8 ms·

Decent building codes don't necessarily stop economic growth. Housing is slightly more expensive and it takes more capital to build, but its really not 2 or 10x

Decent building codes don't necessarily stop economic growth. Housing is slightly more expensive and it takes more capital to build, but its really not 2 or 10x the price of an unsafe home. Heck, some safer designs are cheaper than unsafe designs. I don't really buy the "safety is cost prohibitive" argument much. Modern societies have no problem absorbing the cost. Not to mention the cost of post-earthquake cleanup is less.

billswift 16y ago
The bigger problem from a libertarian point is that regulation does not necessarily result in better safety. A lot of it simply results in higher costs, and redistribution of money to "licensed professionals". As an earlier commenter pointed out, many insurance companies actually require greater degrees of safety in buildings they insure than building codes do.
- drzaiusapelord 16y ago
  I'm not seeing how bureaucracy and "licensed professionals" hired from the for-profit insurance industry to maintain their codes is better than doing the same in government. In fact, I would argue that the government alternative is superior as it doesn't involved the overhead of making a profit and growing markets (see socialized healthcare vs private healthcare). Unfortunately, its popular now in the USA to dismiss public safety as being less important than profits and to praise horribly unsafe countries run by dictators for their "growth." Not to mention, the intangibles here with the libertarian approach - massive brain drain to safer countries, lower quality of life, lower lifespans, etc. I'd rather be taxed out the wazoo in Germany than be tax-free in Somalia. I'd rather be in an earthquake in the USA or Japan than in China or Libya.
  - WalterBright 16y ago
    Somalia is the antithesis of a libertarian country.
    - jshen 16y ago
      how?
      - WalterBright 16y ago
        A libertarian ideal country requires the protection and guarantee of individual rights.
        jshen 16y ago
        that doesn't mean anything. In America, the wealthiest nation in the world, do I have the right to not starve to death if I become disabled? Do I have the right to live in a building with strict earthquake standards if I'm in an earthquake zone? Doesn't that conflict with the right of the business constructing the building to build it as they see fit? Do I have the right to breathe clean air? Doesn't that conflict with the factories right to pump pollutants into the air? One persons individual rights inevitably conflict with someone else's individual rights. I have no idea what libertarianism is by your definition. For it to mean anything you have to lay out a value system that gives a default answer when one persons individual rights conflict with someone else's.
        solson 16y ago
        It's a debate surrounding positive rights vs. negative rights - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights Libertarianism generally supports negative rights arguing that the establishment of positive rights will always violate someone's negative rights and that negative rights are the natural state of human beings given the absence of violence. That means that you would not have a right to "not starve" if that meant you had to hire someone (the government) to club me over the head and steal my sandwich so you don't starve. But you do have the right to try to convince me to voluntarily give you half of my sandwich. It is the use of violent aggression as means to an end that Libertarians universally oppose, so by definition Somalia is not a libertarian paradise.
- icarus_drowning 16y ago
  Isn't the point of the article that Japan's regulation did result in better safety? That might not be an argument that can support any and all regulation in every part of the world, but it seems to suggest that these particular regulations in this particular country were effective.
solson 16y ago
"Decent building codes don't necessarily stop economic growth." No, but they will slow growth, esp in developing nations. Almost all products can be made safer by increasing regulation. The question is... is it worth the price in both $$$ and quality of life (freedom). We would save many lives/injuries by regulating that all recreational vehicles like snowmobiles and ATVs must be manufactured to go less than 30mph. We could regulate that all residential housing be constructed of entirely fireproof materials and have sprinkler systems. Why don't we? Cost. We'd have fewer rec-vehicle manufacturers (fewer jobs) and fewer people could afford homes.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- bluedanieru 16y ago
  We don't regulate ATVs that way because they're recreational vehicles and the part of the point is that they go fast. It's a luxury item that we expect people to accept a bit of risk to use. As far as housing is concerned you've pretty much described office buildings and apartments at least where I live. For individual homes I think the idea is that if you can get out faster then there is less need of those safety devices. Nevertheless there are still pretty tight standards in my area at least (Japan). It seems you're trying to point to the absurdity of infinite regulation for total safety as an argument against all regulation, even if it is affordable and reasonable. I don't get it.
jtolle 16y ago
Plus, decent building codes can actually enhance overall efficiency. Lots of things in the code don't really "cost" anything. They just enforce hard-won "it's best to do it this way" knowledge that, shockingly, many builders are oblivious to. Think of things like hurricane straps or nailing plates that cost nothing compared to the materials and labor that go into a typical building. Baking some minimum standards into the law saves us all having to become experts, or hire our own experts. And not having the neighbor's roof fly off during the next hurricane and block the road is just gravy.

billswift 16y ago

The bigger problem from a libertarian point is that regulation does not necessarily result in better safety. A lot of it simply results in higher costs, and redistribution of money to "licensed professionals". As an earlier commenter pointed out, many insurance companies actually require greater degrees of safety in buildings they insure than building codes do.

drzaiusapelord 16y ago
I'm not seeing how bureaucracy and "licensed professionals" hired from the for-profit insurance industry to maintain their codes is better than doing the same in government. In fact, I would argue that the government alternative is superior as it doesn't involved the overhead of making a profit and growing markets (see socialized healthcare vs private healthcare). Unfortunately, its popular now in the USA to dismiss public safety as being less important than profits and to praise horribly unsafe countries run by dictators for their "growth." Not to mention, the intangibles here with the libertarian approach - massive brain drain to safer countries, lower quality of life, lower lifespans, etc. I'd rather be taxed out the wazoo in Germany than be tax-free in Somalia. I'd rather be in an earthquake in the USA or Japan than in China or Libya.
- WalterBright 16y ago
  Somalia is the antithesis of a libertarian country.
  - jshen 16y ago
    how?
    - WalterBright 16y ago
      A libertarian ideal country requires the protection and guarantee of individual rights.
      - jshen 16y ago
        that doesn't mean anything. In America, the wealthiest nation in the world, do I have the right to not starve to death if I become disabled? Do I have the right to live in a building with strict earthquake standards if I'm in an earthquake zone? Doesn't that conflict with the right of the business constructing the building to build it as they see fit? Do I have the right to breathe clean air? Doesn't that conflict with the factories right to pump pollutants into the air? One persons individual rights inevitably conflict with someone else's individual rights. I have no idea what libertarianism is by your definition. For it to mean anything you have to lay out a value system that gives a default answer when one persons individual rights conflict with someone else's.
        solson 16y ago
        It's a debate surrounding positive rights vs. negative rights - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights Libertarianism generally supports negative rights arguing that the establishment of positive rights will always violate someone's negative rights and that negative rights are the natural state of human beings given the absence of violence. That means that you would not have a right to "not starve" if that meant you had to hire someone (the government) to club me over the head and steal my sandwich so you don't starve. But you do have the right to try to convince me to voluntarily give you half of my sandwich. It is the use of violent aggression as means to an end that Libertarians universally oppose, so by definition Somalia is not a libertarian paradise.
icarus_drowning 16y ago
Isn't the point of the article that Japan's regulation did result in better safety? That might not be an argument that can support any and all regulation in every part of the world, but it seems to suggest that these particular regulations in this particular country were effective.

solson 16y ago

"Decent building codes don't necessarily stop economic growth." No, but they will slow growth, esp in developing nations. Almost all products can be made safer by increasing regulation. The question is... is it worth the price in both $$$ and quality of life (freedom). We would save many lives/injuries by regulating that all recreational vehicles like snowmobiles and ATVs must be manufactured to go less than 30mph. We could regulate that all residential housing be constructed of entirely fireproof materials and have sprinkler systems. Why don't we? Cost. We'd have fewer rec-vehicle manufacturers (fewer jobs) and fewer people could afford homes.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bluedanieru 16y ago
We don't regulate ATVs that way because they're recreational vehicles and the part of the point is that they go fast. It's a luxury item that we expect people to accept a bit of risk to use. As far as housing is concerned you've pretty much described office buildings and apartments at least where I live. For individual homes I think the idea is that if you can get out faster then there is less need of those safety devices. Nevertheless there are still pretty tight standards in my area at least (Japan). It seems you're trying to point to the absurdity of infinite regulation for total safety as an argument against all regulation, even if it is affordable and reasonable. I don't get it.

jtolle 16y ago

Plus, decent building codes can actually enhance overall efficiency. Lots of things in the code don't really "cost" anything. They just enforce hard-won "it's best to do it this way" knowledge that, shockingly, many builders are oblivious to. Think of things like hurricane straps or nailing plates that cost nothing compared to the materials and labor that go into a typical building. Baking some minimum standards into the law saves us all having to become experts, or hire our own experts. And not having the neighbor's roof fly off during the next hurricane and block the road is just gravy.