A question for the libertarians, free-market enthusiasts, classical liberals, and other anti-regulation types #1

[SimpleDon]

I am going through my store of posts which for some reason I didn't post. A discussion of whether a post by another was meant as satire or not reminded me of this post I wrote years ago. Although I would prefer to call the tone of this as being sardonic rather than satirical.


I have learned a lot here. I recently learned that building codes are an abuse of government power and aren't necessary. That the individual is capable of determining what is acceptable in the buildings that they purchase, that building codes needlessly increase costs, and prevent the free market from operating efficiently.

It surprised me that I didn't know this. I apparently worked in complete ignorance for thirty-five+ years in heavy industrial construction believing that building codes were a good thing. To the point that for six years or so I worked on the code committee for the National Electrical Code. (I am an electrical engineer.) The NEC is a part of the NFPA, the National Fire Protection Association, and the ANSI standards, and is the default building code for those jurisdictions that don't have their own code. Only Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles have their own code, as far as I know. St. Louis had their own code but it was used as the foundation for the NEC.

My free-market destroying ignorance extended even further into helping the IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, of which I was a senior member, by writing industrial application standards for the mining and building materials industries and for general industries for digital and computer control and automation. These don't carry the force of laws like the building codes do but they almost always appear in customers' specifications as something like "follow the recommendations of "IEEE publication number ## Applications of Automation and Supervisory Control Systems" or whatever.

In addition, I apparently worked to destroy free trade by informally working with VDE/DIN and the European community to try to extend the code writing process to bring European and American codes into some kind of harmony so that we could work together building to the same code and without duplicate work writing the codes. This effort was largely unsuccessful as of when I left it.

What lead me to this ignorance and destructive thinking was the following apparently wildly inaccurate beliefs,

1. Those codes are required because consumers don't and can't have the detailed and the range of knowledge to determine the quality of the home or the commercial building offered to them.
2. That most of the quality and safety determining factors of a home or a commercial building are hidden once they are finished.
3. That an insufficiency in one building can threaten other buildings close to it, the insufficient building can collapse onto its neighbors, spread fire to its neighbors, waste energy, or produce an electrical fault that threatens the power supply of its neighbors, etc.
4. That the price of a building is proportional to its quality. Yet the price of a building is usually the determinate in the selection of an existing or of a new building.
5. That buildings that cut corners with quality to lower costs produce a race to the bottom, pressuring all to cut the same corners to be able to compete.
6. That having a uniform standard used across the country improves competition because it allows contractors to build in every jurisdiction in the country without having to learn a new code.
7. Building codes and the extensions to building codes like advisory industry standards and recommended practices are useful as the repositories of the current state of the art in their subject areas and are themselves an effective way of communicating the state of the art.
8. Building codes are under nearly constant review to make sure that they are keeping up with the newest developments, trends, and practices. Revisions are issued every two to three years with the changes from revision to revision detailed along with the reason for the change.
9. There is no reason to believe that an unregulated free market would result in anything different than it did before the development and acceptance of enforced building codes.
10. Our current building codes are written by licensed professionals in the various fields volunteering their time to fulfill their legally mandated professional obligation to the public, currently set at 10 hours a year, although many spend much more time than that including travel expenses which in my case my employer covered.
11. These volunteer professionals write the codes in the full view of the public, soliciting the public suggestions for changes and additions to the codes and they work under private, non-profit, member-supported organizations like the NFPA, the National Fire Protective Association.
12. Local governments are required to have building codes or you wouldn't be able to buy homeowners insurance for example. Local governments have the choice to write their own or to use one of the national ones.
13. Even if the local government uses the national codes, they can take exception to any part of the code and write a separate list of the exceptions, which is all that anyone needs who knows the national code. The longest list of exceptions to the NEC that I saw was two pages long.
14. In short, I was wrong in putting my faith in professionalism, that is, having people trained educated in a discipline and charged with an obligation to the greater good rather than fulfilling personal greed, engineers deciding how engineering should be done, doctors instead of Wall Street deciding medical issues, lawyers writing laws, the military fighting wars, the police fighting crime, etc., that we should all concede that the free market is much better at these things when we do what we do to satisfy our personal greed.

In addition, I learned from the other posters here that there is no reason for them to answer my points above because everyone knows that regulations are bad and counterproductive and that everyone knows that regulations are written by the government with the sole aim of shackling the free market which would regulate itself if the government would just leave it alone. That the regulation writing by the government will be captured by special interests to do their bidding. That everyone knows that the government is, in a word, evil. That building codes are regulations written by governments, that governments are bad and virtually the only major threat to our freedoms, that everyone knows that regulations are bad and that therefore building codes are bad.

In short, the absolute truth that governments are bad therefore regulations is bad saves the holders of these beliefs from having to think about and to try to answer these points.

The exception to this is that I got a partial answer to #1. It was that a consumer can use a private entity who he trusts to write standards for the building and who refuses to buy a building that doesn't meet the privacy standards. My complaint that this leaves the entire question of enforcement, did the builder actually follow the standards, important because many points are buried inside of the walls of an existing structure, was apparently so obviously naive that there was no need to respond.

Perhaps I am not talking to the right people who can explain the points so that a simpleton like me can understand them.

============== § ==============

Questions for the anti-regulation people No 2 will be ...​

I am also a pilot (and apparently I still own an airplane, because I am still paying for its hanger, its insurance, and its annuals.) The government regulations and licensing requirements for pilots, aircraft and their operation are extensive. I need to know which of these are needless intrusions on our personal freedoms as well. For example, I am legally a quadriplegic and a mute. The personal freedom and soul crushing regulations say that I can't pilot my own plane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Obviously, you're an idiot!


There is a problem with building codes etc, but it's one of inertia coupled with industry protecting itself. For the situations they discuss the codes are generally fine, but they are very slow to adapt to new technologies and the presence of industry players in writing the codes tends to suppress disruptive technologies.

When a code prohibits doing something (thou shalt not do X) it's almost certainly right. When a code fails to permit something (thou shalt do either A or B with no mention of X) it might just be out of date or the industry players who don't do that something aren't interested.

 

[fromderinside]

Generally there comes a natural event, like a storm breach, earthquake, or fire, that causes government entities to reconsider their codes.

As for codes emerging from corporate or agency infighting that requires more subtle measures like periodic code reviews best practice surveys and the like.

If it comes down to every person who has property has to defend herself from self centered property decisions that threaten one's property then I say bring on the second amendment. Otherwise I suggest the less threat of harm the better things are.

We are a society after all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Everyone practices codes. We take some of those codes and make them communal. People who do not want codes and regulations are idiots.

 

[BH]

Maybe we should reframe the debate. It should be knowing that their will be some forms of corruption and drawback which ever model we follow, which one in the end benefits the general public best as far as cost , quality, and security go.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe we should reframe the debate. It should be knowing that their will be some forms of corruption and drawback which ever model we follow, which one in the end benefits the general public best as far as cost , quality, and security go.

Are libertarians interested in public good? That would be news to me. I think they are interested in personal profit at any cost.

 

[lpetrich]

Unity Campfire #15: Bret Weinstein with Jo Jorgensen 10/21/2020 - YouTube
Bret Weinstein is of the Articles of Unity Party, interviewing Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party's candidate for President in 2020.

I am NOT impressed with JJ. She was anti-mask, but she seemed to think it OK for businesses to require masks. Almost as if she thinks that businesses should have more rights than governments.

BW brought up a problem with lack of regulation. All-sports lakes tend to become dominated by jet skiers and the like, because it isn't very safe to go canoeing when around jet skiers. JJ didn't have a good answer for that.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am NOT impressed with JJ. She was anti-mask, but she seemed to think it OK for businesses to require masks. Almost as if she thinks that businesses should have more rights than governments.

Almost as if she thinks TFT should be allowed to prohibit us from insulting one another but the government should not. Almost as if she thinks Target should be allowed to sell a Target store to K-Mart but the government should not.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am NOT impressed with JJ. She was anti-mask, but she seemed to think it OK for businesses to require masks. Almost as if she thinks that businesses should have more rights than governments.

Almost as if she thinks TFT should be allowed to prohibit us from insulting one another but the government should not. Almost as if she thinks Target should be allowed to sell a Target store to K-Mart but the government should not.

No? Your analogy is shit and the implications of such argument from analogy are also shit.

The government has every right to deny health department permits for food businesses when certain standards are unmet. It's almost as if I think the government not allowing TFT to inject malware on people's computers is a good idea. It's almost as if I think requiring doctors and food prep workers to wash their hands is a good idea. It's almost as if certain expectations of the public trust to leverage regulation and universal compliance are good ideas.

 

[Bomb#20]

No? Your analogy is <expletive deleted> and the implications of such argument from analogy are also <expletive deleted>.

The government has every right to deny health department permits for food businesses when certain standards are unmet. <snip>

What on earth are you on about? I wasn't commenting on the merits of masks. I was pointing out how bizarre it was for lpetrich to imply that it's wrong per se for a business to get to do something the government may not do.

 

[Jarhyn]

No? Your analogy is <expletive deleted> and the implications of such argument from analogy are also <expletive deleted>.

The government has every right to deny health department permits for food businesses when certain standards are unmet. <snip>

What on earth are you on about? I wasn't commenting on the merits of masks. I was pointing out how bizarre it was for lpetrich to imply that it's wrong per se for a business to get to do something the government may not do.

And my point was that the OP is about regulation, and libertarian views on it. You made a post that likened the unethical failure to require, by government (JJ is a ballsck, plain and simple), business mask use with the acceptance of the moral prerogatives of private platforms as protecte by the restrictions of government against the persecution of conduct of free speech.

These. Are. Not. The. Same.

Maybe talk about whether the mask use being required is acceptable, the regulation of the OP, rather than whether free speech that isn't regulated ought not be? We aren't talking altruism and selective enforcement by business not in lockstep that don't fucking work. Fuck.

 

[Bomb#20]

What on earth are you on about? I wasn't commenting on the merits of masks. I was pointing out how bizarre it was for lpetrich to imply that it's wrong per se for a business to get to do something the government may not do.

And my point was that the OP is about<snip>

In case it escaped your notice, I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to post #7.

Maybe talk about whether the mask<snip>

If you feel other posters should be copy machines whose job is to post whatever you want posted, feel free to feel aggrieved that we don't, and then do your own posting.

We aren't talking altruism and selective enforcement by business not in lockstep that don't <expletive deleted> work. <expletive deleted>.

[backs away slowly saying "Nice doggy"]

 

[Jarhyn]

In case it escaped your notice, I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to post #7.

Maybe talk about whether the mask<snip>

If you feel other posters should be copy machines whose job is to post whatever you want posted, feel free to feel aggrieved that we don't, and then do your own posting.

We aren't talking altruism and selective enforcement by business not in lockstep that don't <expletive deleted> work. <expletive deleted>.

[backs away slowly saying "Nice doggy"]

I was giving you at least one option that was on topic, rather than an attempted derail.

In case you hadn't noticed, the topic is regulation of behavior, not regulation of free speech, which isn't fucking happening.

In a thread asking libertarians to actually defend their views on regulations you have not actually done that. You only drew a shit analogy between good regulations that didn't happen and shit regulations that didn't happen.

That you have too much of a affect over "naughty" fucking words just adds a little frosting to the cake.

 

[RVonse]

As a landlord of several properties, I consider myself to be pro-liberty and do support a free market. I like less government and more personal freedoms. That being said, I have no problem with building codes because I realize that over time certain knowledge is advanced to improving the quality of a building. But my biggest problem is that any builder (including the owner himself) should be allowed to compete for work as long as municipality codes are followed. And the other thing I would say about following codes is that if a building is destroyed by fire the owner should have grandfather rights to re-build the structure to the same code it was originally built. For example, if a home is gutted and inside rebuilt after a fire it should not be required to dig up the front lawn to install a 1" copper feed instead of 3/4". There are certain undo hardships that follow when attempting to rebuild an old building that simply are not practical to do. And the city and county government need to be more compassionate about this.

But the codes themselves have a lot of value IMO. I have worked (as an electrician) at auto factories where the corporation had its own code (even stricter than NEC) and at first bothered me until I realized how much easier troubleshooting of the assembly line was regardless of any location. Made no difference where you were, you could always depend on knowing what the colors of the wires meant without bothering to dig up the print. Now I work in a steel mill where everything is done completely the opposite with different contractors following different standards. Much more time consuming to troubleshoot!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a landlord of several properties, I consider myself to be pro-liberty and do support a free market. I like less government and more personal freedoms. That being said, I have no problem with building codes because I realize that over time certain knowledge is advanced to improving the quality of a building. But my biggest problem is that any builder (including the owner himself) should be allowed to compete for work as long as municipality codes are followed. And the other thing I would say about following codes is that if a building is destroyed by fire the owner should have grandfather rights to re-build the structure to the same code it was originally built. For example, if a home is gutted and inside rebuilt after a fire it should not be required to dig up the front lawn to install a 1" copper feed instead of 3/4". There are certain undo hardships that follow when attempting to rebuild an old building that simply are not practical to do. And the city and county government need to be more compassionate about this.

I disagree and I think you have it wrong here--the reason behind grandfathering is that redoing things costs a lot more than doing them during the original construction. The economics of any given safety measure is thus very different for existing or new structures. You are normally required to bring up to current code anything you are actually working on (in other words, when it's not going to cause a much greater cost.) In your case with the water main you're not working on the main, why would you have to bring it to current code?

But the codes themselves have a lot of value IMO. I have worked (as an electrician) at auto factories where the corporation had its own code (even stricter than NEC) and at first bothered me until I realized how much easier troubleshooting of the assembly line was regardless of any location. Made no difference where you were, you could always depend on knowing what the colors of the wires meant without bothering to dig up the print. Now I work in a steel mill where everything is done completely the opposite with different contractors following different standards. Much more time consuming to troubleshoot!

Exactly. The reasons behind things in the code are often subtle and not known to the average person simply following the code.

 

[Bomb#20]

I was giving you at least one option that was on topic, rather than an attempted derail.

If you feel the subject of whether it's wrong for a business to have rights a government doesn't have is a derail, take it up with lpetrich. But you didn't seem to have a problem with him talking about it. Was that because his position is one you agreed with?

If you think we shouldn't talk about that topic in this thread, quit arguing with me. Then the "derail" will end, since I already said what needed to be said about it.

In a thread asking libertarians to actually defend their views on regulations you have not actually done that.

What's your point? As you say, it asked libertarians to defend their views; it didn't ask me to defend their views. Defending their views is their job.

You only drew a ... analogy between <snip>

So you don't know the difference between an analogy and a counterexample. Your problem, not mine.

That you have too much of a affect over "naughty" <expletive deleted> words just adds a little frosting to the cake.

Yes, you already made it clear in post #11 that you feel other posters are your personal copy machines. You don't own my mouth. It's perfectly okay with me if you have a potty mouth; but I don't. You want your mouth amplified, amplify it yourself. Now why don't you stop derailing the thread with your objections to my failure to be your copy machine?

 

[Jarhyn]

If you feel the subject of whether it's wrong for a business to have rights a government doesn't have is a derail, take it up with lpetrich. But you didn't seem to have a problem with him talking about it. Was that because his position is one you agreed with?

If you think we shouldn't talk about that topic in this thread, quit arguing with me. Then the "derail" will end, since I already said what needed to be said about it.


What's your point? As you say, it asked libertarians to defend their views; it didn't ask me to defend their views. Defending their views is their job.

You only drew a ... analogy between <snip>

So you don't know the difference between an analogy and a counterexample. Your problem, not mine.

That you have too much of a affect over "naughty" <expletive deleted> words just adds a little frosting to the cake.

Yes, you already made it clear in post #11 that you feel other posters are your personal copy machines. You don't own my mouth. It's perfectly okay with me if you have a potty mouth; but I don't. You want your mouth amplified, amplify it yourself. Now why don't you stop derailing the thread with your objections to my failure to be your copy machine?

I believe that posters, people, humans, have a responsibility to look at reality, accept what it is and the patterns of how it works, and model that accurately, holding strategies that DO work and rejecting strategies that don't, in aggregate, for the achievement of their goals, assuming their goals are justified.

This means having a liberal bias because reality has a liberal bias.

So in short I expect people to be rational and repeat rational things when understood well, and to attempt to understand rationally all things heard. As such I think it's absolutely reasonable, should I say something reasonable and rational, that others accept and repeat this view, for the same reason that I would expect someone to echo, and would myself echo, the claim that we ought not leverage the force of law against speech.

Counterexample relies on the analogical principle: to use a counterexample, one must create an analogical link between the two things being discussed, show that they are the same, and then leverage that sameness into a contradiction of the original term.

Or in more formal terms, one cannot disprove "All even numbers are divisible by two" by demonstrating you cannot divide 33 by 2, Because 33 isn't even in the first place.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Goodness SimpleDon, where to begin.

There seems to be in play the fallacy that freedom requires omniscience. You mentioned several voluntary private standards organizations and your experience in them, and yet you still committed the same fallacy again.

The more I read your post, the more I saw the same basic question repeated in various forms: if we don't have government standards than will the consumers will all have to be standards experts?

That is pretty much all 14 questions in your list, and the answer to that one question is "No."

You did mention some voluntary private standards organizations. Unlike many who ask that question you acknowledge they exist, but bemoan that they don't have the power to force people to conform to their standards. You see that as the essential flaw of voluntary interaction and the reason force is required.

I also noticed the consistent refrain of "race to the bottom" in question 5 that comes up every time voluntary interactions are mentioned. Except for when "race to the top" is mentioned. Either everything gets inferior to lower the cost, or everything goes so high quality that nobody can afford it. When I saw a Whole Foods next to a Dollar General I realized the "race to the bottom" and the "race to the top" propositions had no value.

So, instead of asking that everyone be expert, ask how it could possibly work if they weren't expert.

Now mind, when you give people back their freedom, there are many many ways anything could be made to work. Anything I propose is just one possible way it could work, and might not be the best way, but it is a way it could work.

I pay a mortgage. My bank would not want to loan me the money if the house was substandard. I pay homeowners insurance. My insurance company would not want to issue a policy if they money was substandard. Even if I were such a humorous canine to not realize that I too want a quality house, those two organizations would also have a vested interest in ensuring the house is worth their business.

So one home inspector at the time of transaction can satisfy their demands. The bank and the insurance company can both say "does it meet X standards". They can even be different standards. And the inspector is the only one in the chain that needs to have the expertise.