Man Arrested for living 'off the grid'

[atlas]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06148/693838-58.stm

This is absurd. Let the man live how he wants. The problem is not only being arrested, but even if he leaves the power lines up and does not use them, he still gets charged for the maintenance, which is beyond his income. He is also in trouble for not hooking his house up to the public sewer system, which, if you ask me, is all the more reason to not trespass on his property ;) (ie, the power company linemen)

I am at loss as to how the court can even do this, it supports the power companies monopoly. How can the gov't justify forcing us into supporting them? But as with many, if not most laws, they are not made for justice's sake.

Land of the free my ass. :angry:

[Janus]

Yeah, a lot of people do things like this. Sucking power, stealing cable, etc.

Some get caught and others don't. But right now, there really isn't much choice. Either live with it, steal it, or live without it (which is what some are doing).

[atlas]

The man wasn't stealing anything. He was living on his own. What little electricity he had was from his solar panels. He had no TV, and the water he used was rain water.

[Janus]

Oh my mistake. I thought that by living off the grid, it meant sucking power secretly from it. :P

It shows that corporate interests and individual interests don't always go together and that no matter how or where you live, there is a chance that you will never be away from their influence.

I don't see why the corporation just doesn't do something about it rather than just allow him to keep cutting their wires and stack up jail time. Wait, that's probably what they want.

[atlas]

It's cool. :)

Yep. Every time he get's fined, the electric company makes more money. So no, they're not going to do anything to make it harder to climb up the pole to disconnect the wires, they'll just keep sucking more money out of him.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 01:47 AM
It's cool. :)

Yep. Every time he get's fined, the electric company makes more money. So no, they're not going to do anything to make it harder to climb up the pole to disconnect the wires, they'll just keep sucking more money out of him.
I thought he hadn't paid any of the money?

[Janus]

I thought he hadn't paid any of the money?
He has paid back some money. He's also gone to jail for not paying as well.

The second time he cut the wire, he pleaded guilty to the charges and paid $400. He was sentenced to serve 19 days in the Washington County Jail, 17 of which he served after refusing to pay all costs, fines and restitution.

Some people are just trying to save money but the utility companies just won't let it go.

Cost is the main reason he weaned himself from public utilities. He retired from Homestead Valve in 1974 and lives on his Social Security check and a $198-a-month pension.
For everyone of him, there are many others who have to pay for service yet can't really afford it.

[Ander]

Wow, this guy rules. It's terribly unfortunate that he is getting punished for this, he's done nothing wrong.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I can understand the sewer lines if he lives near other people.

[Brekisonphilous]

Ugh, it just shows how fucking greedy these companies are.. It reminds me of elementary school where a kid would take a couple of the other kids blocks, and though that kid still has plenty of blocks, he wants the other ones that the kid has too.
The poor guy is doing no harm at all and just wants to live free. He looks like he won't even be around much longer. And all they care about is getting their money and making him serve jail time. This country is sick.

He isn't even using any utilities!! Just a primitivist wanting to live his life independant of the utility trap. But with the power companies mentality of "you buy into us or get nothing" they make it impossible for him.

this is the key phrase of the article too, of why he is in trouble.
"His anti-utility philosophy has landed him in hot water."
They know he is a radical and the courts don't go easy on radicals.

[Janus]

They know he is a radical and the courts don't go easy on radicals.
Especially when the corporations are very powerful in those courts. This is Pennsylvania so local officials are all known in the community and were most likely spnsored by the company.

[LSD]

Although it's tempting to support the "little guy" against "big business"; this really is more an issue of private property vs. public interest and I'm afraid that as communists, we are obligated to fall on the side of the latter.

It's certainly understandable that this man wants to lead a "simple life"; and it is absolutely within his rights to refuse participation with modern "conveniences". But this is not a matter of being "forced on the grid".

No one is obligating him to utilize public resources, nor, as the initial poster intimated, is he being required to use or "maintain" electrical wires. Rather all that is being asked of him is that he stop removing the guy wire from his back yard!

That guy wire, after all, needs to go somewhere. Without it, the electrtical tower could collapse, cutting off power to thousands and quite possible injuring people and/or destroying vast swashes of land.

Not that any of that matters to our little ludite friend here. <_<

No, to him, all that matters is the integrity of "his property" and keeping the rest of the world "off his land". Well, sorry buddy, but "your land" is needed and, like it or not, your reactionary provincial 19th century "frontiersman" crap has not been relevent for a long time.

Frankly, I&#39;m shocked at how eager people here are to defend this pseudo-libertarian bullshit. Tell me, exactly how far does this "absolute right" to "property" extend for you people? If a public water pipe extends bellow a millionaire&#39;s "estate", should he be allowed to remove it? Should a golf course be allowed to remove a needed power line because it interferes with its "aesthetic motif"?

I honestly don&#39;t give a damn how this guy chooses to live his life, but when those choices start to interfere in others&#39; lives, it becomes very much a public problem and the courts were absolutely right to lock him up.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have to agree with LSD here. The man is quite simple being selfish.

[Zero]

LSD. The man is living his life the way he wants to&#33; If someone had such strong feelings about how he wanted to live his personal life we should (as Communists) let him. Would it cost so much for them not to disturb him and simply go around his property? No. This is simply a case of Human decency vs dollar worth.

It is hypocritical to fight for the liberation of others, but disreguard the wishes of them.

[LSD]

LSD. The man is living his life the way he wants to&#33;

And that way of life is harming other people.

I, again, don&#39;t give a damn how he wants to spend his time or whether or not he wants to watch TV. I just mind that, for no justifiable reason, he insists on removing an essential safety feature that is keeping a needed electrical tower from falling down.

That&#39;s selfish and dangerous and so this lunatic should get no support from progressive leftists.


Would it cost so much for them not to disturb him and simply go around his property? No. This is simply a case of Human decency vs dollar worth.

No, it&#39;s a case of public interest vs. private property.

In his own words, this is a property issue for him. This one wire isn&#39;t seriously affecting his chosen "way of life". Rather he objects to the "principle" of others interfering with his "sovergeign estate".

"Human decency" here would be if this fellow were to accept that whether or not he uses it, thousands of people are relying on the electricity provided through that tower.

The guy wire, after all, has to go somewhere and that somewhere is really not very negotiable. The way that the counterbalance system works is that the wire has to be placed within a pretty restricted area, otherwise it fails to support the tower.

Furthermore, it needs to be placed in an area where it can be properly burried, secured, and can run a line without snagging. In this case, it would appear that the only such location is within this man&#39;s property.

Accordingly, he is obligated to leave it the fuck alone.

And, really, it&#39;s just one fucking wire. He&#39;s not being asked to take care of or pay for it, he&#39;s not even being asked to avoid it. But, for this luddite freak, apparently the very existance of this wire threaten&#39;s his "territorial integrity" and he is driven to put his petty "prinicples" above the needs of the community.

Well, fuck him right back&#33; If he can&#39;t stand this so much, let him move. Or, altenatively, he could just grow the fuck up and get on with his life.

[Guest1]

The primacy of the individual over all else. Yeah, right.

I agree with LSD, you completely misunderstand what the ideas you subscribe to are about if you support this man&#39;s bullshit. Or you didn&#39;t read the article properly.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 15 2006, 08:21 AM
The primacy of the individual over all else. Yeah, right.

I agree with LSD, you completely misunderstand what the ideas you subscribe to are about if you support this man&#39;s bullshit. Or you didn&#39;t read the article properly.
I admire the way this man lives and hope to do the same when I am older. He is hurting no one. That pole was on his land and he tripped over the wire. he had a right to cut it. This is capitalist bourgeois country, not communist so it doesn&#39;t matter that he is protecting his land. If you side with the utility companies you are siding with the bourgeois.

[LSD]

That pole was on his land and he tripped over the wire.

"His" land? What exactly is it that makes it "his" land?

Let me guess, his "inalienable right to property"? :rolleyes:

Sorry, but it appear that CyM is right and you are deeply confused on what communism is actually about. No, we don&#39;t support the bourgeoisie, but this is, again, not an issue of "big business"; it&#39;s rather one of public interest.

He tripped over the wire once and then decided -- out of "principle" -- that it must be removed from "his" land. Well, now that he knows where it is, it&#39;s unlikely that it will present a physical hazard in the future; and in terms of his "principles", fuck them&#33;

Again, I really couldn&#39;t give a damn how he wants to live his life, but that guy wire needs to go there. Otherwise the electrical tower is in serious danger of falling down and thousands of people suffer.

Putting idealiwst individual "princple" above rational public interest is that mark of the libertarian, not the communist.

[Janus]

Yeah, I was kind of surprised that some people were eagerly supporting his activities. I think that those lines should either be moved or the guy could live somewhere else if he really doesn&#39;t want to be bothered.

[atlas]

he insists on removing an essential safety feature that is keeping a needed electrical tower from falling down.

You make it sound like there is a huge tower on his land supplying thousand with power. If anybody other than him needed it I think they would have mentioned that in the article.

It is just a standard utility pole on his land, which from the article, sounds like he is pretty secluded (otherwise they probably would have mentioned the neighbors complaining). If this is the case and they are trying to charge him the annual maintenance fees for the poles when he wasn&#39;t using them, I don&#39;t really blame him. I&#39;d be pissed too. But of course it was probably just a standard thing. They don&#39;t take into account the use when sending that kind of bill out I guess, since well, everyone who has a house other than him uses power.


But then again, if it is a tower that supplies "thousands of people", he obviously shouldn&#39;t be cutting it down.



The more I think about it, the more he starts sounding like a senile old man.
I guess I was a tad caught up in the moment. Whatever. <_<

[LSD]

You make it sound like there is a huge tower on his land supplying thousand with power.

No, according to the article the issue is over a guy wire for a primary electrical tower.

A guy wire is a cable which secures a tower and prevents it from falling down due to high wind pressures. Typically it can be placed quite a ways away from the actual tower, depending of course on the hight of the said tower.

In any case, removing this wire presents a serious danger to the stability of the tower and could indeed lead to a collpase which would pose a serious danger and would cut off needed power to thosuands of innocent people.


If this is the case and they are trying to charge him the annual maintenance fees for the poles when he wasn&#39;t using them, I don&#39;t really blame him.

But that&#39;s not what&#39;s happening&#33;

He isn&#39;t being "charged" for anything. He just insists on repeatedly digging out a needed safety feature because it conflicts with his "principles" regarding his "property rights".

Again, supporting this kind of "absolute" property "right" is pure libertarianism, not leftism of any sort.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 11:05 AM

You make it sound like there is a huge tower on his land supplying thousand with power.

No, according to the article the issue is over a guy wire for a primary electrical tower.

A guy wire is a cable which secures a tower and prevents it from falling down due to high wind pressures. Typically it can be placed quite a ways away from the actual tower, depending of course on the hight of the said tower.

In any case, removing this wire presents a serious danger to the stability of the tower and could indeed lead to a collpase which would pose a serious danger and would cut off needed power to thosuands of innocent people.


If this is the case and they are trying to charge him the annual maintenance fees for the poles when he wasn&#39;t using them, I don&#39;t really blame him.

But that&#39;s not what&#39;s happening&#33;

He isn&#39;t being "charged" for anything. He just insists on repeatedly digging out a needed safety feature because it conflicts with his "principles" regarding his "property rights".

Again, supporting this kind of "absolute" property "right" is pure libertarianism, not leftism of any sort.
Agreed,

He&#39;s just being pedantic.

Being a &#39;pain in the arse&#39; to the rest of society is not an admirable socialist quality.

It&#39;s just being a &#39;pain in the arse&#39;, period.

Nowhere in &#39;Das Capital&#39; or the &#39;Manifesto&#39; or any other &#39;socialist&#39; work, does it advocate &#39;detaching&#39; yourself from the rest of society.

Socialism is about changing society not just abandoning it to suit your own wants.

He has chosen to live the life he wants away from society, ok fine if that is what he wants, but not at society&#39;s expense.

[atlas]

I think he&#39;s a senile old man (now at least) but LSD,

The article never said anything about a tower, in fact it was refered to as a utility pole, even utility poles have guy wires.

Had it the risk of cutting off power to "thousands" as you put it, I&#39;m sure he would have had a much heftier fine and jail sentence for a repeated offense.

Had it the risk of cutting off power to "thousands of people" as you put it, or even his neighbors, I&#39;m sure this would have been mentioned in the article. This is a local news site, not something found on a tree-hugger-hippy site that might embelish the story much more than a local paper might to gain an emotional response from it&#39;s readers.

Had it been a tower supplying "thousands of people" I&#39;m sure he would have had to dig more than 5 feet the get the guy wire anchor out, even if there are multiple guy wires, a fraction of the weight from a tower would simply pull it out of the ground.

This isn&#39;t an issue of communism, or any social or pollitical ideas. It was an issue of personal rights. I felt at the time he was being exploited and that it was wrong, I never once mentioned communism, did I?



I&#39;m not so pissed off now that he is being fined for a bout with the power company as I am over you bending facts about an article to win an argument.

[LSD]

The article never said anything about a tower, in fact it was refered to as a utility pole, even utility poles have guy wires.

Fiar enough, but the point still remains that his removing this wire threatens the security of the electrical system and increases the risk of a collapse/power-outage.

At the same time, it does him absolutely no harm. Now that he&#39;s aware of it (as he clearly is), he&#39;s unlikely to "bump into it", nor is he currently being "charged for its maintenance" as someone earlier implied.

No, the only reason that he refuses to let this wire stay where it needs to be is that it contravenese his "principles" regarding "his" property. Well, those principles may be deeply felt, but they are also wholly contrary to a lefitst approach.

We don&#39;t care


Had it the risk of cutting off power to "thousands of people" as you put it, or even his neighbors, I&#39;m sure this would have been mentioned in the article.

It is:

Originally posted by Pittsburgh Post&#045;Gazette
But Allen Staggers, manager of corporate communications for Allegheny Power, said all power company facilities, including guy wires, were on rights of way the company has purchased. With old lines, the right-of-way agreement could have been reached decades ago.

"It&#39;s dangerous for people to tamper with our equipment, whether it is a live wire or a guy wire," he said. "[A utility pole] is big, it&#39;s heavy and you don&#39;t want to compromise the integrity of it. It can result in a power outage or someone getting hurt."


This isn&#39;t an issue of communism, or any social or pollitical ideas. It was an issue of personal rights.

Yeah, a "personal right" to property. Something that, as communists, we wholly reject.

If this man&#39;s person was being detrimentally effected by the presence of this guy wire, you might have a "personal rights" case. But as it is, the only argument that you can make is one from a "private property" paradigm.

Now, that might work on a conservative or libertarian site; but it sure as hell won&#39;t work here&#33;