this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
434 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
85539 readers
3491 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because they were actively holding back required approvals for the wind farms to begin operations.
And that's another thing, why do we need approval to build whatever the fuck we want on land we own?
Because we live in a society with laws.
Too goddamned many of them.
Easy to say, but look what happens when some oversized oompa loompa ignores them all And just acts for personal gain
Unfortunately we’re likely to get stuck with more laws, more red tape, more paperwork, trying to prevent the current disaster from happening again
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.
In this case, height restrictions. It's normally just a pro forma notification to the military that you're building something above a certain height so they know not to crash into it. It got weaponised by the trump admin.
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.
Me: Answers questions with facts
You: Simp!
Dude, I've never even been to the States.
Also in case you didn't realise, we're talking airspace. Those turbines are way high.
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.
STFU, moron.