02-22-2020, 06:03 PM
Clinton McKenzie has drawn together many of the deleterious results of a failed government policy. One can only speculate on the tremendous economic losses occasioned by this extraordinary aberration, a blot on our civic life, and upon Australia’s reputation. Clinton refers to his knowledge of the personal costs to individuals, none more sad, and devastating to families, than the instance of a suicide. Such costs are incalculable but certainly will deplete respect for law, and confidence in our democratic institutions.
There is one element of Clinton’s submission that calls for a critique, with great respect. That is in the closing statement regarding “exercise the privileges of that licence.”
It may be characterised as a privilege to be alive and enjoy the fruits of modern life and the technological advances that enable the dream like ability to fly like a bird. Its easy to argue that a privilege of such an extraordinary feat is bestowed by a greater power. At times there are glorious feelings that infuse the soul of pilots, we are ‘privileged’’ to experience the sensations and freedoms of flight.
Not least to navigate amongst the extraordinary features of our ever changing atmosphere.
All of these arguments do not allow that government bestows these privileges of flight. Quite the contrary, the efforts of private individuals are, and were, the progenitors of virtually all aerial activity.
Thus to fly is the right and prerogative of a free people who may decide generally accepted rules regarding aerial traffic outside the parameters of personal space, say up to 500ft across one’s property.
In the legal sense we should vehemently declare our right to fly is not a privilege granted by government.
Whilst maintaining our right to fly we allow some agreed ‘road rules’ and nothing more.
The notion, which is still well entrenched in government circles, that government doles out ‘privileges’ to it’s ‘subjects’ is an anachronistic feature derived from the medieval practice whereby the Monarch held all privileges and had the only power to dispense same.
There is one element of Clinton’s submission that calls for a critique, with great respect. That is in the closing statement regarding “exercise the privileges of that licence.”
It may be characterised as a privilege to be alive and enjoy the fruits of modern life and the technological advances that enable the dream like ability to fly like a bird. Its easy to argue that a privilege of such an extraordinary feat is bestowed by a greater power. At times there are glorious feelings that infuse the soul of pilots, we are ‘privileged’’ to experience the sensations and freedoms of flight.
Not least to navigate amongst the extraordinary features of our ever changing atmosphere.
All of these arguments do not allow that government bestows these privileges of flight. Quite the contrary, the efforts of private individuals are, and were, the progenitors of virtually all aerial activity.
Thus to fly is the right and prerogative of a free people who may decide generally accepted rules regarding aerial traffic outside the parameters of personal space, say up to 500ft across one’s property.
In the legal sense we should vehemently declare our right to fly is not a privilege granted by government.
Whilst maintaining our right to fly we allow some agreed ‘road rules’ and nothing more.
The notion, which is still well entrenched in government circles, that government doles out ‘privileges’ to it’s ‘subjects’ is an anachronistic feature derived from the medieval practice whereby the Monarch held all privileges and had the only power to dispense same.