If user fees go into effect I'm done

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" wrote in message
: . net...
:
: Yea, sure, for a FEE!
:
:
: Yes. Is that a problem?
:
:


So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service, and replace it with a privatized service for a
fee. Yes, that is the problem...

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

The EU is not exactly a democratic organisation. Even though it was
originally implemented by democratically elected politicians, the
influx of the voter's opinion on politician's actions is limited in
representative democracies anyway. Once the damage has been done (and
noticed), very little can be done about it.

Why? Because God forbids Europeans from participating in their own
government?

This type of fatalism is also typically European.

Privatisation of government tasks is part of neoliberal ideology, which
is the current trend among the political class ...

The notion of a "political class" is also typically European.

Please limit your comments to subjects you know about.

I knew you'd be the first to reply. Soon you'll be darkly adumbrating all
sorts of European interdictions on free speech in an attempt to silence me.

Europeans are their own worst enemies. Harper Valley is gradually rotting
from the inside.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Blueskies" wrote in message
. net...

So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
problem...


Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
of Flight Watch.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

What I say above true for the US as well.

Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
watchwords that they are in Europe.

"Political class" means there's a bunch of people who do politics as a
way of earning money. That bunch of people exists in the the US too.

In the U.S., politicians are people who do politics for a living. They are
not part of a separate class. Anyone can undertake politics in the U.S., and
anyone can leave it. You don't have to be born into a certain family or
anything like that.

Shut up

Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" wrote in message
: . net...
:
: So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
: and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
: problem...
:
:
: Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
: consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
: it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
: and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
: compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
: of Flight Watch.
:
:

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but
that is the
same as saying that you would rather only ride on toll roads, rather than
the freeways
we have today. Some things are best as a govment service because private
providers
will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.


What things provided as government services are superior to things provided
by private providers motivated by the potential for profit?

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

The US is a direct democracy? The US government cannot ignore what the
people want?

The U.S. is an _effective_ democracy. The people have a strong influence on
how the government is run, in part because the people running the government
are largely the same as the people being governed. Statutory class
distinctions are nonexistent in the U.S. for the most part, and de facto
distinctions are rare compared to the European norm.

That makes them a class by definition.

No, it makes them a profession.

I think it helps if your name is Kennedy, Clinton or Bush, but that was
not what I was talking about anyway.

None of these familes inherited their prominence. There are no royals in the
United States, and no nobles. That's the way the country's founders wanted
it, and that's one of the things that sharply distinguishes the U.S. from
Europe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
news

The US is a direct democracy?


No, it is a representative democracy, unfortunately.



The US government cannot ignore what the people want?


The US government does so regularly.

Blueskies writes:

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.

Monopolies should always be under government control for this reason.

The different between a Flight Watch with fees and one without is that the
former is paid for exclusively by the people who use it, whereas the latter is
paid for by everyone, whether they use it or not. The former is bad for
pilots, the latter is bad for taxpayers generally.

It's often difficult to find a balance between the population that pays for a
service and the population that uses it. The biggest problems arise when the
two populations are mutually exclusive (cf. Welfare).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

I didn't know the United States had 300 million ministers.

It doesn't.

Shut up . Oh really this is silly, you are using a very creative mix
of constantly shifting standards and equivocations to defend your
nationalist prejudices, without ever substantiating any of them. I
suggest you give up, it doesn't work.

If it didn't work, you wouldn't be so upset. The truth hurts.

If I had "nationalist prejudices," I wouldn't be living abroad. I just call
them as I see them. And some of what I see isn't the least bit flattering to
Europeans, I'm afraid.

A class means: A set of people who have a different perspective and
different interests than others sets of people.

A class is a group of people with different privileges, obligations, rights,
and status. Classes are thick on the ground in Europe, where everyone knows
his station and dares not stray outside of his social circle. But they are
rare in the U.S.

No it doesn't. There are few countries in Europe who have nobles or
royals at all; someone who claims to know so much about the continent
ought to know such an important fact.

Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monacco, the
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Vatican all
have monarchies and royals, and some have nobles as well.

And the few countries who do have them do so mostly for fun, not
for political functions.

They have them because they cannot bear the thought of all people being
treated equitably as individuals. That's where Europe and the U.S. part ways.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.