Money is still barter, it just has a set value exchange rate. Each chicken is worth "x" amount. 3x is what the doctor charges in pickles. You are simply exchanging chickens for pickles, by an exchange rate of dollars.
That's kinda where I was going with this thread, if water is a right and it's up to you to provide water for yourself, why have laws been placed banning a person from water wells and such on their own property
Water is life, and an entire section of law pertains to water rights. Many people have killed and died over access to water, and if your well causes problems for someone else's water rights, there will be major repercussions. Cowboys and ranchers had wars over barbed wire, and access to water.
Let's say you sink a well, and start pumping out water as fast as you can bottle it. Your neighbor's well just went dry, because yours is deeper, or just because it can't support that much of a draw. You have just caused the possible death of your neighbor. He will defend his Right to life, by taking yours.
I understand that but state and federal laws limiting water use and acces, such as the Oregan man who did 30 days in jail and paid $1500 in fines for collecting rain water
All water is interconnected. The entire earth is one big filtration system. Some states have decided that all water is a state resource, and by holding back part of that supply, you are therefore robbing the state (and your neighbors) by intercepting part if that filtration system for your own use.
I personally don't think that catching rain water should be illegal, over-regulation and reduction of rights is a continual problem
I would agree. Few States claim the water, but those that do, are aggressive about it. Look at California. Carwashes are required to use @%90 recycled/filtered water, and it works just fine. Gardens and lawns must use "Gray water" ( at least once used water, not tap water) or rain water. Rain barrels are common, I had three, and covered all of my lawn issues that way. Conservation is a byword there, with lowflow shower heads, and bricks in the toilet tank to displace water, or two liter bottles to raise the pressure and use less water. And yet their rivers and reservoirs are seriously depleted. And they suffer from rolling blackouts and brownouts on a regular basis. They SHOULD be setting up shore side desalinators and wave action power plants. Using what is existing and plentiful as a free resource to compliment solar and wind, to reduce their deficits in both power and water.
I agree with being conservative but the only issue that I am not sure about is the cost outlay vs the return on renewable energy, desalination is a good ideA and so are wave action generators, but gov has used renewable energy as the new big profit boom and have fattened many pockets, these project are being done in other countries but we tend to think it's better to reinvent the wheel instead of looking at technology that is in use and improve on that
Water is also BIG money. Sometimes it's a matter of old laws on the books, but "water rights" should equate with property rights, as long as any neighboring land owners do not complain or have a claim of property damage (loss of water). If the .GOV is gonna come shoot you for not complying with their ordinances, just be certain you have more guns. Otherwise, bend over and take it. Corporations can abuse privilege, in fact, they will get away with murder. Individual land owners, the people? Nope. We get fined, harassed, jailed, or killed. It's obvious the corporations rule this world. The average American is completely ignorant.
Well.....the bit about cracking trucks destroying the roads is pure crap. The roads are built to handle "X" pounds per square inch. Your tires are rated for "Y" pounds per square inch. As long as y is less than x, it is well within it designed work load. "But the trucks are all overloaded!!" Doesn't matter at all. The tires flatten out and present a larger footprint with the exact same pressure per square inch. A simi with #50lbs pressure in all tires, has less pressure per square inch than a Smart car with #60lbs pressure in it's tires.
The problem here is that the roads were not designed (or maybe just not built to design) for the loads they are now carrying. For sure, the roads in PA are overloaded frequently and consistently, especially in the areas that are supporting the gas field machinery that seems to be moving at all times of day or night. Overloads, oversized, and just huge on the move, drill site to drill site. That would be OK, but the roads have in general been neglected, including the interstates. IIRC, over half the bridges in the state are in unsafe conditions for design loads, many are operating on load restrictions forcing detours onto roads that never were designed for the same loads as the major routes.
If they are exceeding the load rating, then that is different. As I said " as long as Y is less than X"
No offense but I own big trucks and the tires do not flatten out at 60 psi, ok a little but not enough to make a difference. Dynamic load vs static load, if a road is design to handle 200,000lb loads, then it will most definitely last longer than roads design for 88,000 and be less maintenance, see what Texas is doing on their interstate system the are leading the way, on the new stuff anyway
It doesn't matter how big the truck is. It matters what the load per square inch is. That is what pressure per square inch means, on your tires. Take a truck that wieghs 10 tons, and has 10 tires ( just to pick a number) each tire is carring @1 ton. That is devided by the square inches actually on the road. The same tire at 40 lbs will have a larger footprint than at 60lbs. The weight didn't change, but he pressure per square inch on the road did, because there are more square inches to share the load. The road surface is rated for pressure per square inch. It doesn't matter what tire makes that pressure, as long as it does not exceed the load rating. The curves and ramps are angled to keep the force going straight down into the surface, not left or right under thrust. So unless you are speeding, or heavier than the road is rated for (measured in pressure per square inch) it makes no difference. The only connection to the road is by the tires.
Thing is, the largest loads on roads are not static. The highest loads on roads and tires are actually dynamic, both impact and shear (as when braking) that tend to break up the materials, or "rub" it off with braking friction. Gotta add that loads on tires from the vehicle weight don't deform the tires enough to materially affect the footprint, even under braking. (Among other things, side wall flex makes heat, and distortion of the footprint will make for funny wear.) In general, tires like to maintain a constant cross section to perform within the design parameters. Any distortion of the tire will introduce some odd, squirrely handling. The friction effect on roads from tires can be imagined by pushing a rug and seeing how it lifts off the floor in ripples. Asphalt is much more susceptible to that than concrete, obviously. That has more to do with how asphalt roads are constructed in layers than much else. The wear course does exactly that, and as it wears down and gets thinner, the effect is more pronounced; chunks can break out. (One variety of pothole is the result.) But we are way off topic ---
I conceed to the engineer, on the other forces caused by braking and acceleration. But footprint is simple physics, weight, devided by footprint equals pressure per square inch. And the tire has no choice in the matter. Add or remove weight, and the standing pressure per square inch does not change. The footprint does. This was drummed into me, when we had to move heavy equipment over a very expensive poured running track. (If any part was damaged, the entire track had to be reinstalled. ) obviously, we were not moving at Hyway speeds, but the pressure rating for the track was higher than the air pressure in the tires, so it was safe to drive over it.
