Mountain man verses Big Brother

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm not grasping at straws at all. I'm just stating a fact. The fact is that people should be free and if they want to endanger their lives by building not up to code, then they should be free to do so.

Do you have the same views about speed limits, seat belts, and airline safety?
Do you also realize that over 99% of people live in houses they did not build, so in most cases the danger is not to the person doing the building. I presume your answer is 'let the buyer beware'?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

That could be argued on either side of this. In fact most people who advocate limited government, or the constrained viewpoint, see central planners and big government advocates as seeking the perfect, often to the detriment of the good, often producing unforseen side effects of their "solutions".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have the same views about speed limits, seat belts, and airline safety?
Do you also realize that over 99% of people live in houses they did not build, so in most cases the danger is not to the person doing the building. I presume your answer is 'let the buyer beware'?

Yes, yes, and yes. Speed limits are largely ignored, and exist to extract fines from citizens. Seatbelt usage would most likely be almost the same without mandatory laws, which people sometime disobey just because they are there.
Again, enforcement enriches city coffers and insurance companies. Airlines? I guess that without the government, airlines would just crash their multimillion dollar crafts carelessly?

Perhaps without the maze of building codes, more people might build their own homes, and bypass the corrupt building system. The major "home builders" don't actually build homes. They sell homes, and then hire subcontractors to build them, and those contractors subcontract a lot of work.

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm not grasping at straws at all. I'm just stating a fact. The fact is that people should be free and if they want to endanger their lives by building not up to code, then they should be free to do so.

If private insurance companies don't want to insure the structure, so be it.

I can see that you have no problem mixing government and business. It's a bad combination.

Well Eldar, I'm happy to report most people don't see it your way. Enforcement of building codes have saved countless lives and injuries over the years, and that's not going to change, for you, or anyone else. So put your big boy pants on and accept it.😏

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm not grasping at straws at all. I'm just stating a fact. The fact is that people should be free and if they want to endanger their lives by building not up to code, then they should be free to do so.

If private insurance companies don't want to insure the structure, so be it.

I can see that you have no problem mixing government and business. It's a bad combination.

I can see your ideas being quite reasonable in some other world.

Originally posted by JS357
I can see your ideas being quite reasonable in some other world.

Any examination of most building codes will reveal there is precious little involving residential safety. Most is aimed at conformity.

A young man I knew inherited his grandmother's home, a small brick bungalow she and her husband had purchased nearly a hundred years ago. They had lived safely there, and added stuff like new furnaces, electrical upgrades, and new windows over the years.

When inspected after her death, the upgrades to bring this nice little house up to code would have been at a cost of about $20k. Sadly, this safe, solid home had to be demolished, sacrificed on the alter of the building trade unions, and the deals they cut with the city over the years.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have the same views about speed limits, seat belts, and airline safety?
Do you also realize that over 99% of people live in houses they did not build, so in most cases the danger is not to the person doing the building. I presume your answer is 'let the buyer beware'?

It is not the role of guvamint to protect you from yourself.

Seat belts NO
Cycle helmets NO
Speeding - objective threat to others YES
Airline Safety - only in respect to objective threat to others.

Originally posted by JS357
You are grasping at straws. There is a mountain of history of the improvement of building codes after disasters, successfully preventing future instances. The insurance industry is dependent on it. Private insurance companies make their policies and their rates contingent on adherence to such codes, and those companies are private sector, not your enemy the government.

Before insuring a house an Insurance company may specify a minimum standard, there might be Insurance companies that are willing to insure un-inspected homes at an elevated premium. People dealing with each other voluntarily, a concept it seems beyond your comprehension.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Before insuring a house an Insurance company may specify a minimum standard, there might be Insurance companies that are willing to insure un-inspected homes at an elevated premium. People dealing with each other voluntarily, a concept it seems beyond your comprehension.

It is not beyond my comprehension, and is actually the way things are.

Originally posted by normbenign
That could be argued on either side of this. In fact most people who advocate limited government, or the constrained viewpoint, see central planners and big government advocates as seeking the perfect, often to the detriment of the good, often producing unforseen side effects of their "solutions".

I've never met any person who argued for central planning or "big government". Where do you meet these people?

Originally posted by JS357
It is not beyond my comprehension, and is actually the way things are.

If you think that's the way things are that just reinforces my point that you don't comprehend what a voluntary society is, because whether you're in the UK, the US, NZ or Aus they're all a pretty darn long way from being a true voluntary societies.

Originally posted by normbenign
Perhaps without the maze of building codes, more people might build their own homes, and bypass the corrupt building system. The major "home builders" don't actually build homes. They sell homes, and then hire subcontractors to build them, and those contractors subcontract a lot of work.

I believe you may be right about more people building their own homes. In Zambia where we have very relaxed enforcement of building standards, many people do build their own homes and do a very bad job of it. In South Africa, standards are stricter, and many poorer people who, in Zambia, would be building as a form of investment, do not do so, but live in makeshift shacks which are actually more dangerous than the shoddy Zambian buildings.
However, instead of scrapping building codes, I think it is better to make it easier for people to meet the necessary standards.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If you think that's the way things are that just reinforces my point that you don't comprehend what a voluntary society is, because whether you're in the UK, the US, NZ or Aus they're all a pretty darn long way from being a true voluntary societies.

It is always a balancing act, and there will be discontents.

"... Sigmund Freud enumerates what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction, he asserts, stems from the individual's quest for instinctual freedom and civilization's contrary demand for conformity and instinctual repression. Freud states that when any situation that is desired by the pleasure principle is prolonged, then it creates a feeling of mild contentment. Thus our possibilities of happiness are restricted by the law. Many of humankind's primitive instincts (for example, the desire to kill and the insatiable craving for sexual gratification) are clearly harmful to the well-being of a human community. As a result, civilization creates laws that prohibit killing, rape, and adultery, and it implements severe punishments if such rules are broken. This process, argues Freud, is an inherent quality of civilization that instills perpetual feelings of discontent in its citizens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents

Originally posted by JS357
It is always a balancing act, and there will be discontents.

"... Sigmund Freud enumerates what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction, he asserts, stems from the individual's quest for instinctual freedom and civilization's contrary demand for conformity and instinctual repression. Freud states tha scontent in its citizens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents

what about those whose most ardent desire it is, is to live peaceably? where is the conflict? Do not all people desire to live peaceably?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about those whose most ardent desire it is, is to live peaceably? where is the conflict? Do not all people desire to live peaceably?

"Ardent desire" suggests discontent will accompany an absence of peace. I don't see any contradiction between being discontented at the loss of freedoms that civilization brings, and being discontented if one cannot live a peaceable life in the manner of one's choosing.

However, Freud is generalizing, that is true.