Kodi

Not with that attitude it doesn’t.

Immoral laws should not exist, and when they do they should not be followed.

Any laws without an actual victim are immoral laws.

Therefore any law that says I can’t build something out in the middle of nowhere, on land I own, with no neighbors within a mile of me where no other land owners could conceivably be affected is itself also an immoral law.

There are far too many laws already on the books now.

Go for it, a nice shaded area would help me immensely. I do, however hope you’ve done a ground analysis, because if it falls on my house you’re building me another. That’s how it works. If it’s no longer on just your property, it becomes my problem too.

Edit to add: Besides, in cases where there’s clearly been damage to another person and/or their property, that in itself is at the minimum a civil case.

One could even argue that environmental concerns could also be a civil problem, as one person’s poisonous fumes could easily cross into another person’s property and damage their person or effects.

All these so called environmental laws do is make it legal for any amount under a set limit. Regardless of any damage to people or property it causes. It’s a legal amount after all!

I’m well aware of the justifications used to say a person’s property isn’t actually theirs.

I just disagree with them all.

That’s part of the problem with having so many laws written in lawyer speak. They are intentionally difficult to understand, so when someone the current leaders like is breaking them, they’re interpreted to be weaker, and when someone they don’t is, they get the book thrown at them.

That’s the problem with reinterpreting the laws we have instead of trying to actually change them.

Consider the US Constitution. It has been considering a “living document” in spite of the fact that there is a well documented path to adding new laws and changing or removing existing laws.

However, we have allowed the bureaucracy to j trude and decide that. No, this particular law actually means this now, when historically it meant the total opposite.

Again, speaking from the point of view of an American, because I know my own government best, why do we have so many new federal departments, despite not one of them being listed in the Constitution? Because some judge decided that the clause “Provide for the general welfare” could be reinterpreted to mean “provide for every single citizen inside the nation’s borders.” rather than for the nation as a whole.

Those same people would have had absolutely no power to add those departments the correct way, using the Amendment process.

Look at how we handled Prohibition in the early 1900s, we required a Constitutional amendment to ban it and then again to undo said ban.

Now, however, some random bureaucracy can decide what people can or can’t put inside their own bodies…

Why? Because some idiot decided to just reinterpret the Constitution.

Oh, I agree with you on that. We should not be picking winners and losers based on politics. That way leads to ruin.

When the right complains about wind farm and solar subsidies, I agree with them. They need to prosper or not on their own, not with tax money.

When the left complains about oil and gas exploration subsidies, I agree with them, too. For the same reason as above.

I get why people want to nationalize all these industries, and it’s because those industries were created in large part by using our money.

I also know that when a government constantly shields its citizens, including their businesses, from their own mistakes, it tends to create an attitude of dismissal towards improvement.

Too goddamned many of them.

The economy doesn’t need to be “run” is my entire point.

It all goes back to the fact that you tried to blame it all on Trump and his ilk, while I agree that he shares the blame, you are actually refusing to acknowledge the rest of the situation.

Again, what gives anyone the right to determine what someone else puts on land they own?

You seem to actively want people to have to obey someone else, and if that’s not sucking authoritarian cock I don’t know what is.

Without the people buying things, those rich don’t exist. All regulations really do is line the pockets of the already existing companies and make it harder for the small guy working out of his garage.

People have forgotten that the wallet is the most powerful way to vote. Don’t buy their product and they won’t make any money.

The military can go around, they’re not supposed to be on my property anyway. It’s my property, I should be able to do what I want on it.

Just more government overreach.

You think that sort of thing is new, or limited to just half of the Uniparty?

Or do you actually realize it’s not and are simply simping for your chosen side of the same stupid bird?

Fuck em both, and fuck anyone who wants “their side” to win. I am so sick and tired of having to deal with these kinds of power hungry assholes.

And that’s another thing, why do we need approval to build whatever the fuck we want on land we own?

My question is, why does it matter who in government supports what?

Let the people decide what to use or not themselves.

Personally, I love solar. If I could afford to buy a bunch of panels and batteries, I’d be generating my own electricity, and happily tell my power company to suck my dick.

Decentralization should not be so controversial!

Who owns the damaged lines? If it can be proven that they intentionally damaged those lines, then whoever the owner is, is entitled to compensation from the perpetrator(s) responsible. The amount of restitution needs to also include lost income, in addition to however much it will take to repair or replace the damaged lines.

The owner of said equipment should allowed to use physical force to prevent it from happening again.

Up to, and including the sinking of any vessels, and the execution of any crew onboard, engaged in such acts of piratical sabotage if that is what it takes to end the problem.

And if we see the governments of those responsible start defending those pirates? That tells even more of a story, doesn’t it.

Regardless of who is backing them they need to be stopped. Physically if necessary.

Being part of an “official” government force should not give anyone the right to destroy the property of any other person or group of people.

And as for how to enforce that restitution?

Well, there’s a word for it. Indenture. Make enough “not soldiers” work off their destructive tendencies for the “enemy” then maybe they and their governments will learn to stop acting like fucking children and breaking everyone else’s toys out of jealousy.

I fairly recently replaced a water pump in my wife’s 2013 Lexus. Much easier than doing so in my old 1998 Accord. I didn’t even need to pull the timing cover off, for hers.

This is exactly the kind of government overreach people like me have been screaming about since, in my case, the 1990s.

“I told you so” just doesn’t feel so good when what’s happening is nothing less than the entirety of human freedom and liberty is being eroded before our very eyes, and those who disagree with it get labeled as kooks, and accused of hating whatever “oppressed group” of the day is in vogue.