Originally Posted by GregW
All of "those" items do not support the energy needs of a small manufacturing plant or even a good sized communications switch.
As far as I am concerned the demand for non fossil power exceeds the individual rights of any and all the objectors. The society, economy and the country need the electric power at a decent price.
What "small manufacturing plants?" Got an address? Got a name? Who, specifically, is in need of electricity beyond simply saying "there's lots of people out there that need more or cheaper electricity."
You want to make this an issue of "greater" versus the "lessers" interest? Okay, let's do that. You go make a list of all the people who don't have this electricity, and then we'll go compare your list to an opposing list of the people in the state who do have more than ready access to electricity.
If I take the "for the greater good," and argue the way such people normally argue, then it sounds to me like a tiny group of special interest panderers wants to squawk and squeal as loud of they can, puffing themselves up like a puffer fish to make themselves look as big as possible so people their their numbers are more impressive than they really are.
If a small manufacturer is concerned about a lack of sufficient electricity, then the burden to rectify should be on them, and not on society writ large. They
made the mistake
(and it IS a mistake) of being where they are, and the mistake is their burden to bear. They should have made wiser choices in life and rectified their own problem, because it is their own problem
. Not your problem, not my problem, not grandmas problem, not Billy Joes problem down the block, much less "everyone else's" problem.
** If you move in right next to an airport, don't be complaining about the noise such that you expect society to solve your problem.
** If you move right next to an Interstate that has been there for 30 years, don't complain about the noise and expect everyone else in society to solve your problem.
** If you are a giant or moderate sized business who unwisely decides to move to an area with insufficient infrastructure, be it a road that can't handle that businesses traffic, or where there is either none, scant or insufficiently cheap electricity, the mistake was yours to make and you should bear the burden of your poor life choices, not your neighbors, not grandma down the street whos house you want to try to snatch via eminent domain, or simply try to force an easement on Grandmas property. Go solve your own problems. You caused them, you must rectify them.
Having said that, here comes the "but since many in society wants convenient access to tacos and a hamburger and [insert any other business product here] that should be sufficient justification that some liberties can be abridged if it will bring tasty tacos, hamburgers, or [whatever other consumer product or service] to the public-at-large.
The argument often superficially "sounds good" to some people when we use words like "manufacturing," because it conjures up illusions of some giant Pennsylvania steel mill engaged in production of goods vital to the "national security of the United States" rarrr rarrr rarrr.... but when you phrase it in terms of much more common business that are far more likely to exist, which is tacos (okay, there's actually very few Taco Bells in NH, slightly beside the point)
, hamburgers, Pier One imports, and other quite common consumer goods, it becomes a little more clear what we are asking people to do.
Where's the bright line demarcation between one liberty abridgment and another in your mind(s) that we "innocently" take away and consider a "mere acceptable sacrifice and trade-off"?
If you can justify taking away one specific kind of liberty in the pursuit of bringing the public hamburgers, tacos, manufacturing goods, "local jobs," etc.... then where is the bright line that delineates where that pursuit to make people sacrifice ends? Why should we not likewise use that very same argument once again in a different circumstance, claiming "the public wants X, Y, Z goods or services" such that we shall ask them to suffer yet another kind of liberty abridgment, and then perhaps another, and then another.