Time for FAA Psychiatric Illness Reform

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In that scenario, he is resisting arrest, and unless he is hiding Jews from the Nazis*, he is morally responsible for the consequences.

Regardless, breaking down the door is a violent act by LEOs used against him even (though he did nothing violent in response, completely peaceful). Thus my point, violence will be used in the ultimate enforcement of laws and regulations. I don't see how defining some peaceful act that Chrisman does as another crime makes any difference in that. How would the punishment for resisting arrest be enforced -- by using violence or threat thereof.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Yes, I really want to contend that all this can be done legally without violence. Certainly it can be done violently, but certainly it can also be achieved without violence as well. The fact that you don't understand that is what's worrisome.

Firstly, please let's avoid the ad hominem attacks and don't presume what I do or do not understand.

I don't deny it can be done without much violence and is a fair share of the time. Returning to my point though, I think it is fair to say that enforcement of laws and regulations involves the threat of violence (or physical coercion if you prefer) if one does not cooperate.

Do you seriously believe that most people cooperating with the police don't think that violence will be used against them if they fail to cooperate? I guess that is more of a psychological question which one could poll.

I think most people would say, as in your post above, if you don’t cooperate physical coercion or violence will be used against you.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So what? The real issue is whether the law being enforced is just or unjust.

I agree that is the more important point.

This long detour started because I noted that some of the differences in the view of whether a law or regulation is fair likely reflect difference in people’s view of whether using threats of violence or physical coercion is ok to enforce regulations or laws when there is no clear evidence that doing so will prevent a clear and present danger to others.

I suspect some people think it is ok to use laws and regulations even if such data is lacking because they think “we’ll it is just a regulation or fine” and ignore ultimately what will happen if you don’t cooperate. That is why I brought it up.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

How would you suggest a government enforce laws that people refuse to obey? Simply just keep sending letters and asking politely to respond? At some point YOU make the decision on HOW You will be treated.

I agree that the only mechanism we presently have to enforce laws and regulation is, ultimately, to be willing to use violence (or if you want to call it physical coercion), if people refuse to cooperate. That is actually my whole point.

I think we shouldn't have laws or regulations unless we are ultimately willing to do that as a society. Thus, we shouldn't have laws or regulations unless there is clear evidence they function to prevent or deter a clear and present danger to other people.

Returning to the OP, I would submit that the FAA's requirement for a 3rd class medical fails that test. We have not seen here clear evidence that it improves the safety of flight. Therefore, we should not be willing to use violence or threat of violence (or "physical coercion" if you want to stick with what is in my view is an unusual definition -- but I am just trying to address the main point, rather than a semantic argument over definitions).

As you may recall, my original statement which started this detour was "When such evidence is lacking, it implies the regulatory agency is using violence or threats thereof, to force people to do something they don’t want to do, just because people in the agency think it is a good idea, but with very little evidence or proof." I believe you have tried to argue that having such laws and regulation with criminal penalties does not constitute a threat of violence.

We can debate that specific point further if you like to determine where we disagree on that. My assertion is "the regulatory agency is using violence or threats thereof, to force people to do something they don’t want to do". I suppose we could parse whether the existence of these laws and regulations and their expression is normally perceived to imply that violence will ultimately be used if you don't cooperate and do what they want.

So sub-questions that appear to me to be pertinent to such parsing would be:

Is what the government will ultimately do in most cases violence, in the common meaning of the term?
Do citizens who are subject to the laws and regulations perceive that violence will ultimately be used?
Are LEOs trained to use increasing levels of force, up to and including lethal force, to ensure ultimate compliance with laws and their enforcement?

Let me note right up front. My assertion is not "the regulatory agency is constantly using violence" or "there is no way to avoid the violence of the regulatory agency". It is that they are always ultimately at least using a threat of violence to ensure compliance.

On another totally unrelated subject. If you haven't seen ONE SIX RIGHT you should. It's pretty good.

Thanks, yes, that is a good one.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I've listed some specific examples of what the FDA prevents which you've chosen not to respond to.

I don't mean to ignore what is in your post. However, a few examples don't prove a complex case like this.

Firstly, even if the FDA did something and a harm failed to appear, that does not prove causality. That is the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Secondly, simply pointing at an intended averted harm ignores other potential harms which may have become more prevalent due to unintended consequences of FDA regulation.

There is a large body of literature on these problems with regulation in general, and with FDA regulation in particular. I am not even close to an expert in that area, but know there is a large debate and body of literature about it. It is hardly a cut and dried area.

Here are a few links to start from the perspective of the FDA not helping:
https://www.fdareview.org/issues/theory-evidence-and-examples-of-fda-harm/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration

But I fear I really must stop with that, lest I receive another warning. FDA and regulation is politics without an aviation focus, not permitted on this board.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I accept that that is your motivation, but I maintain that the actual effect is to arouse emotions rather than reason.

Well, so essentially a question of rhetorical tactics. Sometimes these things are actually emotional issues for people and so that is going to happen and I think it can be useful in some circumstances. But different techniques work for different audiences in different circumstances. Your point is a good one to bear in mind.

I also think that insisting on definitive proof of effectiveness for every law or regulation would be going too far.

For every single one would certainly be a huge burden. I think insisting on that for any new regulation, except in emergency circumstances, would be a good place to start slowing the growth of the regulatory state. Then perhaps start a program of review in each agency requiring a certain fraction of regulations to be reviewed each year and discarded without proof of effectiveness. Personally I would probably restrict this to start to Federal agencies.

That having been said, I think we agree that the FAA goes overboard on some things.

Hear-hear!

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

That aside, I'm curious, did they ever come in kicking your door in and holding you at gunpoint? Did they ever threaten you with violence?

Or more to the point with respect to my assertion, did you perceive that they might use violence against you if you didn't fully cooperate with providing them a floor plan and allowing them in at any time of the day or night, and obeyed all the other restrictions?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I've often wondered how they are allowed to operate under the guise of guilty until proven innocent. My guess is they just haven't been confronted by the right attorney yet.

I think there have been a fair number of cases over the years challenging various aspects of this regime. What Stan went through is pretty typical in the Federal system. It is not considered convicting him to have the court restrict his travel and make him surrender his passport. They view that merely as preventing flight and ensuring compliance with court orders. They often put trackers on people for the same reason.

I am curious what you think an attorney might challenge and on what legal basis?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Thanks. No, they never came to the house after I gave the probation officer the tour, and I was never threatened with violence.

But what did you think would happen if you didn't cooperate with those restrictions? Sure you weren't directly threatened with violence by the people dealing with you. But what did you think they would do if you didn't comply? Would they just send you letters begging you to cooperate, as sarcastically suggested by @SToL, or would you expect something more forcible?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Peter, I think you're taking a very extreme position, one that, if carried out in a major way, would essentially paralyze all three branches of government.

Hi Richard, well, are you saying that my suggestions for how to proceed above would paralyze all 3 branches? That is namely, new regs only if clear evidence they will work or in an emergency, reviews to remove old regulations, starting with Federal agencies? Or are you referring to some other position?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

If I understand your position, it's that the only laws and regulations that should be allowed to exist are ones that can be proven effective. If I have that wrong, feel free to clarify.

I think my exact position would be there should be clear evidence that the proposed or existing regulations prevent or deter a clear and present danger to others.

So the danger being considered must be fairly immediate and obvious to outside observers. Not “I think some day something might hurt others”.

The evidence should be clear and convincing. Not beyond a reasonable doubt but not as weak as a mere preponderance of evidence either.

There are obviously significant judgement calls here, but I think many of our current regulations fail to meet this standard. Many FAA regulations are more along the lines of “we think it might help”.

Consider the requirement for a 3rd class medical from the OP. We have not seen any reasonable data that it improves the safety of flight in this thread. I keep asking for any studies, and none have been cited.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think that in order to protect ourselves from harm, we as a people need to be able, through our elected representatives, to estimate the probable effects of laws and regulations. Insisting on proof of effectiveness in advance of adopting them would be an impossible standard to meet in most cases. How could you possibly collect meaningful data on that in advance of a law or regulation being tried out? And if you did accept the premise of collecting the data after adoption, how would you ever be able to separate the variables, i.e., eliminate confounding factors from the data?

Sure, the fact that enforcing laws can occasionally require violence is regrettable, but I say that the moral impact of that is sufficiently mitigated as long as the violator can avoid violence by submitting to law enforcement when required.

I hope my other response perhaps addresses this as well. I don’t think there is a clear distinction between “estimating probable effects” and “proof of effectiveness”. All scientific inference is essentially probabilistic, as is the underlying nature of reality. We rarely, or perhaps never, know things with 100% certainty. Some things we know with extremely high certainty and we will not be wrong in a million universes, but that is still not absolutely 100%, though practically and effectively it is so.

So the question I raise here generally is, what level of certainty should we have that regulations will prevent a clear and present danger to others? I have proposed the standard should be clear evidence because what we ultimately have to do to enforce laws and regulations, if people don’t want to cooperate, is to do some pretty nasty stuff to them (I would call it threatening violence but others would say forcible coercion).

I would submit that the evidence that the 3rd class medical requirement improves the safety of flight is almost non-existent. Assuming that requirement was enacted in 1950 or 1951 (as posted by Dr. Chien), there is nothing in the graphs which were posted (from the FAA’s own report) to suggest it had any effect at all on the rate of fatal accidents in GA flying. There is also anecdotal reason to believe that pilots may be avoiding treating and dealing with medical conditions because of this regulation and that would arguably decrease the safety of flight.

Thus, no clear evidence the 3rd class requirement improves the safety of flight. Issues surrounding it clearly have negative sequelae, such as for Stan Cooper. It should rationally be eliminated.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

That statement makes no sense to me. My understanding of the English language is that there is a wide gulf between an estimate and proof.

Tried to explain that there but let me try again with an example I sometimes use during lectures.

I ask a question. Do you know where your car is parked right now?

We are in a lecture hall so most people will say, “yes, definitely, it is in such and such a parking lot.”

But in fact lots of things might have happened to their car so they are wrong and don’t know where it is:

It might have been struck by someone in the lot and hauled away to impound during the course of the investigation. That has some reasonable probability.

It might have been hit by a meteor and vaporized - considerably less likely but it could happen.

And finally, almost impossibly unlikely, but according to laws of quantum mechanics, the probability that every single particle in that car has spontaneously relocated somewhere else can be estimated.

So I tend to view all scientific knowledge as probabilistic with varying levels of certainty. And that is certainly how I would view any knowledge of the likely preventative effects of regulation. We can have some level of certainty about the likely effects, but in the social sciences it will always be much less than 100% or any level of certainty we typically achieve in physics or engineering.

Now you may be thinking of “proof” as something like a logically derived proof, which is another meaning, but doesn’t really apply to inductive conclusions. In that sense of the term, I would never expect or suggest a “proof” of the efficacy of a regulation.

I would like to see clear and convincing evidence, which is a subjective description that roughly corresponds to something like a >75% level of certainty. Better than preponderance of evidence and less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think you're placing way too much emphasis on the "nasty stuff," given that it is entirely within the power of the accused to avoid it in nearly every case.

Also pertinent to @STol’s comment. I have sometimes pondered the idea of having government also have a lesser sort of “punishment” than illegal. With modern technology, we could maintain an official government blacklist when certain lower level offenses are committed. Others could check it when deciding who to do business with or extend credit to.

Citizens would have a hearing before a judge before being placed on it and could petition to be removed.

In a situation like that, I would then personally be ok with somewhat lower standards of evidence before creating the offenses that can get you on the blacklist. The legislature would still have to vote to create that type of offense.

Just some musings...

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So why is it everyone wants to come to the great United States, and then change the way we do things?

We are the only country in the world where citizens are born with natural inalienable rights and with a constitution that prohibits our government from infringing on those rights.

We have a pretty damn good system here. It's not perfect but it's pretty good. Good enough that everyone else wants to come here as well. And then they want to change it.

I don't understand it.

Interesting question, and noting a lot of good things, but what is the pertinence to this thread or aviation?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

That is called a misdemeanor. it already exists.
Tim

My idea was a little different, a least in most jurisdictions. That is to have the "blacklist" not carry any other penalties at all. No small fine, nothing that will be enforced using physical force (or violence).

So this could be used for things society thinks is bad, but for which there is no clear evidence that it presents a clear and present danger to others. Incorporating another thread, perhaps things like flying your buddy somewhere while he pays for lunch while you are a private pilot.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You're exaggerating. It's not "will be," it's "could be."

If you want to be semantically precise, let's consider that.

"Could" is used to indicate a possibility. So that is one possible valid use which would imply excluding all possible sanctions which could possibly be enforced using force.

On the other hand, saying "nothing that will be enforced" means the agent, in this case the government, will not use force or violence to enforce anything. They might use sanctions which could be enforced using force, but would not do so in my statement, which is thus a bit less restrictive for the government than saying "could".

That suggests these offenses could have a fine, which you could choose to pay to take your name off the blacklist, but you don't have to. We almost have that now effectively with misdemeanor fines in other states. They only rarely are going to forcibly try and collect those, but they can.

Not sure I'm as in favor of that as a pure blacklist though, so I do think I would more accurately like excluding all things which "could" be enforced using physical force for this purpose.

Also, returning to the start of this detour. I am trying to propose a system which does not contain the threat or possibility of the use of force for these offenses. So which option is being used, should be explicit.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Irrelevant. There is no such requirement in our constitution. Our laws and regulations are written by our elected representatives.

Have to disagree. Firstly, the COTUS does guarantee a right to due process before deprivation of liberty, which some may consider many of these regulations to violate. Secondly, this can also be considered a matter of people’s inherent rights. Or thirdly, simply a matter of good public policy in terms of producing the most peaceful and prosperous society. So the issue I raise is not irrelevant under any of those criteria.

But let me ask this another way. What principles do you think should govern and decide which aviation regulations are in place? Safety at all costs? Whatever some authority like the legislature decides?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

QUOTE="PeterNSteinmetz, post: 2858617, member: 26407"]
So yes to your last question. Them's the facts.

I want to make sure I am understanding the answer to this correctly. I asked "What principles do you think should govern and decide which aviation regulations are in place? Safety at all costs? Whatever some authority like the legislature decides?"

And your answer is "Whatever some authority like the legislature decides" is the principle which should govern and decide which aviation regulations are in place.

Doesn't that lead to an infinite regress -- in other words, there is then the question -- what principles should the legislature use to decide which aviation regulations are in place? (I think my original question fairly subsumed this question as I did not specify an agent.)

I suppose one could treat the legislature as some sort of ultimate authority, that whatever they say is true and just, sort of like the pope speaking ex cathedra for Catholics. I can imagine other interpretations, but it doesn't seem fair to misinterpret here, so perhaps you can elaborate. Do you really think we should all just stop our inquiry about the appropriate principles with the answer that the legislature is always correct?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Absolutely NOT irrelevant. In our republic, we are entitled to discuss what laws Congress should pass or repeal, and if we can convince enough fellow citizens of our views, then there is at least a possibility of getting Congress to change the laws. The legislation that led to BasicMed is a recent example.

Yes to all in that post -- yes in spades!