442
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
442 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
85699 readers
3726 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
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!
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
STFU, moron.
Because if you dont have some kind of regulation it ends up being about market forces, which has even less to do with the will of the people and more to do with what makes a very few people rich.
The main issue with government intervention isnt that "government bad", it's that those same few rich people have more influence on it than the will of the people. In a large part because those people would rather cede that power to them rather than make any kind of rational decision.
Its good that green energy is benefiting from market forces right now... but it's a fair weather friend, and as soon as something else is more likely to make some rich asshole more money, it will be tossed back in the junk heap to rot.
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.
And protect the environment from wanton pollution and destruction, and provide workers with guarantees against their employer, and keep needlessly dangerous products from hurting customers, and...
And without those rich people making them, they have nothing to buy. They dont just magically appear for people to buy. That is a misconception (or misdirection, rather) with how consumer action works. You cant take action if the rich dont let you in those situations.
The wallet is only as powerful as the people who run your economy, and generally less so.
The economy doesn't need to be "run" is my entire point.
It doesn't need to be, no, but it will be, because we're too busy pretending we can do something about it without organized action that is aided by an actually effective government producing actually effective regulation.
tell that to the owner class. maybe they will care and stop running the economy, if you are asking nicely enough.
Personally, I find regulations to be a bandaid over a legitimate problem: shareholder misalignment. Really, companies should only ever be consumer and worker coöps since those are the direct stakeholders and the reason businesses exist in the first place. Shareholders aren't needed and only serve as a form of parasitic wealth extraction that feeds capital accural, cartel formation, and monopolization.
Even a perfect utopian co-op needs regulations beacuse most people don't know anything about environmental impact or proper safety precautions.
Any work I do on my house I do to code (and I do look it up when starting a new project). The previous owner... not so much - I found newspaper wrapped around electrical junction boxes, because wires never get hot enough to light old, super dry newspaper on fire....
But you’re missing externalities. A huge reason we need better regulation is the tendency of corporations to externalize their costs to all of our detriment.
Climate and pollutions issues are a prime example. In a free market A corporations saves money by evading cleanup costs, polluting, and the rest of us pay. A justly regulated market minimizes those externalities so the corporations covers all its costs
The government paid like $1B for wind farm developers to abandon projects.
Most of the time government slows things down, but the current administration actively fights against progress or shatter people want. wtf does he care about wind farms in New England enough to shut them down
I mean the alternatives are not all wine and roses. We pay among the highest electricity prices in the country and a big part of that is depending on wind farms that are already like a decade behind. Previous governments slowed them down, letting everyone be heard, but they didn’t actively oppose
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.
Nor is decentralization controversial. And there can be a conversation about making sure it is not actively discouraged.
But economies of scale are real. Does that mean a single power plant for the entire US, continent, world is a good idea? Of course not. Nor is 8.3 billion* individual installations.
* current world population