Wooden propellers have been used for a long time. It's a sensible option, especially for a single use drone.

Lots of people are licensed, you aren't entitled to their services either.

No one has a right to another person's labor. If you think everyone should have access to emergency care, fine, put together a public health option via government run facilities, ala NHS, or through government insurance, ala Canada.

You don't just declare that people have right to demand care from private citizens and that you'll figure out a way to pay for it, maybe, someday.

> we already pay for healthcare, these people use services built by citizens too.

Everyone uses services payed for by public taxes, that doesn't entitle you their labor.

No one has a right to your labor or your business, especially not for free.

Imagine if someone came up to you said you had to work for them because it was an emergency, with nothing but a vague promise that the government would pay you back, maybe, somehow.

> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Fairly often, it is. For decades there wasn't any evidence of wolves in our county. Was that conclusive proof there weren't any, no, but in practical terms that didn't matter. Either there weren't wolves, or there were wolves that were having so little impact no one had noticed them, which worked for us.

That's why I said more likely not 'absolutely every time'.

You're right, they aren't running it by themselves, but they are running it.

Particularly in the German system, I don't know as much about the Canadian one, the ministers are pretty autonomous. Expert underlings don't help if the top person insists on going in a bad direction. And parliamentary systems, particularly the heavily negotiated coalition governments we often see in Europe seem more likely to give out assignments based on power sharing criteria rather than their suitability. Sometimes you get lucky, like Baerbock and Habeck, and sometimes you get Lambrecht.

> Tbf every democracy tends to have parties designate some cabinet positions as sidetracked posts to be given out to tick political boxes.

I think that's one of the advantages of a US-style presidential system. Cabinet ministers are more likely, not always but more often, to be chosen for expertise rather than political considerations. See the Secretaries Blinken and Austin.