Citizens Opposed to Bureaucratic Bullying and Excessive Regulation

[2tonne]

I came across this website by Philip O'Carroll (cobbers.org.au) and thought it might be of interest to a few people on here.

 

Philip describes the growing menace of bureaucracy in Australia and the resulting restriction of freedoms. I think most of the posts are a few years old now, but reading through it almost seems as though he had CASA in mind.

 

This page is particularly relevant to CASA... http://cobbers.org.au/other-issues.html ("The false god of safety")

 

I know Philip because our kids went to the school that he founded back in 1976 (I believe he was a bit of a 'hippy' in his day) and I have had some interesting discussions with him in the last couple of years. He still has some really refreshing views on how we should be able to live our lives free of restrictions that are put in place in an attempt to minimise small risks of harm.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Excessive bureaucracy ( by the church) caused the dark ages in Europe and caused China (who invented the world's first Public Service) to go from the most advanced place in the world, a thousand years ago, to almost a failed state several hundred years later.

 

Wealth is produced in the times when people are relatively free and are allowed to innovate and keep the profits from their work. Look at Jabiru until the bureaucracy interfered.

 

I am writing this from a sheep farm and alas enough people are like sheep to allow bureaucrats and other parasites to prosper. The richest people around here are the council bureaucrats, as they are the only people who can legally extort rates money from the whole population , as opposed to selling them something that they might want to buy.

 

Well at least we are better off than in the dark ages or in Stalinist Russia.

 

 

[kgwilson]

The level of bureaucracy blew me away when I arrived here 10 years ago. It seems exacerbated by having 3 separate levels of government and a collective fear that unless everything is regulated to the hilt bad things will happen like being invaded by immigrants etc. I've gotten used to it now but it still annoys me when I need to do something that should be simple but there is a 40 page form to fill in.

 

The worst in recent history was applying for the age pension. It is a totally intrusive process and you have to supply absolutely everything & then they ring & ask silly questions. By comparison applying for the NZ pension (which is most of what I get anyway) was a 3 page form that required basic info like name, address, DOB & a bank account number to have the pension deposited in.

 

 

[Soleair]

I have reluctantly to say, having recently moved back here from UK, that nobody does bureaucracy like the Aussies.

 

I've no idea why this should be so, or what can be done to prevent the flood tide of paperwork required for the simplest task from becoming a tsunami.

 

But I honestly fear for the future of our sort of flying. Ah well, there don't seem to be the youngsters coming in with a burning desire to fly, & I'm getting old. So maybe we should just lie back and accept the inevitable?

 

Bruce

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Excessive bureaucracy ( by the church) caused the dark ages in Europe and caused China (who invented the world's first Public Service) to go from the most advanced place in the world, a thousand years ago, to almost a failed state several hundred years later

Haha, this nonsense belongs on the comedy section. Even the Communist Chinese, who see demons in just about everyone else, don't blame the church. Of course Christian based western countries are the most backward of all to Bruce.

 

Wealth is produced in the times when people are relatively free and are allowed to innovate and keep the profits from their work. Look at Jabiru until the bureaucracy interfered.

You got this part right, it's called free market capitalism. In Australia we appear to have only one party that thinks this free market way which is the libertarian 'Liberal Democrats'. Certainly both Labor and the Liberals have no interest in reducing bureaucracy.

 

 

[Geoff13]

But I honestly fear for the future of our sort of flying. Ah well, there don't seem to be the youngsters coming in with a burning desire to fly, & I'm getting old. So maybe we should just lie back and accept the inevitable?

Bruce

I don't. Look at the FTF's around. Yes there may not be a lot of young people coming into our sport, but there are still a lot of middle aged people who are finding that they now have the funds to pursue childhood dreams. many FTF's are fully booked on most weekends. It may not be a young mans sport but it is still attracting new people.

 

 

[Guy s]

I have just heard that Casa is bringing in that any aircraft older than 5 years will not be allow to fly into Bankstown and Archerfield.

 

I hope this is not true and maybe someone else knows something about this madness.

 

 

[facthunter]

I wonder what law they would invoke to bring that in."OK to fly some where but not here" Selective airworthiness". Anything's possible with the "authority". Air Safety is NO flying ....Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

I have just heard that Casa is bringing in that any aircraft older than 5 years will not be allow to fly into Bankstown and Archerfield.I hope this is not true and maybe someone else knows something about this madness.

Nice one , Guy

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I have just heard that Casa is bringing in that any aircraft older than 5 years will not be allow to fly into Bankstown and Archerfield.I hope this is not true and maybe someone else knows something about this madness.

What rubbish, that would rule out 85% of the country's training fleet!

 

 

[Geoff13]

They didn't have a problem ruling out over 50% of RAA training fleet a few months ago.

 

 

[Guy s]

What rubbish, that would rule out 85% of the country's training fleet!

I said the same thing Howard, what a load of rubbish but the chap swore black & blue that this was the case but think i may have jump the gun in posting this, as it's just what someone has said with no backing proof that I've seen.

 

Sorry for the scare fella's but nothing surprises me anymore in this country.

 

 

[Ungrounded]

Do most aircraft manufactured in the last 5 years already have a Mode S transponder with ADS-B capability? He wondered out loud.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

wouldn't be required at those aerodromes (if your suggesting that might be why the restriction).

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I don't. Look at the FTF's around. Yes there may not be a lot of young people coming into our sport, but there are still a lot of middle aged people who are finding that they now have the funds to pursue childhood dreams. many FTF's are fully booked on most weekends. It may not be a young mans sport but it is still attracting new people.

At the Oaks on Saturday there was a good mix of ages. If you're worried about the age mix, look at gliding! The vast majority are retired men, it seems.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Agree AE. I am not in the least worried by the age mix. When I look at FTF's and available hangar space I think that the sports involved in aviation must be reasonably healthy.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

If i was the airport operator and i found out that CASA was going to restrict the entry of my potential income by banning aircraft over 5 years old i'd be looking for butts to kick. That would have to be 99% of aircraft in the country.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Gnarly, are you a creationist? I've never found one who will argue back and it might be fun to try a discussion. I don't know of one who will answer a question and then respond with one of his own. But I have to say upfront that I find their beliefs comical and I really only want to make fun of them. But in return I would like them to make fun of me, or try to. I doubt if this forum is the right place though.

 

 

[Yenn]

Got lost did you Bruce?

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Not lost, Yenn...It's just that I've never found a creationist who is up for a debate, I doubt I ever will now. Yes I know it's a bit silly to want to make fun of a creationist. There have been times in history it was very dangerous to to do this. but not these days except in Moslem countries.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Not a problem Bruce, I don't remember the Koran saying anything about creationist's- so go forth and stir them up as much as you like.

 

We do actually have a forum for it- religion {sky fairies} vs. atheism (science)

 

 

[Kiwi303]

Atheism is actually a religious belief... it relies on Faith that there is no God, not evidence. For all they know, there could be a God and he's just hiding from them.

 

Agnosticism now, that is a bit different. A decision to believe or disbelieve AFTER evidence shows up to convince them one way or the other. No faith involved.

 

 

[octave]

Atheism is actually a religious belief... it relies on Faith that there is no God, not evidence. For all they know, there could be a God and he's just hiding from them.Agnosticism now, that is a bit different. A decision to believe or disbelieve AFTER evidence shows up to convince them one way or the other. No faith involved.

Saying atheism is a belief system is like saying not going skiing is a hobby. I've never been skiing. It's my biggest hobby. I literally do it all the time.

 

 

[Litespeed]

What?

 

The complete lack of any evidence of god existing does not to me require a belief system rather a scientific outlook that in the absence of any evidence at all, the inability to prove his/her existence even in a theoretical way indicates a lack of a god. Atheism does not require a belief system at all- rather a scientific approach to the whole sky fairie thing.

 

To not believe in something does not require a belief system at all, it can simply be the absence of belief.

 

 

[Mriya]

I think Kiwi is trying to highlight that atheism and theism result from a particular interpretation of the available evidence (data). An atheist needs to look at the incredible complexity and programming that is built into DNA and conclude that it came about by unobserved random processes. A theist looks at the same evidence and sees this same complexity as a direct result of an intelligent designer.

 

The athist struggles to account for the staggeringly small odds of such random processes actually combining in a meaningful way and often starts to come up with theories of millions of parallel universes of which we happened to hit the jackpot in order to make the numbers begin to look plausible as has been suggested by prominent lobbyists for this worldview such as Dawkins. From what I see the atheist is no closer to offering an explanation for how the matter of the universe came into being, than the theist can explain the origin of their deity.

 

None of these things can be observed in a scientific manner as we are considering past events that are not repeatable or observable, but rather fall into the domain of deciding which worldview you decide is most plausible.

 

The tendency of some to resort to demeaning terms such as 'sky-fairies' does little to add to meaningful debate, but rather sounds rather intimidatory. Who would want to raise their hand and align themselves with a position that is being ridiculed.

 

I am willing to accept that some people believe in a deity and they can interpret the world in a rational way around that belief. For others, they reject the concept of a deity and subsequently must accept (believe) that everything around them has been shaped by random processes, with no higher purpose or design in life. At this level atheism is indeed a belief system or worldview, which subsequently shapes your interpretation of the world that you interact with.

 

I think it is a sign of weakness in ones own argument when they feel the need to ridicule the worldview of another person by namecalling. I would much rather people offer logical arguments to defend their own worldview and ask probing questions regarding other worldviews where they feel things don't compute.

 

If a debate was framed in that way, it would be more likely that a creationist or two may be flushed out and happy to debate, but this is unlikely if they know it is just going to be an 'open-season' for ridicule from people who are after a bit of sport, rather than people willing to ask questions and respect the fact that people who hold different worldviews to ones own can still be treated with kindness and respect, even if you disagree with them personally.

 

Having said this in my opinion post-modern thinking makes no sense to me. Applying simple logic, I can't accept that two people who hold opposing views can both be right. Either the atheists or the theists are right, but the suggestion that both are right does not compute for me. If there are any post-modernists out there who could provide a logical explanation on how their worldview works I'd love to hear them, because that one has me baffled. I can accept that people can come to a logical conclusion with regards to both theism and atheism, however I also maintain that one of these worldviews must be incorrect, no matter how sincerely the believer holds to that view. The question therefore remains 'Which worldview is correct?'

 

Open and sincere debate will let people consider the respective arguments to support their belief. Alternatively, ridicule of another persons sincerely held worldview will not encourage meaningful debate and says to me that a person has a closed mind and is unwilling to consider evidence that may be presented. In short, debate would be a waste of time as they are unwilling to consider that they may be wrong.