4 ms·

That is incredibly unreasonable, because 1) Fires tend to spread. Fire codes are not just for your own benefit, they're for the benefit of everyone around you.

by noahl 8y ago

That is incredibly unreasonable, because 1) Fires tend to spread. Fire codes are not just for your own benefit, they're for the benefit of everyone around you. 2) If you live in a fire trap and it eventually catches on fire, firefighters will run unnecessary risks when they rush in to try to save you. It's not fair to them to put them in that situation. 3) You talk about choosing the risks yourself, but your life is connected to other peoples lives in countless ways. Your choice of how much risk to take on affects many more people than just you. That's why it's totally fine for society to insist on fire escapes.

mruts 8y ago
But where is the line drawn? Clearly drinking or smoking or doing drugs has the same problem, should all those things really be illegal? How about abortion? Or deciding to name your child "Dick Head Jr."? Or having kids? If you take your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, you end up in a society without any personal freedom or choice. The problem isn't that fire escapes are bad. It's that regulation slowly and surely just inches forward, consuming everything in its path. If your first assumption about people is that they are too stupid to make choices for themselves, the natural conclusion is despotism. Do you think you're too stupid to make decisions yourself as well? Would you be fine with someone telling you that maybe you are too stupid to have kids? Or maybe too stupid to drive a car? Or too stupid to decide what profession you want in life (you would write terrible code, so it's in the public interest that you become a janitor where your stupidity can't hurt anyone else)? Or maybe you're so stupid that we should just take you off the street? OR, maybe, just maybe, you and the market should decide these things for yourself. Edit: In regard to the fire fighter thing. Individuals could just pay insurance for fire protection. It naturally would be cheaper in places with fire escapes. There's no reason why public services like fire fighters or ambulances have to be public, they would probably just function more efficiently as private entities.
- komali2 8y ago
  >If you take your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, you end up in a society without any personal freedom or choice. Your entire argument hinges on slippery slope fallacy. Implementation of a thing in a restricted doesn't necessarily lead to an unrestricted implementation of it. Nobody is saying "you are too stupid to decide fire safety for yourself." We are saying "it is cheaper (more efficient) to have specialists decide fire safety guidelines and implement them universally, than it is to guarantee equal knowledge of fire safety for all citizens." Because, a free market isn't free if it's unfair. Your libertarian argument requires perfect fairness, or it's immoral. And obviously, perfect fairness in a free market system is... a high barrier to cross. So, regulation. Efficient, fair. Flawed, but not broken, and not nearly as exploitable as "the free market." By the way - what happened before the fire safety regulations? People died, horribly, tragically. If you believe they deserved to die because they didn't educate themselves on fire safety, your expectations are far too high. Do you know how planes, electricity, your car, roads, clean water, sewer treatment, food safety (at the source, not cooking), radiological and chemical safety systems work? Do you know how to use a tomahawk missile to enforce your sovereign borders? No? Maybe you don't deserve the protections they offer then.
- danbolt 8y ago
  I think there's a big difference between "a society without any personal freedom or choice" and one where there are certain regulations for the public good. Some examples might be hate speech laws or food safety. Those do put concrete limits on the behaviours of individuals and corporate entities, but help guide society to grow and operate in a way considered healthier than if left alone. I'm skeptical of the notion that regulation "slowly and surely just inches forward" naturally. Maybe you could explain a bit?

by noahl 8y ago

mruts 8y ago

But where is the line drawn? Clearly drinking or smoking or doing drugs has the same problem, should all those things really be illegal? How about abortion? Or deciding to name your child "Dick Head Jr."? Or having kids? If you take your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, you end up in a society without any personal freedom or choice. The problem isn't that fire escapes are bad. It's that regulation slowly and surely just inches forward, consuming everything in its path. If your first assumption about people is that they are too stupid to make choices for themselves, the natural conclusion is despotism. Do you think you're too stupid to make decisions yourself as well? Would you be fine with someone telling you that maybe you are too stupid to have kids? Or maybe too stupid to drive a car? Or too stupid to decide what profession you want in life (you would write terrible code, so it's in the public interest that you become a janitor where your stupidity can't hurt anyone else)? Or maybe you're so stupid that we should just take you off the street? OR, maybe, just maybe, you and the market should decide these things for yourself. Edit: In regard to the fire fighter thing. Individuals could just pay insurance for fire protection. It naturally would be cheaper in places with fire escapes. There's no reason why public services like fire fighters or ambulances have to be public, they would probably just function more efficiently as private entities.

komali2 8y ago
>If you take your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, you end up in a society without any personal freedom or choice. Your entire argument hinges on slippery slope fallacy. Implementation of a thing in a restricted doesn't necessarily lead to an unrestricted implementation of it. Nobody is saying "you are too stupid to decide fire safety for yourself." We are saying "it is cheaper (more efficient) to have specialists decide fire safety guidelines and implement them universally, than it is to guarantee equal knowledge of fire safety for all citizens." Because, a free market isn't free if it's unfair. Your libertarian argument requires perfect fairness, or it's immoral. And obviously, perfect fairness in a free market system is... a high barrier to cross. So, regulation. Efficient, fair. Flawed, but not broken, and not nearly as exploitable as "the free market." By the way - what happened before the fire safety regulations? People died, horribly, tragically. If you believe they deserved to die because they didn't educate themselves on fire safety, your expectations are far too high. Do you know how planes, electricity, your car, roads, clean water, sewer treatment, food safety (at the source, not cooking), radiological and chemical safety systems work? Do you know how to use a tomahawk missile to enforce your sovereign borders? No? Maybe you don't deserve the protections they offer then.
danbolt 8y ago
I think there's a big difference between "a society without any personal freedom or choice" and one where there are certain regulations for the public good. Some examples might be hate speech laws or food safety. Those do put concrete limits on the behaviours of individuals and corporate entities, but help guide society to grow and operate in a way considered healthier than if left alone. I'm skeptical of the notion that regulation "slowly and surely just inches forward" naturally. Maybe you could explain a bit?