> I have no objection of insurring safety of 'public' areas. I 
 > was refering to personal property and personal real estate.
 > 
 > For instance, I would like to install a small hydro-electric 
 > generator on a creek that passes thru my property where I live. 
 > The water management beuroacries are three levels make it so 
 > difficult that it is next to impossible, unless you grease 
 > their palms with extortion money under the pretense of fees, or 
 > give away part of your property to some stupid fart bug.
 > 
 > That is government standing in the way of self-suffiency. And, 
 > of course. They the goal is to make as many as dependant as 
 > possible.
 > 
 > Sad to say.
 MW> The fact is that so many people have dammed, diverted, and 
 MW> otherwise screwed up creeks and rivers that effect others 
 MW> downstream and the overall health of the ecosystem that severe 
 MW> regulation and permitting has been opposed. Who's to guarantee 
 MW> that you wouldn't be one of those selfish desecrators of our 
 MW> streams? Maybe you aren't, but I'd rather see the regs in there 
 MW> to make sure you do the job right.
The problem I see with this is that it assumes that "the regs" are going to 
make sure that it *IS* done right...
Note that we're not talking about legislation here,  which gets debated and 
is done "in public",  we're talking about after that,  where some bureaucrat 
in some office somewhere decides on what regs they want,  and the *only* 
controls over the situation are the fact that they get published in The 
Federal Register,  which puts them up for review and comment.
*I* don't have the time to sit and read that,  even if I had it available,  
and then take the appropriate actions on the thousands of pages of 
regulations that get published.  Do you?  I have a job,  and a life.  The 
people who do this stuff,  this *is* their job and their life...    :-(
--- 
---------------