5 ms·

This seems to be straight from a dystopian movie or book I'm not sure it isn't a joke. Is the "get off my lawn" a thing of the past in US? What business have US

This seems to be straight from a dystopian movie or book I'm not sure it isn't a joke. Is the "get off my lawn" a thing of the past in US? What business have US gov, or anybody else for that matter, to do with what I do on my property?

wallace_f 9y ago
Most states wont even allow you to collect your own rain water to drink it.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  There only appears to be a single state (Colorado) where collecting rainwater is strictly regulated,[0] and in most states (31) it is not illegal/no regulation/even encouraged. A further 9 states regulate and encourage rainwater collection, and then Texas provides incentives to do so. The remaining 5 states simply have regulations around rainwater collection. [0]https://energy.gov/eere/femp/rainwater-harvesting-regulations-map https://energy.gov/eere/femp/rainwater-harvesting-regulation...
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    That page even links technical documents about collecting rainwater for household use: https://extension.psu.edu/rainwater-cisterns-design-construction-and-treatment https://extension.psu.edu/rainwater-cisterns-design-construc...
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    Thanks for the link. I had come across this link [0], where: >Both Texas and Ohio allow the practice for potable purposes, which is frequently excluded from other states’ laws and regulations Also there it notes most Western states disallow or regulate it. From your link any state that says water rights are regulated, as far as I can tell means water rights exist seperately from property rights, and typically belong to the state. Anyways it is not as bas as I had believed. 0-www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/rainwater-harvesting.aspx
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kerbalspacepro 9y ago
  Because it screws with the surrounding environment if you do it incorrectly? Sometimes people forget externalities are a thing!
emodendroket 9y ago
Well a lot I'd say, given that your home has to conform to tons of local building codes.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  I think his point was that it's not a legitimate role of government to interfere in the details of your private life inside your own home, especially when they affect no one else.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Well, I mean, let's say, for the sake of argument, solar panels had a tendency to burst into flames and cause not only the house they were installed in but also neighboring houses to go up in flames. Would it still be unreasonable to ban them? If not then you've conceded the principle and we're back to arguing about the specifics of each case.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      As far as I know the historical justification for legitimate government rule is social contract theory -- hand over some of your rights to protect the remainder of them. There is some debate about how this should play out in the real world. Technically, solar panels, batteries, ovens, etc all can catch on fire and cause my neighbors to as well. Should we ban all of them? Sometimes what we do is to try to protect rights through a heavy handed authority (outlaw something), and sometimes through the court system (sue for damages). Anyways, what seems to be clear is that if there is no potential in one harming another's rights, there's no legitimate reason for government to get involved.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        > Technically, solar panels, batteries, ovens, etc all can catch on fire and cause my neighbors to as well. Should we ban all of them? Maybe not, but there are lots of regulations on how they have to be made and installed and I think that's quite reasonable. > But I think what we can see here is that if there is no potential in one harming another's rights, there's no legitimate reason for government to get involved. I don't think it's that simple. A lot of things you can do would just be unsafe for the occupants of the home, but since it is likely you are not the only person who will ever live in the home it is harmful to an unwitting next resident if you are doing a bunch of work that is not up to code. And that's before we consider that a lot of work will be done by contractors for people who, let's face it, don't have any idea how to judge whether work is safe. Whether or not this particular regulation is reasonable, I think the government does have a compelling interest in regulating what you do with your home in this way.
maxerickson 9y ago
The main reference is a page giving guidelines for what sort of equipment is required for connecting a solar system to the grid for net metering. Of course there will be some requirements for that, and most systems that use the grid for "storage" aren't setup to power the house when the grid is down. Thus the system that isn't capable of powering the house without the grid is off when the grid is off. The question of whether one can operate a house with solar+battery when the grid is down is not really answered by the article.

wallace_f 9y ago

Most states wont even allow you to collect your own rain water to drink it.

24gttghh 9y ago
There only appears to be a single state (Colorado) where collecting rainwater is strictly regulated,[0] and in most states (31) it is not illegal/no regulation/even encouraged. A further 9 states regulate and encourage rainwater collection, and then Texas provides incentives to do so. The remaining 5 states simply have regulations around rainwater collection. [0]https://energy.gov/eere/femp/rainwater-harvesting-regulations-map https://energy.gov/eere/femp/rainwater-harvesting-regulation...
- maxerickson 9y ago
  That page even links technical documents about collecting rainwater for household use: https://extension.psu.edu/rainwater-cisterns-design-construction-and-treatment https://extension.psu.edu/rainwater-cisterns-design-construc...
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Thanks for the link. I had come across this link [0], where: >Both Texas and Ohio allow the practice for potable purposes, which is frequently excluded from other states’ laws and regulations Also there it notes most Western states disallow or regulate it. From your link any state that says water rights are regulated, as far as I can tell means water rights exist seperately from property rights, and typically belong to the state. Anyways it is not as bas as I had believed. 0-www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/rainwater-harvesting.aspx
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kerbalspacepro 9y ago
Because it screws with the surrounding environment if you do it incorrectly? Sometimes people forget externalities are a thing!

emodendroket 9y ago

Well a lot I'd say, given that your home has to conform to tons of local building codes.

wallace_f 9y ago
I think his point was that it's not a legitimate role of government to interfere in the details of your private life inside your own home, especially when they affect no one else.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Well, I mean, let's say, for the sake of argument, solar panels had a tendency to burst into flames and cause not only the house they were installed in but also neighboring houses to go up in flames. Would it still be unreasonable to ban them? If not then you've conceded the principle and we're back to arguing about the specifics of each case.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    As far as I know the historical justification for legitimate government rule is social contract theory -- hand over some of your rights to protect the remainder of them. There is some debate about how this should play out in the real world. Technically, solar panels, batteries, ovens, etc all can catch on fire and cause my neighbors to as well. Should we ban all of them? Sometimes what we do is to try to protect rights through a heavy handed authority (outlaw something), and sometimes through the court system (sue for damages). Anyways, what seems to be clear is that if there is no potential in one harming another's rights, there's no legitimate reason for government to get involved.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      > Technically, solar panels, batteries, ovens, etc all can catch on fire and cause my neighbors to as well. Should we ban all of them? Maybe not, but there are lots of regulations on how they have to be made and installed and I think that's quite reasonable. > But I think what we can see here is that if there is no potential in one harming another's rights, there's no legitimate reason for government to get involved. I don't think it's that simple. A lot of things you can do would just be unsafe for the occupants of the home, but since it is likely you are not the only person who will ever live in the home it is harmful to an unwitting next resident if you are doing a bunch of work that is not up to code. And that's before we consider that a lot of work will be done by contractors for people who, let's face it, don't have any idea how to judge whether work is safe. Whether or not this particular regulation is reasonable, I think the government does have a compelling interest in regulating what you do with your home in this way.

maxerickson 9y ago

The main reference is a page giving guidelines for what sort of equipment is required for connecting a solar system to the grid for net metering. Of course there will be some requirements for that, and most systems that use the grid for "storage" aren't setup to power the house when the grid is down. Thus the system that isn't capable of powering the house without the grid is off when the grid is off. The question of whether one can operate a house with solar+battery when the grid is down is not really answered by the article.