying is not.
Being granted the privilege to fly is indeed in the same context as is the privilege to drive a car. Driving a vehicle in our country is indeed a privilege instead of a right. Even if we drive on private property we have not altered the fact that to be able to drive is a privilege that others bestow upon us. You do not have the "right" to drive on private property if doing so disturbs me as your neighbor with noise, polution, exposure to danger, etc. that would not be there had you not been driving. These are even more evident when looking at the potential negative interactions we have with others in society when we fly over them.
Whether we acknowledge the point or not does not mean the issue of public safety does not exist whenever we startup and takeoff in our airplanes. As pilots we have a responsibility to others around us to do everything in our power to keep our activity from negatively affecting their lives. Because of this, our flying activities fall in the same categories as other risky endeavors. With responsibility comes "privileges" not "rights". The consequences of abusing our responsibility involves removing our "privileges".
As much as I wish it were not so, the reality is that flying is something that others can take away from us. And because of this the semantics that is used to define our activities does take on a clear consensus of how our society views this activity. It is indeed a privilege that can be taken away from us by others if we deviate from the accepted governance of those activities. Since activities that can be taken away are refered to as
privileges and those that cannot be taken away are
rights, it stands to reason then that we are indeed discussing the issue of our
privilege to fly.
In the spirit of those who first "Bodly went where man had never gone before!" 40 years ago today, I will end my diatribe with: To all reading this
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!