* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

* https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/childrens-crusade

* https://encyclopediaofalabama.org/media/demonstrators-attack...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877

> if you are asking if violence is OK to fight violence, it always is. I guess I personally did not think that needs justification but 100% you can (and should) fight violence with violence

I wasn't asking that, but you were (sorta) vis-à-vis the justification question ;) My main point was to say that it seems strange that a crowd of folks that consider themselves "thinkers" would simply table the discussion of the use of force. I do not like discussions tabled simply because they seem indecent - that tells me they're probably important to have.

But to your point: if it is ok to 100% use force against force, why? If a federal agent were to show up at someone's door to and force them into a labor camp, where they would probably meet their death slowly - if the person decided to try to use force to fight the federal agent and take a chance on a better life than the camp, would their use of force be justified in your eyes? And taken a bit further and sort of building on the first example, what is the difference between someone using force against an employee of a company pursuing a goal whose technology is being used to aid in the use of genocide against others for reasons _the company can justify_ (money) but they can't? Are they not complicit in the devaluation / loss of other people's lives? In Grug's terms, "why ok for us to hurt people if we think we right, but not ok for people to hurt us if they think they right?" (or something like that)

> If your claim is that violence is justifyable - how makes the determination for such justification?

We authorize people in governments to make this determination, and increasingly machines. Should we? Do you think that it is acceptable to let a police officer justify force on behalf of the state? How about a machine? Mostly just trying to understand what you think is acceptable here.

But to answer...violence against human beings is indeed different than setting shit on fire, though the law certainly does not allow for the use of force against personal property either. And this difference is indeed the crux of the issue, depending on what your values are (though we seem to be in alignment on "life is valuable"). If for example (probably a bad one, but hopefully it gets the idea across), a group of people is committing a genocide, and you ask them to stop, and they do not, and so you interfere with the use of force...limited at first, maybe, but they do not stop: is their continued involvement not the justification for use of force, assuming other strategies are off the table? Different example than the thread, I realize, but my thought experiment is not tied directly to it, just at the sentiment.

I am one of the folks who, in my youth, purchased land in between Fort Garland and San Luis, with dreams of off-grid living. I succeeded, mostly, but not without many hiccups - the locals being one of them.

For me, "off-grid" was about _control_: control over my mortgage (none!), bills (no monthly subscriptions to privatized power companies generating profit!), and, well, life in general. I'd say the general theme wasn't so much about "sticking it to the man" (what's to stick and who?) or "being self reliant" (impossible), but about fighting classism _to some degree_ via a veritable case of civil disobedience.

To my understanding, it is basically illegal OR extremely difficult to find a living situation where someone else (bank, etc.) isn't profiting off folks, and I find that, well, avarice. But you could find a situation like that out in the valley, because land was cheap and you could "get away" with a lot out there, which basically is just another way of saying folks could _afford_ to be poor.

America is entrenched in classism, and everywhere I look someone with less money getting fucked. And this is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to building code enforcement: wealthy folks pay the same amount as poor folks for things like permits, et. al. ($$), code means nothing when you can afford to hire engineers to prove its safe, pay for costly zoning variations, etc. So as harsh as the valley was in climate, it was basically an oasis of sorts to younger me for all those reasons.

All that to say: there are other genres of fiction worth exploring :)

The downsides of the Vega I mostly didn't see mentioned on YT:

- Required an account to use

- Required WIFI to setup (don't need WIFI past that except when updating)

- Required an app to get scan files off it, but will work for your OBJ use case

Battery life has been a few scans. Do the processing later and get the scans up front.

> In most countries, this kind of modification, based on artistic whim, ceased to be a serious social force by the 1980s. Even allowing for delayed reaction and effect in Sicily, it is surprising that such a proposal could have been taken very seriously in a place that boasts a great historical and artistic heritage.

> With these newest "additions," Cefalù Cathedral is being deprived of that opportunity. The scarlet beast has reared its ugly heads.

From: http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art41.htm

If you get a chance, I highly recommend seeing them! They left a mark on me personally that no stained glass had previously.

Some background and pictures:

https://experiencesicily.com/2014/01/11/the-norman-cathedral...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/amthomson/2564316523

Those are great questions! And those are the questions the local government should be asking, and working with those folks to solve waste management issues, not prevent them from living a certain way. House more, not less?

> prohibiting storage of an empty RV on an otherwise empty plot of land prevents people from bouncing back and forth between two permanent RVs on two different plots of land...

It prevents that (which I would argue is problematic because it sounds classist? - again, house more, not less!), but it also prevents someone from just storing an RV on a plot of land they own.

> Composting is not sufficient to destroy human pathogens.

The studies aggregated in the Humanure Handbook suggest otherwise?: https://weblife.org/humanure/references.html

Here is a link to just 1 study outside those references: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288724214_A_pilot_s... (there are better links than this particular one, no time to dig up more ATM)

The thing about composting..it's a system, just like septic, just like centralized waste management. Things can go wrong. And it is legal in some places (which suggests efficacy), but not accepted as a "primary" system where I live (or in the SLV to my knowledge), which I take issue with given that the current legal primary systems are not always sufficient to destroy human pathogens in practice (either because the systems lack capacity, aren't properly maintained, or both). Flush toilet waste management overflows into the local water systems when it rains or is over capacity. Septic systems also do environmental damage since a lot of them are not maintained (need a source, there was a book recently that came out). Septic systems are also not inspected by the government after they are built where I live (they tried to charge residents for inspections at one point and they said no).

- Store (not live in) an RV on an empty lot you own

- Use composting as a primary means of sewage disposal

Where I live now, you can do neither! This leads me to believe that _some_ building codes - and enforcement of them - is classist in nature.

Heck, even with blackwater tanks...people are capable of emptying them at an RV disposal etc. If this were just about management of cleanliness, we could all find a way to make it work.

A friend and I purchased 5 acres in the SLV around 2008 from a guy on Craigslist for 5K. We had no serious intentions at the time. But I was laid off from aerospace in 2009 after the crash, and so I moved out there for a summer, living in a conversion Astro van (before #vanlife, and definitely still van-down-by-the-river and not cool), and started to build a cabin. I didn't finish it that summer, but I eventually moved out to Colorado the next year to do so.

My experience in the SLV can't really be summed up in a comment - you could write a book :D - but I think this picture captures the beauty of the place: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hlvnsofo4leiseo/img_0012.jpg?dl=0

I lived there for about 8 months straight in my longest stretch. It was the kind of difficult I wanted. I (and every one else living in the mountains) had major issues with theft, though. There were multiple break-ins, and the last time I visited, just a flat-out smashing of windows and stripping of siding. I never finished the cabin and abandoned the project after I moved from Colorado. It was perhaps one of the few times I utilized the sunk cost fallacy and didn't dig deeper :)

When I left the SLV, the folks I knew living in RVs were being pushed out for land use violations (or at least that's how I remember it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec8M2bZNEac . Most folks I knew moved out in RVs/vans first and then attempted to build after they were there (this includes me as well!). To my knowledge, RV living is "illegal" past a certain number of days on most residential properties in the US, but I do not know what prompted the code enforcement (if anything).

That is quite a stretch. As an American I'm rolling my eyes :)

I guess I'm still not understanding how a composting neighbor is a bad neighbor? I'm not arguing against enforcing correct composting, I'm simply trying to understand why your comment makes it seem like any type of composting makes someone a bad neighbor? If your argument is that participating in a regulated activity (composting here) and not following guidelines (dumping ill-prepared compost on the ground), well that seems obvious - there are lots of regulated activities we participate in daily!

In trying to understand the "bad neighbor" comment, I sought out my local government's guidance. Where I live - highly dense county with a major city - the local government has a recommendation on their website to "Consider installing a composting toilet that converts human waste to nutrient-rich fertilizer for non-food plants and uses little to no potable water for flushing." which to me implies being a good neighbor (https://kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/programs/green...).

Help me understand why you think you have a Freedom to Smell Nice Things? If you were to file a nuisance complaint for "bad smell next door" (the action one can take in my locality), would you base it on this so-called freedom? If this person is following codes/guidelines for composting, wouldn't you be the Karen in the situation? Does this difference in lifestyle - your viewing the neighbor composting as a "bad neighbor" - come down to differing values?

IMO, this Freedom to Smell Nice Things does not exist. Cities smell, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Suburbs too - my suburb offers no compost service, and everyone's garbage composts in city-provided bins...it stinks. You suggested going rural, but that seems a romantic notion - the winds are your neighbors and the smell can often be worse than the city depending on where you are located.