Building codes saved lives in Chile earthquake. Are building codes anti-freedom?

[MN Patriot]

People are attributing the low number of casualties in Chile to a wealthier society and strict building codes. Haiti's earthquake wasn't as severe, but hundreds of thousands died because structures that weren't built as well collapsed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_tale_of_two_quakes

The libertarian position of building codes is that they are an intrusion into the private matters of citizens. But in this case, it seems that the requirement to build robust structures is an overall positive benefit to society.

If we are to have a liberty revolution, should building codes, and other similar regulations like car safety mandates, be eliminated? The libertarian in me says, yes, get rid of the bureaucrats and all the added expense to the economy. But after events like these two earthquakes, it compels me to question whether or not ending government regulation in certain areas is a good thing.

Ending regulations would force people to be more careful, to always analyze things. ("I am entering a large building that is privately owned in an earthquake zone. Has it been properly constructed so if there is a quake the building won't collapse?") But that can become burdensome, if we can't be certain that anything we do will be reasonably safe.

So if we can elect enough liberty candidates to federal and state office, how to we proceed to reducing the size of government regulations without allowing hazards to be introduced to our lives? I anticipate the standard libertarian answer is the free market will take care of that. But can it?

[Epic]

It's not the building codes - it's the wealthier society.

Strong builidings is something that people naturally want, and private certification will emerge if the government doesn't take on the activity.

http://cafehayek.com/2010/01/a-tale-of-two-quakes.html

[brandon]

Yea because if there weren't building codes everyone would live in mud huts and straw houses.

[silverhandorder]

Private citizens in large part are more strict on them selves then government.

[FreeTraveler]

Why does this have to be a function of gunvernment? Underwriter Laboratories is private, yet few people get electrocuted by small appliances these days. Manufacturers build to UL specs because insurers demand it, retailers won't stock non-UL stuff, and even some consumers are savvy enough to watch for that label.

If I'm renting office space in a libertarian society, I'm going to look for the equivalent of a UL sticker on the building. If I'm building a house, my builder will be certified by some organization that I know has a good reputation of certification. It ain't rocket science.

ETA: And even if I'm not smart enough to figure that out, you can bet that the banker that loans the building funds and the insurer I select are both going to demand it, or the rates will be astronomical.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

this is the same argument as seat belt laws.

[teamrican1]

Building Codes are utterly redundant from a safety perspective and evil from a moral perspective. Structures are insured. Chile suffered the worst earthquake in modern history in 1960, so the entire nation (including the insurance industry) was on notice to the threat. If building codes didn't exist, Insurance companies would demand similar requirements as conditions of issuing policies. The private market is more than capable of dealing with this problem in a way that is consistent with freedom. Haiti's problem was a population so pathetically poor that they couldn't afford to build structures that comply with modern safety standards. Government decreeing a "building code" wouldn't change that. It would just prevent buildings from being built at all and force the people to live outdoors.

[MN Patriot]

Wow, 3 answers within 3 minutes of posting this. Thanks for the fast response.

But how do we convince the general public that reducing the size of government and ending regulations will ensure our buildings, cars, airplanes, etc are safe?

The rapid leftist Democrat/progressive/liberal/commie will never accept the idea that private citizens and free markets will provide safe goods. Government is God and all that Government regulates is good. Not regulated = evil.

But more reasonable people who haven't completely accepted our liberty agenda need to be assured that buildings won't collapse in a free market environment.

[brandon]

this is the same argument as seat belt laws.

Similar, but this is much more dangerous.

Strict building codes makes it harder to build buildings. Prices of structures will skyrocket. If their were stricter building codes in Haiti,the country would have been much much poorer. Nearly everyone would be homeless, because the places they live now would not be up to code.

[silverhandorder]

Wow, 3 answers within 3 minutes of posting this. Thanks for the fast response.

But how do we convince the general public that reducing the size of government and ending regulations will ensure our buildings, cars, airplanes, etc are safe?

The rapid leftist Democrat/progressive/liberal/commie will never accept the idea that private citizens and free markets will provide safe goods. Government is God and all that Government regulates is good. Not regulated = evil.

But more reasonable people who haven't completely accepted our liberty agenda need to be assured that buildings won't collapse in a free market environment.

By becoming students of history and bringing up all the instances where idnustry evolved despite or before regulations were put in place. People like Thomas Woods are invaluable.

[fj45lvr]

Good construction protects people NOT CODES....get that through your head.

[mczerone]

I had to shut off MSNBC during their coverage, because they specifically said, "Thanks to more strict building codes and regulations, there's less structural damage than Haiti."


BS. There were better built buildings because the people in Chile expect regular violent earthquakes, and build their buildings to reflect that. The "codes" and "regulations" are just a restatement of the local tendency, and probably do more to inhibit growth and capital investment than to promote structural integrity. Haiti couldv'e had all the codes in the world: there just would have been more mudhuts and scrap-metal lean-tos because the people couldn't afford, nor would have seen the purpose of more strict regulations.

This is mostly a case of well-intentioned short-sightedness, but it pisses me off to no end to think that there are a few key-holders that know that this "codes and regulations" crap is just "rich get richer, and poor get f***ked", and so use their talking heads to subtly reinforce the interventionist mindset.

[tmosley]

Building codes restrict innovation. If we didn't force everyone to comply with old technological standards in construction, we would likely have developed a system that is both cheaper than current systems and more resistant against natural disasters.

[Icymudpuppy]

Buildling codes and permits make it harder to innovate or use cutting edge designs.

When I do work on my house, I do it ABOVE code, without a permit. Why? Because I want the best in my house. Not because someone told me to.

When I sell this house, I plan on going off grid. I will build a structure that will last generations, and will be entirely self sufficient. Codes hinder that by forcing the use of A/C rather than an all DC operation. Not to mention the silly use of septic instead of composting energy reclamation.

[Bruehound]

In a Free Society building codes and standards would be insisted on by those who insure the buildings or the mortgage holders and it would be independent of government. Building science trade associations would promulgate best practice standards..

If the insurance markets were allowed to function as they should it is an industry whose specialty is managing risk. We should let them do it and that way all transactions and "code" compliance would be voluntary.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

If they had strict building codes in Haiti, many of the people who had lost homes probably never would have had them to begin with.

[John Taylor]

People are attributing the low number of casualties in Chile to a wealthier society and strict building codes. Haiti's earthquake wasn't as severe, but hundreds of thousands died because structures that weren't built as well collapsed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_tale_of_two_quakes

The libertarian position of building codes is that they are an intrusion into the private matters of citizens. But in this case, it seems that the requirement to build robust structures is an overall positive benefit to society.

If we are to have a liberty revolution, should building codes, and other similar regulations like car safety mandates, be eliminated? The libertarian in me says, yes, get rid of the bureaucrats and all the added expense to the economy. But after events like these two earthquakes, it compels me to question whether or not ending government regulation in certain areas is a good thing.

Ending regulations would force people to be more careful, to always analyze things. ("I am entering a large building that is privately owned in an earthquake zone. Has it been properly constructed so if there is a quake the building won't collapse?") But that can become burdensome, if we can't be certain that anything we do will be reasonably safe.

So if we can elect enough liberty candidates to federal and state office, how to we proceed to reducing the size of government regulations without allowing hazards to be introduced to our lives? I anticipate the standard libertarian answer is the free market will take care of that. But can it?

In a free society, people are left free to decide how to live, and in what kind of house they would like, even if those decisions lead to negative results.

[UtahApocalypse]

Building Codes and Regulations Required... Yes.... A function of Government? No way.

[PBrady]

Why does this have to be a function of gunvernment? Underwriter Laboratories is private, yet few people get electrocuted by small appliances these days. Manufacturers build to UL specs because insurers demand it, retailers won't stock non-UL stuff, and even some consumers are savvy enough to watch for that label.
While UL seems to be a pretty good example, while researching a bit further, I came across this:

http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html

I'm not sure if this means that OSHA oversees their work or not. In other words, must UL standards be at least the same as OSHA standards?

I'm just a little confused on gov't involvement (if any) in to companies like UL.

[MN Patriot]

Why does this have to be a function of gunvernment? Underwriter Laboratories is private, yet few people get electrocuted by small appliances these days. Manufacturers build to UL specs because insurers demand it, retailers won't stock non-UL stuff, and even some consumers are savvy enough to watch for that label.

If I'm renting office space in a libertarian society, I'm going to look for the equivalent of a UL sticker on the building. If I'm building a house, my builder will be certified by some organization that I know has a good reputation of certification. It ain't rocket science.

ETA: And even if I'm not smart enough to figure that out, you can bet that the banker that loans the building funds and the insurer I select are both going to demand it, or the rates will be astronomical.

I agree, the libertarian arguments aren't hard to understand, but trying to convince the public is difficult when most people have been brainwashed to think government must regulate everything.

Regulation works in the favor of banks and insurers. If the insurance company uses the government as an insurer of last resort ("We insured houses in flood plains and earthquake zones that conformed to regulations, but they were destroyed and we are now bankrupt. We are too big to fail, so bail me out").

The point of this thread was to come up with good arguments to convince the public about ending regulations. We can convince each other in these forums, but battling it out with statists is something else.

[MN Patriot]

While UL seems to be a pretty good example, while researching a bit further, I came across this:

http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html

I'm not sure if this means that OSHA oversees their work or not. In other words, must UL standards be at least the same as OSHA standards?

I'm just a little confused on gov't involvement (if any) in to companies like UL.

Yeah, it seems government is ultimately involved in everything. It seems that OSHA recognizes UL as a safety benchmark, but not clear if OSHA actually regulates how UL operates. UL has been around much longer than OSHA.

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


UL is one of several companies approved for such testing by the U.S. federal agency OSHA. OSHA maintains a list of approved testing laboratories, known as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories.

[Slutter McGee]

I think there are two answers here. The first being that they are probably flawed and not indicitive of Libertarian ideas of Liberty in general.

The second answer is what to do about them. I say nothing, at least in any direct way. The argument will never gain any traction at the Federal level, although there is hope that should regulation such as this return to states, a movement for government deregulation could be successful.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[reardenstone]

People are attributing the low number of casualties in Chile to a wealthier society and strict building codes. Haiti's earthquake wasn't as severe, but hundreds of thousands died because structures that weren't built as well collapsed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_tale_of_two_quakes

The libertarian position of building codes is that they are an intrusion into the private matters of citizens. But in this case, it seems that the requirement to build robust structures is an overall positive benefit to society.

If we are to have a liberty revolution, should building codes, and other similar regulations like car safety mandates, be eliminated? The libertarian in me says, yes, get rid of the bureaucrats and all the added expense to the economy. But after events like these two earthquakes, it compels me to question whether or not ending government regulation in certain areas is a good thing.

Ending regulations would force people to be more careful, to always analyze things. ("I am entering a large building that is privately owned in an earthquake zone. Has it been properly constructed so if there is a quake the building won't collapse?") But that can become burdensome, if we can't be certain that anything we do will be reasonably safe.

So if we can elect enough liberty candidates to federal and state office, how to we proceed to reducing the size of government regulations without allowing hazards to be introduced to our lives? I anticipate the standard libertarian answer is the free market will take care of that. But can it?


I just joined so forgive me for not observing the other responses so far.

I question this as you do and I believe in sort of a Rand.-Libertarian compromise that is minimal. I do not know what Rand's government would be but I imagine it would not aid nor hinder the free markets, but it would lean on a minimum of municipals.

Here are the areas where I think more objective research and not utopian anarchist predictions are needed:


1. Public safety codes, as you permitted. I oten think about asbestos and lead paint and lead in toys coming from China as simple safety examples as well..
Compromise? Have the basic government call out for competitive bids from private companies to perform testing.
That said, I believe that the government should not tell you how to pipe in water or restrict building energy innovations. I am a big supporter of off-the-grid liviing if I and others could do it one day.


2. FDA - I see no need for DOE or DOA, but I believe that we can't just advocate an immediate ending of the FDA. Instead consider a gradual reduction and maybe merge all "safety" departments into one Dept of Safety. They would be small and contract private groups to perform testing, each test round going to a different bid winner.


3. Safety also can be measured in the quality of air and water we consume. These ubiquitous resources are shared by everyone and no one can really claim ownership unless the resource is bounded by property lines and does not flow out into other properties (creeks, rivers, etc.)
Protection of these IS protecting the health rights of others and pollution of these resources IS an attack on another person's health liberty.

[erowe1]

Contractors who want to be able to use as a selling point that they belong to their local (and state and national) home builders associations have to meet quality control guidelines, which is another word for building codes. This is true right now, and would still be true if every level of government got out of the business of mandating their own building codes through force of law.

[erowe1]

I just joined so forgive me for not observing the other responses so far.

I question this as you do and I believe in sort of a Rand.-Libertarian compromise that is minimal. I do not know what Rand's government would be but I imagine it would not aid nor hinder the free markets [?], but it would lean on a minimum of municipals.

Here are the areas where I think more objective research and not utopian anarchist predictions are needed:


1. Public safety codes, as you permitted. I oten think about asbestos and lead paint and lead in toys coming from China as simple safety examples as well..
Compromise? Have the basic government call out for competitive bids from private companies to perform testing.
That said, I believe that the government should not tell you how to pipe in water or restrict building energy innovations. I am a big supporter of off-the-grid liviing if I and others could do it one day.


2. FDA - I see no need for DOE or DOA, but I believe that we can't just advocate an immediate ending of the FDA. Instead consider a gradual reduction and maybe merge all "safety" departments into one Dept of Safety. They would be small and contract private groups to perform testing, each test round going to a different bid winner.


3. Safety also can be measured in the quality of air and water we consume. These ubiquitous resources are shared by everyone and no one can really claim ownership unless the resource is bounded by property lines and does not flow out into other properties (creeks, rivers, etc.)
Protection of these IS protecting the health rights of others and pollution of these resources IS an attack on another person's health liberty.

Do you honestly believe that any of your 3 proposals don't hinder the free market? What in the world do you think a free market is if those things are compatible with it?

[XNavyNuke]

No Wiggle Room in a Window War; State's New Building Code Collides With Amish Tradition (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/15/nyregion/no-wiggle-room-window-war-state-s-new-building-code-collides-with-amish.html?pagewanted=1)


In the unyielding world of the Old Order Amish, very little changes, not the horse and buggy they ride in, not the capes and bonnets they wear.

The Amish home, too, remains a bulwark of simplicity and modesty. Religious tradition in this community in western New York, conservative even by Amish standards, dictates everything from the plumbing (gravity fed, cold water only) to the oil lamps used in place of electricity (kerosene) to the size of window openings (five square feet).

It is those windows that have suddenly thrust the 50 Amish families here into an uncomfortable spotlight, placing them -- and town officials -- at loggerheads with the state. The problem is a new state code that requires a minimum opening for bedroom windows, meant to ease both the escape of residents during a fire and access by rescuers.

I've been in some Amish built barns that were probably 100 years old and the joinery was so tight you'd think it had been built only a couple of years ago. Can't imagine their home is any worse even if not "built to code."

XNN

[Brian4Liberty]

Contractors who want to be able to use as a selling point that they belong to their local (and state and national) home builders associations have to meet quality control guidelines, which is another word for building codes.

The most important factor in quality is the builder/contractors. Coincidentally, there was just a show on (Holmes on Homes), where he had to completely redo a remodel because it was all screwed up. I guess the bottom line is that government regulations don't always prevent incompetent or lazy contractors from doing dangerous things.

I am thinking that the best solution is independent, private inspectors. Experts who can be hired to review plans and inspect the construction process. One step better than just having Building Association guidelines. It may cost a little extra, but at least it would be a competitive market instead of government inspectors.

Just trusting any random construction contractor is not a good idea.

[Expatriate]

No Wiggle Room in a Window War; State's New Building Code Collides With Amish Tradition (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/15/nyregion/no-wiggle-room-window-war-state-s-new-building-code-collides-with-amish.html?pagewanted=1)

I've been in some Amish built barns that were probably 100 years old and the joinery was so tight you'd think it had been built only a couple of years ago. Can't imagine their home is any worse even if not "built to code."

XNN

From the above article:

''It gets to the point where sometimes you have to do what you think is morally right,'' Mr. Willcockson explained. ''We had a lot of support from people in the community. The Amish are a real benefit. They pay their taxes for everything although they don't use a lot of the services. They don't complain. They're just a great bunch of people to have around.''

:rolleyes:

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Just ask anyone that has spent some time in the trades; once a minimum standard is in place, it becomes the highest anyone shoots for. Regulation is incompatible with free market, but when disasters result because of partial regulation, it is always the free market that gets the blame.:eek:

[Peace&Freedom]

Regulations and codes tend to both monopolize standards (prohibiting choices in the market that are equally as good or better), and then take false credit for delivering value. How I rue how NASA sucked up all the praise for decades for the space program and for advancing scientific discovery, when in fact the government program probably inhibited progress since the regulations associated with it prohibited parties in the private sector from developing or deploying their own space craft. Building codes likewise deny us the ability to see how well the market would have solved the problem without government, as the codes prohibit exceptions to its 'standards.'

[erowe1]

I am thinking that the best solution is independent, private inspectors. Experts who can be hired to review plans and inspect the construction process. One step better than just having Building Association guidelines. It may cost a little extra, but at least it would be a competitive market instead of government inspectors.

Those exist now too. I used to be one. Whether they are used on a given job or not depends on the contract. And of course, as it is in the status quo, the specifications that these inspectors are using are in part determined by relevant government-based codes. But in the absence of those laws, buyers would still demand quality control measures be written into their contracts, and these measures would still involve specifications and independent inspectors, and we wouldn't be any less safe with the government staying out of the whole process.

The free market is just as amenable to having powerful regulatory agencies apart from the government to ensure the safety of buildings and pharmaceuticals as it is to having regulative agencies to ensure for Jewish shoppers that a given product in the supermarket truly is kosher.

[jmdrake]

Haiti's earthquake was closer to the surface and closer to the population center.


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2010/02/28/more-on-what-haiti-and-chile-don-t-have-in-common.aspx
More on What Haiti and Chile (Don't) Have In Common
Jeneen Interlandi
On Saturday I pointed out that the Chilean quake would likely claim far fewer lives than the one that struck Haiti in early January, and offered some of the reasons for that (better building codes, a more earthquake cognizant country, etc.). I want to add a few important technical points to that list.

First, although the Chilean quake was significantly stronger than the Haitian one, it also occurred 22 miles below the earth’s surface – twice as deep as the Haitian quake. That means there was twice as much earth to absorb the shock before it reached building foundations. It’s also worth pointing out that the epicenter of Saturday’s quake was about 70 miles from the nearest big city (Concepcion), compared with 10 miles between city and epicenter in the Haitian quake. On top of that, Concepcion has less than half the population of Port-Au-Prince (900,000 vs. 2 million).

Even so, the Chilean quake and its aftermath are proof positive that, as many experts have been saying since the 2004 quake in Banda Aceh, preparedness matters. A lot. So far Chilean officials – who are accustomed to dealing with big quakes - have declined offers of assistance and seem to be managing the crisis well enough on their own; in some affected regions, telephone service has already been restored.

Of course, as many will undoubtedly point out, Chile and Haiti are sort of apples and oranges. Yes, both countries sit atop active fault lines. But compared to Haiti, Chile is rich. Chile has the money to buy decent concrete, and the institutional power to enforce its use. Chile can purchase and store heavy equipment and other tools to respond quickly in the wake of a potentially city-leveling disaster. Haiti is too poor to do any of those things. So, even if the country had a better sense of its own geology before the quake, what could its citizens really have done with that information?

It’s a fair question, but I think it misses the point. The same things which enable a country to police its construction industry and implement basic disaster preparedness plans, can also lift that country out of poverty and help its people thrive – namely, law enforcement, education and some semblance of accountability. After the 1960 tremblor, Chile started getting serious about building codes and earthquake resistant engineering; The attention ultimately bolstered the construction industry, which now factor’s heavily in the country’s economic fortunes. (By 1970, construction was responsible for roughly 8 percent of Chile’s GDP, up from just a few percent in 1960). More economic development meant more money and further improvements. It may be a bit of a chicken-and-egg tangent, but I think it’s worth considering.

Incidentally, for a great piece on how some cities are heeding the lessons of Haiti and trying to get out in front of their earthquake susceptibility, check out Andrew Revkin’s article from early last week.

[FreeTraveler]

The unintended consequences of building codes are huge, too. Let me tell a little story.

Ten years ago, I decided to build a little cabin in the woods, all Thoreau like, right?

Except the county required at least 1200 sq ft in any dwelling. Since I had a small loft, that counted as a second floor, raising the requirement to 1600 sq ft.

Sure, I could put in a composting toilet, but I'd still have to put in a full septic system. I could drill my own well, but I had to pay for the water system hookup anyway. Solar power was groovy, but those lights have to be 110 volts, so you'll have to hook up to the power grid anyway. No 12-volt DC systems, they're not in the code for permanent structures.

Yeah, go ahead and put in that solar wall, the big wood stove, and the super insulation. You've still got to have central heat if you want an occupancy permit. And you don't have to have A/C by law, but that huge increase in size got me tangled with a bank, and they just insisted it have air.

Yeah, you can act as the contractor and hire your own subs, but you'll have to pay a licensed contractor to front for you on all the paperwork.

It went on like this for months. Caca after caca after caca. Never again. I sold it all and moved onto a sailboat. When I retired I bought a fifth-wheel. Screw them and their property taxes. :D

[Promontorium]

("I am entering a large building that is privately owned in an earthquake zone. Has it been properly constructed so if there is a quake the building won't collapse?") But that can become burdensome, if we can't be certain that anything we do will be reasonably safe.

You have hit the nail on the head.

The question is not whether citizens are capable of taking care of themselves (though that's what the collective wants you to believe) but whether we want to do it ourselves.

You said it right there, it becomes "burdonsome" because it is a responsibility.

Do you give your responsibilities over to people you don't know? Is that responsible?

I personally find it hard to believe the people can be responsible on their own, without mama government looking out, but I am also aware that this is programming. This is a social phenomenon that's been shown on a large scale many times. It's been argued for thousands of years.

Examples:

Aristotle believed slavery was natural

"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." - Aristotle

People believed african slaves needed to be ruled as well, and when they were finally freed (in many nations) there was a belief they couldn't take care of themselves.

These ideas all stem from a psychological rationalization. People see others "accepting" of oppression, and then come to believe that is what they desire, or need. We now have it on a smaller scale in United States. An overall amnesia of the past, this belief that we need the government to protect us, control us, and regulate us.

I think a more rational method would be, every person needs to get assurance as to the safety and viability of what they pay for. If a person or company lies, or cuts corners to gain profit at the expense of safety, they have commited a crime.

Something socialists like Jon Stewart, or Olbermann, or Nancy Pelosi do not understand is that individual rights, and individual freedom does not mean anarchy. It does not mean that people have a right to harm others. Government exists for just that purpose, to be an objective third party that can maintain justice, without vigilantism.

The basic edict of individual rights, is that

You have no right to harm others. No one has a right to harm you. The government exists to preserve those two points.

We don't need government to preserve our rights. Rather government should be a more effective method when in a society.

Unfortunately this idea of the purpose of government as Locke said in the 1600s, and was lifted into the Constitution, "to protect life, liberty, and property" has been lost. Now it's become the progressive platform of Teddy Roosevelt,

"The supreme duty of the nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice." -Opening sentence of the official platform of the Progressive Party, 1912.

aka: make laws punishing businessmen and their businesses, to preserve the poor working man. That is America's main purpose now.

Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, Workers Compensation, Health Insurance, war against nations that aren't advancing our goals of helping the working class, bailouts to businesses to help employment, bigger government for better employment, more taxes and debt spending to give to the poor, and fund all peripheral efforts for the poor. What is called corporatism, is a deal between government and business leaders to make the businesses fall in line with the government, in their ever expanding authority, with the kickbacks to those businesses. It is a trick, that the government is now the unions and the Pinkertons. With fancy titles given to the two sides, warring for ultimate control of resources they have stolen.

That is all America is now.

The idea that even one measure of American government would get off the back of industry is laughable at this point. It is as Obama said, to make a point and prove America loves this system;

"We can set up a system where food was probably cheaper than it is right now, if we just eliminated meat inspectors. And we eliminated any regulations in terms of how food's distributed and how it's stored. I'll bet in terms of drug prices, we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn't have a drug administration that's make sure that we trust the drugs so that they don't kill us. But we don't do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives. And we have bipartisan support for doing it." -Obama during the health insurance summit 2/25/10

We don't do that. America is the nation of epic regulation, red tape, and bureaucracy. Obama is right. He can and will put forth more and more regulation against your liberty, because that is what we do.

[fahayek]

This is why demonizing and restricting competition in insurance is bad.

Who has more of an incentive to minimize loss...government or insurance companies?

The worst moral hazard is backstopping insurance companies (AIG come to mind?)

[reardenstone]

Do you honestly believe that any of your 3 proposals don't hinder the free market? What in the world do you think a free market is if those things are compatible with it?



Okay. I can agree with items 2 and 3 if no transition was wanted.

I still stand by my argument for air and water standards. We may not need or want an EPA but we would need to allow for court awarded damages against those who pollute the air or water of another individual or group.

[Akus]

I will probably get some heat for this, but.....

I am a libertarian, but with a small "l", as you can see. While I think that war on drugs, war on terrorism and monopoly money we use to get things are bullshit, I think that, in some, very few instances, government interference improved the quality of life. Government interference is why, if you get sick at work, they won't just throw you out and replace you with a healthier specimen, why we have airbags in our cars, why our cars GENERALLY are better in just about all respects, why I know exactly what is in the can of food before I open it up and introduce the contents into my organism.

And yes, the codes that make buildings tougher and, therefore, save lives are due to government interference, so I welcome them, too.

And while may be it's not Washington's job to do these things, I do believe that at least a state governing body should exist to regulate these kinds of things.

Flamesuit on.

[LibForestPaul]

The reason there were less casualties could be attributed to the following:
1. Better Emergency Response
2. Better and available Emergency Equipment.
3. Quake was deeper than that in Haiti.
4. Quake epicenter was not in a densely populated area.
5. Subterranean structure was different than that of Haiti.

[LibForestPaul]

But what do I know. I'll just have the MSM tell me the truth.

[Akus]

The unintended consequences of building codes are huge, too. Let me tell a little story.

Ten years ago, I decided to build a little cabin in the woods, all Thoreau like, right?

Except the county required at least 1200 sq ft in any dwelling. Since I had a small loft, that counted as a second floor, raising the requirement to 1600 sq ft.

Sure, I could put in a composting toilet, but I'd still have to put in a full septic system. I could drill my own well, but I had to pay for the water system hookup anyway. Solar power was groovy, but those lights have to be 110 volts, so you'll have to hook up to the power grid anyway. No 12-volt DC systems, they're not in the code for permanent structures.

Yeah, go ahead and put in that solar wall, the big wood stove, and the super insulation. You've still got to have central heat if you want an occupancy permit. And you don't have to have A/C by law, but that huge increase in size got me tangled with a bank, and they just insisted it have air.

Yeah, you can act as the contractor and hire your own subs, but you'll have to pay a licensed contractor to front for you on all the paperwork.

It went on like this for months. Caca after caca after caca. Never again. I sold it all and moved onto a sailboat. When I retired I bought a fifth-wheel. Screw them and their property taxes. :D
I think it's a 50/50 deal. For every "damn the codes" story, you will likely hear the equally convincing "thank God for the codes" story.

[revolutionisnow]

I think it is more building standards, not codes per say. Not so long ago here in the US people could order a mail order kit to build their house with. All by themselves without licensed plumbers,carpenters, etc.

http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/0/F/bungalowplan-s-randolphsm.jpg

[jmdrake]

I think it is more building standards, not codes per say. Not so long ago here in the US people could order a mail order kit to build their house with. All by themselves without licensed plumbers,carpenters, etc.

http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/0/F/bungalowplan-s-randolphsm.jpg

You can still order and build prefab homes. And some parts of the country don't have codes. I have relatives that live in an area that just defeated an ordinance that would have required zoning codes. It's way off the beaten path though.

[Koz]

You cannot compare Haiti with the United States, we have somthing (or used to) that they have never had in my opinion. We have rule of law. Haiti is nothing but corruption, so the people are not truly free. You can only be free when you have rule of law.

Thus, if Haiti had rule of law the people would likely be more prosperous and demand more stable structures with thier purchasing dollars. This would be true if Haitans believed an earthquake was a danger. If they didn't then they probably wouldn't have worried about it. When I lived in California we strapped furniture to the wall and made sure our dwelling was safe. We paid extra to do so.

[axiomata]

As a structural engineer, I'll give my perspective. It should be obvious that building safety is most highly correlated with wealth. One of my professors just got back from Haiti, and I've read his report. I'm sure Monday he'll bring it up.

Basically Haiti, unlike say the US or Chile, does not design for earthquakes. They don't even teach it in schools. When engineers over there use standard building codes, which is rare, they use French codes because of the language barrier. Unfortunately France is not a high seismic zone and seismic design is really not present in their codes.

Concrete or masonry is their primary construction material because it is cheap, but for concrete to resist any tensile loads it depends on steel reinforcing. Steel reinforced concrete can provide great seismic performance, but it has to be properly detailed and steel is not cheap, and thus their buildings are (were) heavily underreinforced.

It is undeniable that a building code, if followed, would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Would it have been followed is another question. The report I read told the story of the American inspectors finding masons rebuilding structures in the exact same manner as the one next door which completely collapsed. Building codes without enforcement, and without engineers who follow them are useless. The best solution for Haiti is to open a school that teaches seismic design in my opinion.

Personally, I do not have major issues with building codes. They are not written by the government for one thing. The steel industry (AISC) writes recommend specifications for steel structures and the concrete industry (ACI) writes recommendations for concrete specifications. The ICC, a non-profit, writes the International Building Code which has been adopted in all US states as far as I am aware. They do not have a monopoly on the code. States are welcome to adopt whatever code they like. States an municipalities can provide amendments to the code. If, for example, a city doesn't think the code adequately predicts the maximum snow loads they can specify their own requirements.

Should the federal government adopt a standard code? No. Should states? I guess, so long as they allow municipalities to amend it.

Should it be completely privatized? I think privatization would work, but at least as far as structural building codes go, I hardly think this is a winning libertarian issue, or one worth a fight.

[axiomata]

To those concerned about structural codes handicapping potential innovators; it is a fair point. But there a few intricacies that prevent it from being a serious issue. There is a lot of competition between the steel code and the concrete code. If someone invents something that can provide the same performance for less cost the two committees are pretty quick to adopt it. After all, if they don't, then a building might not be as cost effective to be built out of their material and the owner will choose the other.

The other point is that the codes allow for deviation if the engineer of record can prove that it is safe. This process of proof is costly, but many times it is still cost effective. Proof can entail lab tests, field investigations, wind tunnel modeling, and I believe detailed computer modeling. Maybe it's because its my profession, but I am pretty impressed with the structures we can build safely.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's a difficult issue. I like the idea of hiring my own inspector/design reviewer to make sure that everything is sound, when I am building for myself.

On the other hand, I do not trust others. Builders, landlords, sellers, etc, will often take the cheapest route, safety be damned. That is the free-market. "I can make it safe, or I can make it cheap". The reality is that in many situations, "cheap" is the choice.

[JaylieWoW]

Wow, 3 answers within 3 minutes of posting this. Thanks for the fast response.

But how do we convince the general public that reducing the size of government and ending regulations will ensure our buildings, cars, airplanes, etc are safe?

The rapid leftist Democrat/progressive/liberal/commie will never accept the idea that private citizens and free markets will provide safe goods. Government is God and all that Government regulates is good. Not regulated = evil.

But more reasonable people who haven't completely accepted our liberty agenda need to be assured that buildings won't collapse in a free market environment.

Because most people cannot imagine a world where government doesn't pay for the following:


What do you think taxpayer money should be spent on...
Here's my list:

Essentials:
Welfare
Healthcare
Law Enforcement
Defense
Education
and Corporate regulation.

I've come to understand most people believe becoming President, Senator, Congressman or Public Servant instantaneously turns said people into experts about every possible trade specialization on the planet, including those not yet invented. They don't question why they believe it, nor are they able to see how unrealistic it is to have this belief. Heck, they don't even realize this is what they believe!

Take for example, child labor laws. Government loves to take credit for saving all those poor downtrodden children from having to work via the creation of local and federal child labor laws. However, even a cursory inspection of our government's very own census records clearly shows a sharp decline of children ages 10-16 participating in the workforce at a time well before any child labor laws were ever put into place (early 1900s). Further, if you dig just a little more you will find those opposed to such laws were mothers, fathers and clergy. They saw this kind of interference, rightly so, as an encroachment upon liberty. Those advocating for such laws were other ADULT union groups who didn't like the extra competition, they wanted this work all for themselves.

But, the majority of people are too busy and uninterested to be inconvenienced with facts. It is much easier to just get along and go along. They don't research their opinions and they don't base them on facts. They base their opinion on whoever makes them "feel" the best about themselves and whatever opinion gets the most people to agree with them.

[jbuttell]

Wow, 3 answers within 3 minutes of posting this. Thanks
But more reasonable people who haven't completely accepted our liberty agenda need to be assured that buildings won't collapse in a free market environment.


I do exactly what you suggested people might do without government building code. (I live in LA) Every time I walk into a building I wonder, will this building stand a big earthquake?

The science of Buildings vs Earthquakes is a slow process. Most buildings, sure - many of them are designed by some brilliant minds, but few have stood the test of a 8.8 earthquake.

I'd love to see the day when I can shop around for a condo/house with a sticker on the front proclaiming a reasonably accurate earthquake resistence rating.

In a lot of ways, this discussion reminds me of the FDA. Another institution that makes some people feel all warm and fuzzy inside and couldn't imagine living without, but has done it's share of damage and deception.

[fisharmor]

The National Electric Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electrical_Code) is produced by the National Fire Protection Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fire_Protection_Association). This code is accepted (i.e., legally enforced) by localities throughout the country.


The NFPA was formed in 1896 by a group of insurance firm representatives with the stated purpose of standardizing the new and burgeoning market of fire sprinkler systems.

I think that's pretty huge. If you wire something improperly enough, you could have people getting killed by touching wall plates. Yet the electric standards that are (unfortunately) legally enforced by most of the country are written by the free market.


I have a friend who is in construction inspection. He started out inspecting EIFS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIFS), an exterior wall finish which has a history of ending up in lawsuits. It was marketed as a cheap stucco. But installers found out the hard way that if you don't use skilled laborers to put it up, it causes water issues and destroys the building - and if you do use skilled labor, the construction cost savings over traditional stucco vanish.

The end result is that it's still used, a lot, but only on commercial buildings. Home builders don't use it that much (except on McMansions) because it's not a whole lot cheaper for small buildings and it has a history. Large buildings use it a lot, because when you factor in sheer surface area, it's cheaper.

So there you have it: the market reacted. You had a few people lose houses over this, but they went through the court system and got compensated (but I'm not saying the court system used has to be the one we have, either). And the market figured out it can't use this building material for certain applications.

And I'll bet that those not in construction had no idea this stuff even existed.

[MN Patriot]

The question is not whether citizens are capable of taking care of themselves (though that's what the collective wants you to believe) but whether we want to do it ourselves.

You said it right there, it becomes "burdonsome" because it is a responsibility.

Do you give your responsibilities over to people you don't know? Is that responsible?

I personally find it hard to believe the people can be responsible on their own, without mama government looking out, but I am also aware that this is programming. This is a social phenomenon that's been shown on a large scale many times. It's been argued for thousands of years.

Examples:

Aristotle believed slavery was natural

"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." - Aristotle

People believed african slaves needed to be ruled as well, and when they were finally freed (in many nations) there was a belief they couldn't take care of themselves.

These ideas all stem from a psychological rationalization. People see others "accepting" of oppression, and then come to believe that is what they desire, or need. We now have it on a smaller scale in United States. An overall amnesia of the past, this belief that we need the government to protect us, control us, and regulate us.

I think a more rational method would be, every person needs to get assurance as to the safety and viability of what they pay for. If a person or company lies, or cuts corners to gain profit at the expense of safety, they have commited a crime.

Something socialists like Jon Stewart, or Olbermann, or Nancy Pelosi do not understand is that individual rights, and individual freedom does not mean anarchy. It does not mean that people have a right to harm others. Government exists for just that purpose, to be an objective third party that can maintain justice, without vigilantism.

The basic edict of individual rights, is that

You have no right to harm others. No one has a right to harm you. The government exists to preserve those two points.

We don't need government to preserve our rights. Rather government should be a more effective method when in a society.

Unfortunately this idea of the purpose of government as Locke said in the 1600s, and was lifted into the Constitution, "to protect life, liberty, and property" has been lost. Now it's become the progressive platform of Teddy Roosevelt,

"The supreme duty of the nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice." -Opening sentence of the official platform of the Progressive Party, 1912.

aka: make laws punishing businessmen and their businesses, to preserve the poor working man. That is America's main purpose now.

Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, Workers Compensation, Health Insurance, war against nations that aren't advancing our goals of helping the working class, bailouts to businesses to help employment, bigger government for better employment, more taxes and debt spending to give to the poor, and fund all peripheral efforts for the poor. What is called corporatism, is a deal between government and business leaders to make the businesses fall in line with the government, in their ever expanding authority, with the kickbacks to those businesses. It is a trick, that the government is now the unions and the Pinkertons. With fancy titles given to the two sides, warring for ultimate control of resources they have stolen.

That is all America is now.

The idea that even one measure of American government would get off the back of industry is laughable at this point. It is as Obama said, to make a point and prove America loves this system;

"We can set up a system where food was probably cheaper than it is right now, if we just eliminated meat inspectors. And we eliminated any regulations in terms of how food's distributed and how it's stored. I'll bet in terms of drug prices, we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn't have a drug administration that's make sure that we trust the drugs so that they don't kill us. But we don't do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives. And we have bipartisan support for doing it." -Obama during the health insurance summit 2/25/10

We don't do that. America is the nation of epic regulation, red tape, and bureaucracy. Obama is right. He can and will put forth more and more regulation against your liberty, because that is what we do.

Thanks for the great reply; quote-worthy material.

Many great replies from everyone. The info about the building codes was informative. I'm bumping this up, just so everyone can have the opportunity to read some of the responses.

I recall my cousin's daughter went on a mission trip to Haiti about 5 years ago. She showed pictures of how they helped some poor rural family build a house. They gathered rocks for the foundation/lower part of the wall, plastered them together. Then used sticks and branches for the structure. I'm kind of skeptical of these mission trips, where the heathen locals get converted to Christianity by some foreign school kids. So if this family really did live in this rock and stick shack, they were probably safer than people in a concrete high rise.

[axiomata]

Some more interesting info I learned today. My professor is back and he only spent a few minutes on Haiti since he is going to have a seminar on it at a later date. I don't really have new info on Haiti besides what I mentioned earlier. Though one major flaw in their reinforced concrete structures is that their rebar is smooth. Compare with US rebar (http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/UNQ/UNQ465/layered-tied-rebar_~u13918006.jpg) which has bumps to prevent pullout; this is bad.

A more interesting thing I learned was in regards to Chile. Engineers here in Seattle are especially interested in the Chilean earthquake because the "big one" that threatens Seattle is a subduction zone type earthquake; the same type that hit Chile. (Another Spanish-speaking professor will be going there.) The return period is much less frequent than Chile, but the response might be similar.

I'm not exactly sure why exactly, it could simply be related to the frequency of Chilean earthquakes, but there is a cultural tendency to think about how a given building might perform in an earthquake by the lay person over there. Though some people in this thread admitted to doing this, the vast proportion of Americans tend to not think about such things. They have a trust in building codes and engineers.

I don't think their trust in necessarily misplaced, but it certainly affects the market. Where a Chilean might see a skinny looking column and decide against renting a space on the 30th floor, an American renter does not have the same reaction. He is more concerned about the floor space are larger column takes up. This interaction has the effect of overly conservative structures in Chile compared to the US.

Given the magnitude of the earthquake, normalizing for wealth, Chilean infrastructure has performed well. It was lucky that the epicenter was not under a large city, but the earthquake had some 800 times the energy of Haiti. 800 is a lot. Think about the difference between one nuke on Hiroshima and 800.

I like this quote: "Earthquake don't kill people. Badly design and constructed structures kill people."

[dannno]

Yea because if there weren't building codes everyone would live in mud huts and straw houses.

Yes, and if the people in Haiti had building codes they would have lived in luxury apartments :p

[dannno]

If someone invents something that can provide the same performance for less cost the two committees are pretty quick to adopt it. After all, if they don't, then a building might not be as cost effective to be built out of their material and the owner will choose the other.

Ever look into hempcrete?

Probably a bit expensive, but it would be a lot cheaper if we could grow it here.

I should be able to use hempcrete, even though it might be more expensive, it is stronger.

[axiomata]

I heard about it a while ago. Not sure where, I wouldn't be surprised if it was here. ;) But I never looked into it in detail.

Wikipedia says it is not stronger than regular concrete in compression, though it is better in tension (which isn't saying much).

Still, you will find no argument from me that its ban should be lifted. Sounds like it would have tons of potential applications. For building owners into the green LEED thing, it would be a great material since it is carbon negative. The production of cement is highly energy intensive and anything that negates that will be popular.

But you are not going to see hempcrete high rises. ;)

[mello]

I just read that the Chile earthquake shifted the Earth's axis by 3 degrees shortening the days by
1.26 microseconds. Crazy!!!

[pcosmar]

I just read that the Chile earthquake shifted the Earth's axis by 3 degrees shortening the days by
1.26 microseconds. Crazy!!!

Or

Is it the axis shift that is causing the earthquakes?

[NightOwl]

Wow, 3 answers within 3 minutes of posting this. Thanks for the fast response.

But how do we convince the general public that reducing the size of government and ending regulations will ensure our buildings, cars, airplanes, etc are safe?

The rapid leftist Democrat/progressive/liberal/commie will never accept the idea that private citizens and free markets will provide safe goods. Government is God and all that Government regulates is good. Not regulated = evil.

But more reasonable people who haven't completely accepted our liberty agenda need to be assured that buildings won't collapse in a free market environment.

From a strategic point of view, why should building codes be anywhere in the first 10,000 things we'd want to repeal anyway? There are a zillion other things more damaging to life, property, and liberty. Focus on those. Once you get people on board for those, they'll be informed enough to understand the hard cases.

[MN Patriot]

From a strategic point of view, why should building codes be anywhere in the first 10,000 things we'd want to repeal anyway? There are a zillion other things more damaging to life, property, and liberty. Focus on those. Once you get people on board for those, they'll be informed enough to understand the hard cases.

Liberty candidates will be subjected to all kinds of abuse from the liberal media and their statist opponents. They will be asked questions like: "So, you want to let anyone build any sort of structure without building codes and government regulations protecting the public? Are you crazy?"

Every one of us needs to know how to respond to the liberals saying that reducing the size of government will cause crisis, calamity and chaos. If we are serious about ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing, government will have to be dramatically reduced in size. Ending all of the unneeded government agencies will mean ending regulations, such as building codes.

There were many excellent comments in this thread, I hope people can use them when debating this stuff with liberals.

[silverhandorder]

Liberty candidates will be subjected to all kinds of abuse from the liberal media and their statist opponents. They will be asked questions like: "So, you want to let anyone build any sort of structure without building codes and government regulations protecting the public? Are you crazy?"

Every one of us needs to know how to respond to the liberals saying that reducing the size of government will cause crisis, calamity and chaos. If we are serious about ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing, government will have to be dramatically reduced in size. Ending all of the unneeded government agencies will mean ending regulations, such as building codes.

There were many excellent comments in this thread, I hope people can use them when debating this stuff with liberals.

They can take a cue from Rand Paul and say no. Fight one battle at a time.

[krazy kaju]

FACT: Wealthier people buy/build more structurally sound buildings.

FACT: Government building codes simply add regulatory costs to the construction of buildings, making structurally sound buildings more expensive and more out of reach to the poor.

[reardenstone]

I will probably get some heat for this, but.....

I am a libertarian, but with a small "l", as you can see. While I think that war on drugs, war on terrorism and monopoly money we use to get things are bullshit, I think that, in some, very few instances, government interference improved the quality of life. Government interference is why, if you get sick at work, they won't just throw you out and replace you with a healthier specimen, why we have airbags in our cars, why our cars GENERALLY are better in just about all respects, why I know exactly what is in the can of food before I open it up and introduce the contents into my organism.

And yes, the codes that make buildings tougher and, therefore, save lives are due to government interference, so I welcome them, too.

And while may be it's not Washington's job to do these things, I do believe that at least a state governing body should exist to regulate these kinds of things.

Flamesuit on.


I agree to some extent. We can agree that it is slippery slope thinking to assume that if we accept "minimal government" we are accepting statism et toto and socialism.

The REASON green and safety are marketable now is because they were made popular by national attention.

Sometimes however, government is guilty of jumping on the bandwagon.


I do not advocate a large bureaucracy, but what is wrong with downsizing slowly and incrementally?

Don't end the Fed; audit it first and then work on ending it.
Don't end the FDA, open it up to some private contracts and then work on making it as small as possible (a small panel that meets with private safety companies.)