This is a toxic post by someone peeved about not being to stalk people of affluence. There are other ways to address emissions attributed to private jets, such as taxes, while respecting people's privacy.
Some of those people of affluence hold opinions like this:
> “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
Moreover the companies many of them operate are more than happy to stalk people for ad dollars. So... I'm not sure why we're going out of our way to protect them specifically.
I've always considered the trade-off to be more straightforward: If you're going to fly a multi-ton vehicle over my head without me having the right to tell you to get the hell out of the property I own ("from hell to sky" is the traditional parcel of land owned in the English common law system), then at the very least I should have the right to know who you are.
The government took our property rights to build airspace as a common highway, and we ought to get something out of further taking.
That's an interesting argument, but why do you not have the right to know who is driving next to you on a road yet claim to have the right to know who is flying above?
I don't have a traditional property right to the road next to my owned land parcel.
I do have a traditional property right to the airspace above my owned land parcel.
That property right was abridged by the formation of the national airspace system, but there were agreements put into place regarding what safeguards people had against other people abusing that new highway. This is an abridgment of those existing agreements.
(... I think the case can be made that it's a reasonable abridgment, but to a first approximation it looks an awful lot like 'forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges' when only the elite can afford private jets).
the carbon shaming of celebrities seems to tap into a sort of “sneer at the rich” morality that is very attractive to the masses and thus is probably effective at motivating people to pass things like carbon taxes
It's recently (last few years?) become popular in some crowds to replace "_____ people" with "people of _____". It's based on the theory that the former implies an inherent trait while the latter implies a current status. (It's also of course become popular in other crowds to mock this construction by using it in ways that its original proponents would presumably object to.)
The same way children and women get special laws related to crimes that disproportionately affect them...
How do you tell me you have no empathy for people higher up the status latter than you without telling me you have no empathy for people higher up the status ladder than you?
I think it's foolish to have empathy for people that have no empathy for me. I don't want to be tracked. A lot of very wealthy people have made their career (and fortune) off of tracking me against my will. Why would I care about their desire not to be tracked now?
If they can afford a private jet they can afford a security detail. Yes, my empathy is limited at problems they can solve for themselves but choose not to, instead taking something from the rest of us.
Billionaires are not a protected class subject to undue discrimination.
>How do you tell me you have no empathy for people higher up the status latter than you without telling me you have no empathy for people higher up the status ladder than you?
Why should I have empathy for those who exploit me for their own personal gain?
You don't need to empathize. You simply need to respect privacy. People have lost privacy, and that's an issue to address directly rather than take privacy away from others.
Right, but the biggest advocates for the destruction of privacy are the ones who just received legal protection for their private jets. They're getting protection for what they got rich destroying for the rest of us.
I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.
Zuckerberg and his ilk got rich destroying my privacy, but somehow it's unseemly for me to not respect their privacy? Privacy for me but not for thee?
> “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
Moreover the companies many of them operate are more than happy to stalk people for ad dollars. So... I'm not sure why we're going out of our way to protect them specifically.