You might want to be careful with that line of thinking. For example, forcing you to exercise would also measurably lengthen your life; do you want the government to be able to mandate such a thing?
I'd actually support it. The biggest cost to healthcare is fat bastards who eat the wrong food and don't do enough exercise. So yeah, if that means you live longer and I pay less tax, the sign me up for that one.
External health costs? Do you have any idea how many highly toxic chemicals are used, in quantity, to turn polysilicon into a working solar cell?
No, but a better way to frame this question would be, "Do you have any idea how many highly toxic chemicals are emitted into the environment, in quantity, to turn polysilicon into a working solar cell?"
Nuclear energy is toxic, but if you put the toxic stuff in a box and store it under a mountain, then it is much less of a concern to me.
You are a damn fool if you think that disarming a society makes them any more free or safe.
As proven by the US and their awesome homicide rate you mean?
In every instance in history the opposite has happened.
Citation? I can't think of any case in a modern democracy where less guns meant more violence, so you'll have to provide some evidence for this bold claim.
When the guns are taken away from citizens tyranny is soon to follow.
Yet every western democracy that has less guns than the US, also has lower homicide rates, and are falling. Your statement does not match the data.
Do you really think that ISIS would have a chance in hell of surviving if the citizens of those countries were armed?
They are armed you twonk. ISIS are citizens with guns fighting other citizens with guns as well as armies that have guns and tanks. Do you actually know what is going on over there?
The reason they have so much power now is because guns were taken away from the citizens long ago.
When? When exactly did the all the guns get taken off the people of Syria and Iraq? Please provide a date and reference when the great gun prohibition was enacted in these states?
. I don't see the point of singling out one particular technology that can be abused.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's doesn't exist.
New Technology allows you to do new things in new ways, and hence actions may be against the principal of an existing law, but not captured by it's definition.
You also can't be as vague as saying "No peeping" because that's how people get off with excuses like "I wasn't peeping, I was peeking".
Laws have to be specific otherwise people with good lawyers squirm out of them.
I'd put different thresholds on imaginary privacy issues and safety issues likely to result in death.
And those exist. The penalty for unlicensed drone use is not the same as manslaughter for example. It's like putting a ban on walkie-talkies in the 90s because you could eavesdrop on cordless phone calls with them, versus issuing citations for not wearing a seatbelt in a car. They aren't really comparable situations. One is rare, of limited scope, and isn't likely to hurt anyone. The other is a preventative action that lowers traffic fatalities.
Correct, but laws are generally the thing that keeps this rare, and prevents it becoming a bigger issue.
An example is laser pointers. They were all the rage a few years ago, everyone had them and they became a nuisance. No laws existed against blinding people with lasers because why would you have a law for something that hadn't been invented?
Then a pilot got flashed in the eyes while trying to land a fully loaded airliner so the authorities cracked down and banned them. Now they've almost disappeared from use (still around, but nowhere near the same number).
So the law identified an issue, dealt with it, and created and outcome satisfactory to the rest of society. This is no different.
Then I suppose you have a problem with everything;
You suppose wrong.
I don't have any problem with a drone flying over my property,
But I do, and last time I checked, you weren't the boss.
If a blind and deaf person gets augmented with digital eyes and digital ears why would their rights be any different? Would you discriminate against their right to see and hear? Why?
Yes. Because if those eyes can see through clothes, and their ears can hear through walls then it would breach my reasonable right to privacy.
Society has expectations. Seeing through walls, or flying eyes are not included in those expectations, hence we have rules to protect them.
That's odd. In the U.S., I can buy isopropyl alcohol by the liter at a 70% concentration for a couple dollars, and the cashier won't blink. Out of curiosity, what is the justification for making it difficult to obtain?
I won't even bother looking it up, but without knowing either stats, I'm betting that the US has worse drug problems than NZ?
Do we really need to pass new laws that include the text of the old ones with the phrase "using a drone" tacked on the end?
I think we do. Because drones open a whole new physical dimension that never previously existed.
Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the freedoms of the many.
Er, yes they should, that is exactly how it should work. Or do you think we wait until 50% of drivers kill someone before we introduce any road rules?
I would say that if we don't like it, we can simply stay out of New Zealand.
You're implying there is someplace else you can go instead that isn't afflicted by similar restrictions. If the worst thing about NZ is you can't fly your drone without a permit, then that's still not such a bad place.
Flying a quadcopter with a camera in a public place (or over private property) where your yard is incidentally within view is NOT an invasion of privacy
I think it is, as do many others. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
and no additional laws should ever come into place to change that.
Because 2015 is the pinnacle of human existence and no new laws should ever be created again. Even if new technology allows you to breach the principals of existing laws, we should never ever make new laws because.... ???
People seem to have this delusion lately that they're suddenly much more important than they used to be, and any camera MUST be in operation solely to record them. It's asinine.
No, people have always demanded a reasonable amount of privacy, with laws that protect this belief. New technology is allowing access that didn't previously exist, so new laws like this are merely maintaining the same expectation we've had for centuries. I fail to see why anyone expected any different result.
Private car companies can (and do) decline service to customers who make the car unfit for the next customer.
Doesn't help if I have to get to work and the previous passenger has pissed on the seat. It means the pisser doesn't get to use robot cars again, and I'll never rely on them again either. It's hard to see how you get any market penetration with this line of reasoning.
Byte your tongue.
