Just pop up a little lead umbrella so there's a shady spot.

Let me guess, that's a vague, hand-waving reference to the states that are disinclined to take on the new medicare mandates? Yeah, maybe they weren't charmed by the bald-faced lies that Obama told about that piece of legislation and his counter-constitutional, politically-driven, capricious execution of it? I know, how could anyone not like it, right? After all, if we want to keep our doctors and our previous insurance, we can, period. And our rates are going to go down an average of $2500 per family, right? Yeah. Lies. Exactly the sort of state-in-the-camera-and-lie stuff that DOES make people blame the government for mishandling their trust, their money, and their well being.

Because when you buy a television and are forced to pay a tax that finances, under penalty of winding up in court, someone else's programming choices ... that's different than buying a television and NOT being subject to that tax. How is this not clear?

Other than the part where it's the government that runs the court system that enforces your having been forced to give the BBC money whether you want to patronize them or not.

What? It can't even work without the direct involvement in the government running the courts that are necessary for the BBC to collect their unavoidable TV tax.

Here's a way that the government could be even less involved: don't DO that. Let people who want to show programs to a large audience find their own way to fund the production and dissemination of that material. Say, by selling ads or attracting sponsors, etc. Remove the court system and penalties under law for not wanting to fund everything that's broadcast from the equation entirely. Why should someone who doesn't want to fund a given program be forced to, under penalty of being dragged through court? I have zero interest in watching our many all-sports programming options (ESPN, etc). You think the "best system we have" is for the government to be the enforcer in an arrangement where I'm forced to give them money anyway?

Ah, so in Britain the government isn't involved in tax collection and enforcement. They don't do the collecting, they don't penalize people who don't pay, and they don't get involved in picking and choosing who receives those funds, or have any say, whatsoever, over how that money is allocated. That is an interesting system indeed! Who handles all of that, if not the government?

Have you actually watched Italian television?

Wouldn't it just be easier to get the British government out of the news and entertainment businesses?

In the US, yes. It makes no difference if it's a 50-pound Octo carrying a Red Epic shooting a Mercedes commercial, or a 15-gram kid's toy. In places like all of the US's national parkland, rivers, and coasts administered by the Park Service, they are all 100% banned. Likewise for 30 miles around Washington DC, without any regard to size or range. And no, it's not about "drones," it's about all RC (or autonomous) flying contraptions of any type or size, period. And they're just getting started.

Not just the open source ones, either.

Then it shouldn't have been on personal equipment.

.... by members of the Obama administration.

Don't be too hasty, I think many would find Purgatory an acceptable option too.

Right. Trained and licensed just like the millions of car drivers around you, who area also in their cars, with license plates that can be identified. That explains why we have so many more drone injuries and deaths than we do car-related injuries and deaths. Well, actually, it doesn't. Manufacturers are selling hundreds of thousands of small multirotors every month, and the number of deaths is ... zero. As opposed to thousands killed by licensed, tagged, trained, on-board car drivers. Now that you're re-thinking this, I'm sure you're going to be looking for ways to ban cars from driving past your property ... because any one of those cars could hop the curb and smash right into your house. This MUST be banned.