Citizens petition to regulate Exeter spy drone

It seems that others are frustrated with the Exeter government's spy machine, and rightly so. Because it was bought under false pretenses, I would argue that it should be returned or destroyed at the personal expense of Russ 100k Dean.

I wonder if he used the phrase "educate people" when discussing how he would use the petition. I guess we're all dumb bumpkins and should bow down to his supremacy.

Who owns the air?

Helicopters and drones

I've noticed several editorials in the local paper about the helicopter rides from Pease. I notice two general types. The first type is from someone who lives in the area who is complaining about the noise and how it makes his/her home less desirable. The second type is from someone telling the first type to shut up because the helicopters are obeying all the arbitrary ordinances and laws.

Just as with Exeter's spy drone, the problem can be solved easily with property rights. Who owns the air space? Who owns the noise level in one's home? Any violations would be considered trespass. Private property would rescue everyone, but instead nobody is happy except the people who benefit from the politically-determined laws, and even they only fleetingly because they are always in danger of the political winds shifting and the laws being changed to work against them.

Exeter drone update

Oops. The Exeter government’s spy drone cost 75% more than initially reported (only a drop in the bucket for the exhaustive town budget). “Don’t pay attention, citizen, your money is spent only to help you in case of an ‘emergency.’ Of course, we Town Rulers will define what constitutes an emergency as we see fit.” 

The proper, conflict-free use of drones by private individuals could be determined easily by private property: who owns the air space? Do you own the air space above your home? How high does your ownership extend? To what extend does drone use infringe on property rights, i.e., when is its use equivalent to trespass? 

Instead, without private property, there is nothing but conflict and argument. And, governments only fail when they set up rules, regulations, permits, zoning ordinances, etc. This ends up being just a mishmash of rules that leaves few people happy. It leads to perpetual conflict as the unhappy people continually attempt to try to change the law to their favor.

Exeter enters the spying game

Unfortunately, the Exeter Fire Department has bought a drone. Of course, the claim is that it will be used for emergency responses.  And, for sure, it will be. Whenever a new tax-funded toy appears, it will be used, even when unnecessary, much like the EPD motorcycle.

But, as with all government "programs," there will be mission creep. Maybe tax assessors will use a drone to monitor your house renovations. Maybe building inspectors will use one to see if there is any remodeling done without the proper permission slips. Maybe the police will use one to try to find nonviolent pot growers. The next time there is an "emergency," defined as whenever the police say so, expect a drone in the air.

To be clear, the use of a drone per se is not good or bad. A lot of people might benefit, for example, if Amazon were to use drones to make deliveries.  Riverwoods was going to use a drone for advertisement videos but decided against it. Drones have uses.

What is not good is the government use of it:

• It allegedly solves a problem that does not exist.
• It is yet another item to expand the budget.
• Its use will undoubtedly experience mission creep.
• It will likely violate property rights. (Airspace property rights should be divided according to the homesteading principle, not by government fiat.)

However, a government drone is only a symptom of the wider issue: the fallacy of public goods. We have been taught that there are some things that are so important that government must provide it. This idea has been completely smashed by Block and by Hoppe. There is no such thing as a public good--all goods, including fire safety and police protection, are better provided by market competition.