5 ms·

I mean, I was ideologically outraged as a young adult when I found out that the Ontario building code must be followed by law but that it must be purchased for

I mean, I was ideologically outraged as a young adult when I found out that the Ontario building code must be followed by law but that it must be purchased for around $350 at the time. But I kinda get it now. Doing stuff the right way is hard. It takes big, sorta expensive books. It's not the end of the world.

rhn_mk1 5y ago
Establishing laws the right way may be hard, but following them is compulsory. I don't see why being forced to pay in order not to break the law shouldn't be an outrage.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  Yeah that's how I used to think too, but we can characterize it another way if we want to. The costs of upkeeping the codes that keep us safe should be born by those that test their limits. But in the end, to me it is much simpler than that: This is a minor annoyance at worst. Imagine losing a family member due to ignorance or recklessness of others. Or prolonged, acute illness due to a misdiagnoses and subsequent medication complication. An engagement ending without notice because you answered a question innocently and honestly and it caused them to re-think the whole thing. These are real problems. When life is rosy cosy a three inch thick book costing $350 may seem like an outrage, but it really isn't.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    I guess another way to look at this is just another tax that you have to pay. This tactic is underhanded though in that it favors those who don't pay the tax and take risks without knowing the code (they have more money left if they win the gamble). EDIT: plus, a "buy this law" tax is regressive: those who do the least work subject to this tax will bear the highest tax/unit of work costs. E.g. a private person remodelling their house will pay the same 300$ as the huge construction company. It also creates a hurdle for new entrants, who don't have any existing connections from whom they could borrow the book. When it comes to financing the research on law, there are ways that have better properties than those above (like a tax on work done).
    - freshpots 5y ago
      I mean, you also need an engineering degree and a license to practice engineering there. Where does one draw the line? There are barriers to entry and requirements in most fields.
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        I'd draw the line at not spreading/hiding the costs. Have the payment for the law be part of the degree (for example), instead of creating a surprise payment only after somebody already invested some time into the path.
- bell-cot 5y ago
  How would you feel if: (1) The law books were pretty expensive...but some minimum number of public libraries had copies of the books in their Reference (may not be checked out) sections? (2) The expensive law books were pretty much all in subjects that didn't concern you - building code for steel mills, regulations for operating an ocean freighter, depreciation rules for oil refineries? (3) "The letter of the law" was freely available - but it's a muddled mess of vagueness, insider jargon, "gotta be a lawyer to understand the mental framework here", and just so hellishly long that you would have to devote your life to some sub-sub-sub-section of the law (plus the administrative regulations based on it, rulings in related court cases, etc.) to have any chance of knowing and understanding it?
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    (1) See my other comment, this is pretty similar to having to pay for them, except now you pay with your time, and proportional to your... geographical placement? That doesn't make a lot of sense. (2) See my other comment. (3) That's bad. You seem to present this as a trilemma, when it's not. (4) Pay for the creation in some more sensible way, e.g. the same way more pedestrian laws are created. The law that says you aren't allowed to shoot people at will was also made by someone, and that work was not free.
    - bell-cot 5y ago
      My point (poorly made, perhaps) was more that lots of kinda-reasonable-sounding stuff like (1), (2), and (4) doesn't much matter if the final reality of the law is often more like (3). At least in the U.S., my impression is that (3) is rather often the case.
WaitWaitWha 5y ago
No "[i]t's not the end of the world." But, it limits who can and cannot use those standards. ISO standards are often mandated and required to do business. The documentation can be large portion of the certification.

rhn_mk1 5y ago

Establishing laws the right way may be hard, but following them is compulsory. I don't see why being forced to pay in order not to break the law shouldn't be an outrage.

3pt14159 5y ago
Yeah that's how I used to think too, but we can characterize it another way if we want to. The costs of upkeeping the codes that keep us safe should be born by those that test their limits. But in the end, to me it is much simpler than that: This is a minor annoyance at worst. Imagine losing a family member due to ignorance or recklessness of others. Or prolonged, acute illness due to a misdiagnoses and subsequent medication complication. An engagement ending without notice because you answered a question innocently and honestly and it caused them to re-think the whole thing. These are real problems. When life is rosy cosy a three inch thick book costing $350 may seem like an outrage, but it really isn't.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  I guess another way to look at this is just another tax that you have to pay. This tactic is underhanded though in that it favors those who don't pay the tax and take risks without knowing the code (they have more money left if they win the gamble). EDIT: plus, a "buy this law" tax is regressive: those who do the least work subject to this tax will bear the highest tax/unit of work costs. E.g. a private person remodelling their house will pay the same 300$ as the huge construction company. It also creates a hurdle for new entrants, who don't have any existing connections from whom they could borrow the book. When it comes to financing the research on law, there are ways that have better properties than those above (like a tax on work done).
  - freshpots 5y ago
    I mean, you also need an engineering degree and a license to practice engineering there. Where does one draw the line? There are barriers to entry and requirements in most fields.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      I'd draw the line at not spreading/hiding the costs. Have the payment for the law be part of the degree (for example), instead of creating a surprise payment only after somebody already invested some time into the path.
bell-cot 5y ago
How would you feel if: (1) The law books were pretty expensive...but some minimum number of public libraries had copies of the books in their Reference (may not be checked out) sections? (2) The expensive law books were pretty much all in subjects that didn't concern you - building code for steel mills, regulations for operating an ocean freighter, depreciation rules for oil refineries? (3) "The letter of the law" was freely available - but it's a muddled mess of vagueness, insider jargon, "gotta be a lawyer to understand the mental framework here", and just so hellishly long that you would have to devote your life to some sub-sub-sub-section of the law (plus the administrative regulations based on it, rulings in related court cases, etc.) to have any chance of knowing and understanding it?
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  (1) See my other comment, this is pretty similar to having to pay for them, except now you pay with your time, and proportional to your... geographical placement? That doesn't make a lot of sense. (2) See my other comment. (3) That's bad. You seem to present this as a trilemma, when it's not. (4) Pay for the creation in some more sensible way, e.g. the same way more pedestrian laws are created. The law that says you aren't allowed to shoot people at will was also made by someone, and that work was not free.
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    My point (poorly made, perhaps) was more that lots of kinda-reasonable-sounding stuff like (1), (2), and (4) doesn't much matter if the final reality of the law is often more like (3). At least in the U.S., my impression is that (3) is rather often the case.

WaitWaitWha 5y ago

No "[i]t's not the end of the world." But, it limits who can and cannot use those standards. ISO standards are often mandated and required to do business. The documentation can be large portion of the certification.