The Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws

[JBI]

Bootleg - We probably don't want to know (just thinking about the possibilities is scary...).

UB - You're the man! Reminded me of why I enjoy coming here.

All - I agree that some (many?) code provisions go farther than (or fall shorter of) what I'd like to see, BUT... I have made conscious decisions to NOT participate in the process of developing or modifying them and so cannot complain about their content; I have made conscious decisions to become involved in their enforcement and so (coupled with an oath to uphold them) cannot pick and choose only those I agree with in my employment; I have made conscious decisions to follow the laws of the land and so would always comply with the adopted codes on my own property/project.

My days of being a 'marginal man' are all but a memory. I find living within a society AND by that societies rules more pallateable at this point in my life. I will still fight the good fight; support the noble cause; I just find fewer of them than I used to.

Would I personally build a deck 29 3/4" above grade without a guard? Hell no!

Must I approve one constructed that way? Of course I must, it complies with the code.

Will I advise the homeowner/contractor that I think it's a bad idea or that in my opinion it's dangerous? Absolutely! That and a note in the property/permit file helps me to sleep at night.

If you honestly believe that personal freedom must always trump the 'greater good', then you must also agree that standing up in a crowded, dark theatre and yelling 'FIRE' at the top of your lungs is OK. I for one could never defend that position.

 

[Bootleg]

John,

Don't you think we lose a little bit of our freedoms daily and we need people who are on the lookout and keep an eye on big bother so we are not led by the nose to slaughter?

 

[JBI]

Of course I do Bootleg. Sadly that is a part of modern society, and it will get worse before it gets better.

I just don't think fining NYC businesses for 'cooling off the neighborhood' is a bad thing - at least no worse than fining/jailing (or maybe thumping the snot out of) the schmuck who yelled fire in the theatre. I'd focus more on the trampling of actual 'personal' rights and not the trampling of societys' rights by individuals. Don't forget that the 'society' is composed of individuals, each of whom has the same 'rights' you seek to defend. Collectively, IMHO, the multitudes rights deserve protection from wreckless individuals at least as much as the individual deserves protection from regulation.

What those businesses are doing is potentially threatening the health, safety and welfare of millions of individuals (not to mention wrecklessly wasting increasingly valuable energy...) with complete disregard for the potential harm. If they want to attract business, why not buy an oversized (or digital) thermometer for their front window with a sign above it reading 'Our current indoor temperature is...' Same effect without the wasted energy.

 

[jim baird]

Not to hijack this bus, but I think the reasoning behind greenification of codes standards is to establish at least a toehold in the long steep climb it will take to counteract global warming, which is a phenomenon that has been empirically demonstrated.

Where my thinking diverges is my refusal to confuse global warming with climate change. Climate changes, in my thinking, are events that occur over time spans we cannot imagine, but can only theorize about based on evidence like the fossil record.

We may melt the ice caps and all the glaciers but still not change the climates. Humanity itself may not survive the effects of its own activity, but the planet will be just fine.

 

[mark handler]

Freedom Is Not Free

We know from our revolutionary origin, two World Wars, and the 9/11 attacks, that there are real enemies outside our country who would impose their will on us if we did not protect it vigorously and vigilantly.

But the idea that freedom is never free also applies to the price every citizen must pay to be part of a democratic society that reveres both rights and responsibilities.

Every law restricts someone’s personal liberty while it seeks to protect our lives, property, and fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, and privacy.

We pay for our freedom by obeying laws we don’t like, paying taxes we don’t want to pay, and by refraining from conduct that interferes with the personal freedom of others to choose how they want to live, and by supporting their rights to make choices that do not harm us or others, and to live and let live.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes provided a good guideline: “Your right to swing your fist ends where another man’s nose begins.” The other side of that observation is, “We have a right to swing our fist so long as we don’t hit someone else’s nose.”

If we exercise our freedom responsibly, we acknowledge that an act is not ethical simply because it’s legal, nor is it proper simply because it’s permissible. As Justice Potter Stewart said, “There’s a difference between what we have a right to do and what is right to do.”

An ethical citizen will often choose to do less than the law allows and more than it requires.

Michael Josephson