this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
355 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22959 readers
4392 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Legislation just signed into law has made it exceedingly to difficult to track private jet activity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, but once you're so filthy rich you can own and operate a private jet, you lose the right two things:

  1. My sympathy
  2. The right to not be eaten
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If I ever ger a private jet they can track me as much as they want

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Would you be ok with people tracking you in your car, or on public transport? At what level does that change for you? Is it just planes that should be publicly trackable, or boats too? What about limousines or jyst big cars?

Don't get me wrong, I think people using any of those methods should be held accountable for the harm they're causing, but that should apply all the way down too if that's what we're doing. Car drivers already pay tax on fuel and to register their vehicle so you could argue they're already accountable, but I'm not sure that's quite enough when you consider the harm tailpipe emissions do.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Private jets and boats and everything above sounds fine for me

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Large cars too? We're starting to get into rather dystopian territory here. I don't drive a large car, but I know I wouldn't like to be tracked just because someone decided I was.

I'm not actually averse to saying the loss of anonymity is the penalty for using particularly polluting modes of transport, but we should frame the rules in those terms, rather than just making ownership records public.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If I meant cars too I would have mentioned cars, please don't start making up strawman arguments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, when you said 'and everything above' I thought you were referring to the things I'd listed above.

Reading it the other way, fair enough, you're drawing the line for anonymous travel at private boats or planes. Personally I don't think that's helpful as they just end up chartering them from shell companies they own so their details aren't attached to the flight so they can dodge scrutiny that way. You can try to investigate the companies but they're anonymous that often all you can tell is they're a charter firm a particular person uses a lot. That might be enough, but personally I'd rather either have proper accountability, or accept this isn't the way to do it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No problem, I could have been more precise.

If they'd start doing that people would find new ways to follow them. I believe that rich people must be named and shamed for their wealth and I don't really feel sorry when not everything goes their way. That topic would open a whole new can of worms though so let's leave it at that I'd say.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Yup, I think that particular can can stay on the shelf. I appreciate the conversation.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Won't someone think of the billionaires?!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You are whining about double standards in a thread about a federal law specifically to protect billionaires' feelings.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

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.