Are building codes a form of nanny statism and an encroachment on personal freedom?

[BoberFett]

Are building codes a form of nanny statism and an encroachment on personal freedom?

Yes, but I have less problem with them because they're local. If one wanted to avoid zoning and building laws, one could simply move out to the boonies.

 

[Zebo]

Yes they are but some forms of Nannieism is not a bad thing that's why Z always preaches balance. Individualism is important but so is not treading on property values, health and safety of others. Finding the right balance is why we have city/county commissions and UBC among other things.

 

[Zebo]

Yes, but I have less problem with them because they're local. If one wanted to avoid zoning and building laws, one could simply move out to the boonies.

Not really. While you can draw up plans on a napkin in some counties there are still basics and some inspections everywhere which must be adhered to. Pluming, electrical and HVAC rough in and top out are always going to be inspected. I have built a house before in BFE where they didn't even do a framing inspection though.

 

[LegendKiller]

The codes can be a bit onerous at times but most are logical and do help out significantly. Consider the person who buys the house 2nd or 3rd in a row. They have to be able to trust the construction without being able to see it constructed or renovated. This benefits everybody and enables better construction.

Also consider more stringent hurricane or earthquake construction standards. That helps everybody that use insurance.

 

[William Gaatjes]

IMHO, these kinds of regulations at the local and state levels are more beneficial than harmful. Is there some loss of freedom? Sure. But the benefits FAR outweigh this. It benefits and eases trade, thus it streamlines economic growth. This is a good example of where local and state governments can regulate their local economies.

I will just stop responding to people who do not get it and quote you instead when i need to reply. :thumbsup:

 

[HeXen]

I'm going to get some more details from my dad on the exact situation, but I was pretty sure it had to do with them trying to appraise the house at a higher value (Really not a good thing as it is almost impossible to sell homes were my parents live. It basically translates straight into higher taxes.)

but more equity to the home buyer if you sell it lower, low enough and it could be quite attractive to them.

 

[piasabird]

I think if a person with a swimming pool wants to drain it, they should have to hire some tanker company to pump it out. All kinds of chemicals and algea may be in that water, so they should not be able to pump it in a ditch or dump it into the sewage lines. Until you have your neighbors waste water onto your property causing flooding you cant understand this problem.

I live in an area that is humid at times and prone to misquito infestations and standing water is not a good thing.

Overall some building codes are needed to keep people from building shacks that are little more than unhealthy filthy ratholes and fire hazards.

However, I see no reason why some light in a basement cannot be controlled by a string. This is usually because the basement is unfinished and not roomed off, and is not considered living space. If you convert it to a living space then I guess you might have to make some improvements to bring it to code.

 

[Zebo]

I think if a person with a swimming pool wants to drain it, they should have to hire some tanker company to pump it out. All kinds of chemicals and algea may be in that water, so they should not be able to pump it in a ditch or dump it into the sewage lines. Until you have your neighbors waste water onto your property causing flooding you cant understand this problem.

I live in an area that is humid at times and prone to misquito infestations and standing water is not a good thing.

Overall some building codes are needed to keep people from building shacks that are little more than unhealthy filthy ratholes and fire hazards.

However, I see no reason why some light in a basement cannot be controlled by a string. This is usually because the basement is unfinished and not roomed off, and is not considered living space. If you convert it to a living space then I guess you might have to make some improvements to bring it to code.

You don't think the VOCs, rubber, etc running off from asphalt roads and into drains when it rains are a million times worse than any pool water? They are. Pool water is essentially drinking water. Clean water act makes govt put same chemicals in water as people treat pools with.

 

[hal2kilo]

I really have no problems with the concept of building codes and zoning at all. What I don't like is in these days of local governments going broke, they are charging ridiculous amounts for building permits. Your hot water heater goes bad, $180 smakers please.

I think that's what really gets peoples ire.

 

[exdeath]

No. Like everything, the regulations are excessive, nit picking, and probably need to be revised and simplified to the bare minimum necessary. But they are in line with the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property amongst society of freely interacting bodies.

Without any government or regulation at all, you could rip people off or even harm them against their will by building and selling crappy and dangerous buildings and there would be no recourse.

That said, a person willing to assume the risks of his house falling on his own head should be free to do so, however he wouldn't be able to sell that house to another, unless at the very minimum the non code compliance was fully disclosed to the buyer and the buyer agreed to accept it in that condition and waive any responsibility of the previous home owner.

Regulations on these sorts of things need to be there by default, but we can't lose sight of why they are there: to protect a person's rights. When code is forced down someone's throat, who might be willing to accept some non code compliant problems that only affect himself, the regulation becomes counterproductive to the ends of protecting rights and instead becomes tyrannical.

eg: requiring certain door widths and counter heights for handicap access when the owner isn't handicap is ridiculous. However having gas lines inspected by a trained inspector to make sure you don't blow up your neighbors house against his will is acceptable. And so on.

While regulations need to be there for the convenience of 99% of the public that are clueless to them, they should never be forced upon the 1% that are aware of the codes, voluntarily reject them, and assume the consequences unto themselves. It's my right to buy a home that won't kill me, it's also the right of someone else to voluntarily accept a 1% greater risk to their own safety to save $10,000 on their own home.

 

[exdeath]

IMHO, these kinds of regulations at the local and state levels are more beneficial than harmful. Is there some loss of freedom? Sure. But the benefits FAR outweigh this. It benefits and eases trade, thus it streamlines economic growth. This is a good example of where local and state governments can regulate their local economies.

I will just stop responding to people who do not get it and quote you instead when i need to reply. :thumbsup:

Except you do not apply it in the appropriate context, you just keep regurgitating that principle where it is irrelevant.

Your stands on guns for example. (and I've seen your posts to know that when you mean "give up something for the good of society" you are predominantly referring to guns and "gas guzzlers" and possibly personal income/wealth).

Regulations on buildings are proven to increase building safety and natural disaster survivability. And I can still build my house any size shape or way or location I want, I just need to have someone double check my work and sign off on it.

Regulations on guns, however, are proven to achieve nothing at all (see Mexico where there are no guns) because the problem is crime, not guns. If a type of gun is banned, I can't buy one, period, there is no having someone sign off on my machine gun so that I may still have one (not to mention being armed is an explicitly enumerated and protected right).

If you applied your logic of building codes to guns, I should be allowed to buy a nuclear bomb, as long as someone came over and certified that I'm keeping it secure and I'm not a threat to anyone. After all building codes just tell me the quality of my house, not what kind of house or how much house. That means, following building code standards to giving up other freedoms like guns, you're perfectly fine with civilians owning nuclear weapons in their back yard, as long as inspectors come out and make sure the silo is built to code, isn't leaking into the ground, etc.

Same goes with gas guzzlers and anything else you seek to restrict. Regulation is not the same thing as banning or restricting or continually regulating with the goal of eventually making prohibitive to acquire all together to fit your selfish desire.

Where your mental illness comes in, is that you feel it's ok to abuse government's regulation role as a means of complete restriction of things you and your kind don't like. You can say it's not banned and deny you've broken any promises, only regulated, but in fact you know that it's intentionally regulated so severely that you have a pseudo ban (see NFA 1934).

 

[BoberFett]

I really have no problems with the concept of building codes and zoning at all. What I don't like is in these days of local governments going broke, they are charging ridiculous amounts for building permits. Your hot water heater goes bad, $180 smakers please.

I think that's what really gets peoples ire.

$180 is onerous, but 25% of your income being sucked into the black hole of federal spending is A-OK? Lefties sure are a strange bunch. Almost like reverse teabaggers.

 

[hal2kilo]

$180 is onerous, but 25% of your income being sucked into the black hole of federal spending is A-OK? Lefties sure are a strange bunch. Almost like reverse teabaggers.

You either don't itemize or you make a good chunk of money. Hell, I'm almost a 6 figures and I don't pay nearly 25%. We are talking income tax. FICA on the otherhand is one of the most regressive taxes going.

 

[CycloWizard]

Engineering societies produce design codes for everything under the sun without government intervention (ASME, IEEE, ASCE, AIChE). Somehow, my house hasn't burned down due to a poorly-designed IEEE-compliant device. I don't see lots of ASME-compliant propane tanks exploding and taking out the neighborhood. These standards are developed by independent boards of experts based on actual knowledge. If a city wants to adopt these standards as law, that might be ok. Additional requirements above and beyond these standards are probably

 

[William Gaatjes]

Except you do not apply it in the appropriate context, you just keep regurgitating that principle where it is irrelevant.

Your stands on guns for example. (and I've seen your posts to know that when you mean "give up something for the good of society" you are predominantly referring to guns and "gas guzzlers" and possibly personal income/wealth).

Regulations on buildings are proven to increase building safety and natural disaster survivability. And I can still build my house any size shape or way or location I want, I just need to have someone double check my work and sign off on it.

Regulations on guns, however, are proven to achieve nothing at all (see Mexico where there are no guns) because the problem is crime, not guns. If a type of gun is banned, I can't buy one, period, there is no having someone sign off on my machine gun so that I may still have one (not to mention being armed is an explicitly enumerated and protected right).

If you applied your logic of building codes to guns, I should be allowed to buy a nuclear bomb, as long as someone came over and certified that I'm keeping it secure and I'm not a threat to anyone. After all building codes just tell me the quality of my house, not what kind of house or how much house. That means, following building code standards to giving up other freedoms like guns, you're perfectly fine with civilians owning nuclear weapons in their back yard, as long as inspectors come out and make sure the silo is built to code, isn't leaking into the ground, etc.

Same goes with gas guzzlers and anything else you seek to restrict. Regulation is not the same thing as banning or restricting or continually regulating with the goal of eventually making prohibitive to acquire all together to fit your selfish desire.

Where your mental illness comes in, is that you feel it's ok to abuse government's regulation role as a means of complete restriction of things you and your kind don't like. You can say it's not banned and deny you've broken any promises, only regulated, but in fact you know that it's intentionally regulated so severely that you have a pseudo ban (see NFA 1934).

The only person here that has a mental illness is you.
You can rant all you like.
First of all you cannot read. Second of all, if you want so badly to respond, then read all my posts first. You would see that i only prefer the necessary laws, legislations and advisories. I do not want a bolted down government and society. I do think that it is good that the government which is a representation of the people can stimulate in a positive way progress. It has been done for years and a lot technological advantage has come from it. Not from the free market alone. I do not expect that you understand this. I gave you yesterday enough examples and all you come up with is that you want to take away with force my paycheck without a reason. If you are not able to look at a situation from different perspectives, then do not bother to reply. Because everything you are afraid of, i find a healthy compromise that supports technological advancement as well. Yet you only see your own fundamental way and come with your jihad that everything must be exactly to letter as it was in the old days. You are in 2011 now.

 

[exdeath]

The only person here that has a mental illness is you.
You can rant all you like.
First of all you cannot read. Second of all, if you want so badly to respond, then read all my posts first. You would see that i only prefer the necessary laws, legislations and advisories. I do not want a bolted down government and society. I do think that it is good that the government which is a representation of the people can stimulate in a positive way progress. It has been done for years and a lot technological advantage has come from it. Not from the free market alone. I do not expect that you understand this. I gave you yesterday enough examples and all you come up with is that you want to take away with force my paycheck without a reason. If you are not able to look at a situation from different perspectives, then do not bother to reply. Because everything you are afraid of, i find a healthy compromise that supports technological advancement as well. Yet you only see your own fundamental way and come with your jihad that everything must be exactly to letter as it was in the old days. You are in 2011 now.

Say what? I gave you an example of something that cannot be compromised, and you've been ignoring it and spitting out personal rants where you skip over all my points.

For the 100th time, your biggest fallacy is that the "necessary laws, legislations and advisories." are only the ones that you feel should be and damn everyone else who are affected by them or want different. You say "I do think that it is good that the government which is a representation of the people can stimulate in a positive way progress." but only if that "positive progress" is what YOU want it to be. What if that positive progress was making vehicles more powerful, then what? You'd be bitching about how there need to be laws to encourage hybrids instead because that kind of progress is not the progress you want, is it? If I'm in the market for a car, I do not want a hybrid or electric car. Technological progress to you is saving a few gallons of gas at the expense of performance. Technological progress to me is having 800 HP on pump gas, and minimum MPGs mandated by government HINDER that progress, they do not advance it. But you're ok with that, because it supports what YOU want and believe is right, all other wants, needs, and desires be damned and anyone who wants different is brainwashed and wants the old days back.

When I proposed that you should give me your pay check because I said so, I presented a scenario that you did not want. Then I attempted to compromise by agreeing to only take half your pay check. You still would not accept compromise, because you believed that no matter how much I compromised with you, what I was trying to do was wrong, period. And that lesson was completely lost on you. Because here you are still suggesting that everything in politics can be compromises. Hint: they can't because too many people have differing opinions and people just want to be left alone to pursue what works best for them, not what 51% tell the other 49% they can or can't do.

You simply cannot fathom that just because you think something is positive or progress, somebody else won't share your opinion, but it's ok to use government to encourage and enforce your opinion over those others, because you know for fact yours is "positive" and what everyone wants or should want, they just don't know any better.

Again your failure is in assuming your desires and definition of "positive progress" are absolute and there are no alternatives. Everybody is right in their own mind, and there is no absolute judge or scale to determine that one is absolutely correct and the other is wrong. They are simply two differing wants, needs, and desires, and people should be left alone to pursue those differences so long as they do not prevent others from doing the same.

In closing, I'll address the final bold part of your quote: I can look at other perspectives all I want, that doesn't mean I have to change my needs and wants nor does it give you the right to force me to change them with any amount of taxes, regulation, or legislation.

 

[bamacre]

A few minutes ago I would have agreed, but now I'm suspicious.

Of me or your agreeing with me?

 

[mizzou]

sure, lets remove building codes, wait for some horrible disaster, then re-legislate them

 

[Capt Caveman]

I'm sure all of those that have died in building fires prior to fire codes/regulations wish they had them then.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I wouldn't call it nanny state; it's more promoting an economic system and sense of community.
The real estate market has turnover. To allow problem properties is to stick a wrench in that market. And problem properties signify an anarchist system.
Building codes codify community standards. The main beneficiary of an enforcement bureau is the community -- they no longer have to police through methods ramping up to a good ole' burning out of 'dem un-dee-sirables; but the property owner also gains a benefit in that he has something that has been granted authority to use as his backing instead of being held to unfettered emotional processing.

And yes, he does need backing. Rights are not objective and absolute -- the universe doesn't give a damn and makes no objections. Rights are in the distribution of power, and the majority has the potential for a serious amount of power.
The majority has ceded some power to the individual, but that does not cause the universe to hard-code that arrangement. So the individual's footing is always unstable.

 

[hal2kilo]

Of me or your agreeing with me?

I'm won't speak for Moonbeam, but in my case, agreeing with you, lol.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Say what? I gave you an example of something that cannot be compromised, and you've been ignoring it and spitting out personal rants where you skip over all my points.

For the 100th time, your biggest fallacy is that the "necessary laws, legislations and advisories." are only the ones that you feel should be and damn everyone else who are affected by them or want different. You say "I do think that it is good that the government which is a representation of the people can stimulate in a positive way progress." but only if that "positive progress" is what YOU want it to be. What if that positive progress was making vehicles more powerful, then what?
You'd be bitching about how there need to be laws to encourage hybrids instead because that kind of progress is not the progress you want, is it? If I'm in the market for a car, I do not want a hybrid or electric car. Technological progress to you is saving a few gallons of gas at the expense of performance. Technological progress to me is having 800 HP on pump gas, and minimum MPGs mandated by government HINDER that progress, they do not advance it. But you're ok with that, because it supports what YOU want and believe is right, all other wants, needs, and desires be damned and anyone who wants different is brainwashed and wants the old days back.

First of all, there has to be a reason first to make cars more powerful.
But if engines can become more powerful for the same amount of gasoline, i am happy too, Because it means that a lot of cars have engines that will be downscaled and use as such less fuel. And if that is not the case, i am happy too as long as it does not mean increased pollution. I do not understand your problem. You seek problems. You are as most people who think that the government is evil, paranoid. You think everyone wants to attack you and rob you. And that is what i mentioned before. Your car does not have to be confiscated. There can also be a phase out time where people are given the chance to when they feel like it buy a new car. I do not want your possessions. I just come up with idea's. I will not be your next president or your governor.

An example :
The whole point is that if 70 % of the people in the US say we want the government to stimulate cleaner cars but not negatively task current cars, then that is a democratic decision. And you have no right to force another person to decide different. And if 70% of the US says they want to drive in a cleaner car, you have to expect you will be the minority and that the car you drive will be phased out one day. And that is what i mentioned before. You may find a car that you like, but you will pay more gas and you will pay more for the car since it is a rare item.

Another example :
You want horsepower. Let's say that technologies advances faster then expected. a 1500 hP electric car can be build with a similar mileage.
Then you are still going to complain you want the 800 hp ICB. Because then it is not about the horsepowers, but it is about the the engine. You can expect that when 95 % of the US citizens drive an electric car, that those 95% are going to vote for removal if ICB cars on the road. With exception for the collectors model which must have a special permission to have but cannot be driven around. What are you going to then ? Shoot your guns at people ?

When I proposed that you should give me your pay check because I said so, I presented a scenario that you did not want. Then I attempted to compromise by agreeing to only take half your pay check. You still would not accept compromise, because you believed that no matter how much I compromised with you, what I was trying to do was wrong, period. And that lesson was completely lost on you. Because here you are still suggesting that everything in politics can be compromises. Hint: they can't because too many people have differing opinions and people just want to be left alone to pursue what works best for them, not what 51% tell the other 49% they can or can't do.

You did not present a scenario. You wanted my paycheck. And when i sad no you would take half and if i still say no you take it by force. That to me is an example of you behaving like a robber. And in a democracy you compromise.
Because if you say that the US is not a democracy or that you do not want ithe US to be a democracy, then i would like you to type that down

You simply cannot fathom that just because you think something is positive or progress, somebody else won't share your opinion, but it's ok to use government to encourage and enforce your opinion over those others, because you know for fact yours is "positive" and what everyone wants or should want, they just don't know any better.

Again your failure is in assuming your desires and definition of "positive progress" are absolute and there are no alternatives. Everybody is right in their own mind, and there is no absolute judge or scale to determine that one is absolutely correct and the other is wrong. They are simply two differing wants, needs, and desires, and people should be left alone to pursue those differences so long as they do not prevent others from doing the same.

In closing, I'll address the final bold part of your quote: I can look at other perspectives all I want, that doesn't mean I have to change my needs and wants nor does it give you the right to force me to change them with any amount of taxes, regulation, or legislation.

Your whole rant is just about that you want others to do what you want. But others cannot say let's make a deal. I understand very well what you are saying. No democracy, live by the gun.

 

[DominionSeraph]

(to William)
For the 100th time, your biggest fallacy is that the "necessary laws, legislations and advisories." are only the ones that you feel should be and damn everyone else who are affected by them or want different. You say "I do think that it is good that the government which is a representation of the people can stimulate in a positive way progress." but only if that "positive progress" is what YOU want it to be.

You are taking offense at something that cannot be done in any other way.
Valuation is subjective; yet here you are screaming that the human system that aligns with his valuation is aligning to subjectivity.

Unless you can point to where his circle destabilizes you have no case, for your system is founded on the exact same subjectivity

And BTW, a system of rugged individualism trends towards the majority getting annoyed at the outliers. The individual cannot stop the group, but the group can stop the individual.

 

[DominionSeraph]

<--- mfw double post.

 

[sao123]

Building codes make sense. Not being able to build a shed on your land because it's not zoned for it ----> Fucking stupid.

Zoning laws exist for a reason...

you wouldnt want me to buy your neighbors house and put a industrial plant next door would you? Maybe your ok with me putting a strip club and casino next to your childs school?