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.
I wasn’t trying to change anything, I was just answering your question about where the right of the government to set limits on what you can do with your land comes from.
I hope you don’t mind when I build a 50 meter tall sun blocker to block your land from getting any sunlight since I should be allowed to build what I want.
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!
You keep ascribing desires to me when I’ve done nothing more than explain the current situation… I have not stated a single opinion of mine in this thread thus far.
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.
In case your attempt to start arguments is sparked from actual ignorance ….
federal permitting and leasing for wind projects
many wind farms are not on owned property. In particular for offshore wind farms there is no land that can be owned. Many projects are in locations leased from the government
if turbines are above above a certain height, it affects airspace used for flying, you don’t own
even renewables can be bad for the environment. The trope about killing birds has some truth to it, and environmental review keeps it from happening
yes, renewables can affect your neighbors and they deserve some consideration
yes, it’s conceivable that a wind farm offshore or near a base or a border can have national security implications
In a nation of laws, things like this are worth considering. However that is different than using them as cover for personal beliefs
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.
Laws?
There are far too many laws already on the books now.
True, but that doesn’t change the fact that laws are what “gives them the right”.
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.
Also true but it doesnt change anything.
Not with that attitude it doesn’t.
I wasn’t trying to change anything, I was just answering your question about where the right of the government to set limits on what you can do with your land comes from.
I hope you don’t mind when I build a 50 meter tall sun blocker to block your land from getting any sunlight since I should be allowed to build what I want.
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!
You keep ascribing desires to me when I’ve done nothing more than explain the current situation… I have not stated a single opinion of mine in this thread thus far.
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.
Ye gods. Yeah I’m done here.
I think they tried to warn you with their username.
In case your attempt to start arguments is sparked from actual ignorance ….
In a nation of laws, things like this are worth considering. However that is different than using them as cover for personal beliefs
I’m well aware of the justifications used to say a person’s property isn’t actually theirs.
I just disagree with them all.