FlyteNow Sues FAA (Uber for pilots)

docmirror said:
Have I broken the law? Are we close enough? Is this 'random'? Was asking your buddy over the line? This is moving into an area of law I like to call; 'arbitrary and capricious'. Laws should be well defined. Our country is moving away from well defined and into areas of arbitrary. I think it's a mistake.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Ayn Rand said:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
Click to expand...
 
Palmpilot said:
Getting too deeply into hair-splitting, and then trying to codify that, is why the rule books just keep getting thicker and thicker, to the point that they're so thick that no one can possibly know what's legal and what isn't anymore, because no one will be able to read and remember it all.
Click to expand...

What's worse is that it takes a legal interpretation from a judge that could go either way given the same set of circumstance. On Tue, the defendant is Tom, and he gets violated. On Wed the defendant is Jack, and he's found within the rules given the same set of characteristics. Roll the dice is no way to run a system of laws.
 
docmirror said:
What's worse is that it takes a legal interpretation from a judge that could go either way given the same set of circumstance. On Tue, the defendant is Tom, and he gets violated. On Wed the defendant is Jack, and he's found within the rules given the same set of characteristics. Roll the dice is no way to run a system of laws.
Click to expand...

Once the legal precedent is set in a case regarding a specific law, the same set of circumstances should result in the same verdict.

Unfortunately it's a situation where the first judge gets to decide what the law means, and which specific factors decide the case. My wife and I ended up being the test case for a new law a couple of years ago...fortunately ruled in our favor, but there were a couple of specific factors that we think tipped the balance in our favor. Absent those specific factors, it could easily have gone the other way.
 
When it doesn't - make more laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, so that every human activity is perfectly described.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top