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

[exdeath]

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.

Majority rule does not excuse trampling minority rights. If 51% of the people say slavery is ok, does that make it right?

Nowhere did I say my subjectivity was an absolute either. Why must politics be about siding with one subjectivity over another and using force to coerce others? How about we don't side with either side and simply let each side live in peace? I don't like smoking, you don't see me crusading to ban it.

The concept live and let live is lost on you control freaks.

 

[exdeath]

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 ?



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



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.

Put down the weed. Everything I said applies to me as well. You leave me alone, I leave you alone, see how that works? Never did I say that my values should take precedence over your s, only acknowledged that we differ and are best left alone to pursue our own happiness without interference from others.

Healthy distrust of authority is part of American culture and history, where have you lived?

Did someone abuse you as a child? Why are you so hung up having power over people and requiring special permission to live their lives in peace?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Majority rule does not excuse trampling minority rights.

Who is there to hold them to account? God?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Minority rights exist because the majority cedes them to them out of the recognition that anybody can find himself on the low end of the power differential at any time.
The majority hedges its bets against the majority, thereby undermining it and creating a system of the individual's rights balanced against the group's.

Nowhere did I say my subjectivity was an absolute either. Why must politics be about siding with one subjectivity over another and using force to coerce others? How about we don't side with either side and simply let each side live in peace?

Ooh... systems magically poofing into existence!
If you're wishing into existence a mental state across the population, why don't you just wish for Socialism? It would be far more productive than just "Peace."

Humanity falls apart without some method of binding. Even at a hunter-gatherer level you cannot leave the individual working against the group unhindered.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

So as long as the feds take 5% for five different types of taxation, then it's not 25% to you? The lengths you lefties will go to legitimize your brand of crazy is very teabaggish.

 

[exdeath]

Who is there to hold them to account? God?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Going to pull your right wing "god" bullshit on me? I'm an atheist tyvm.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I'm an atheist tyvm.

I don't care.

Your statement was indicative of a belief in absolute morality, so answer the question. If the majority is comfortable with binding a minority, and they can do so with great stability, who is there to hold them to account?

 

[exdeath]

I don't care.

Your statement was indicative of a belief in absolute morality, so answer the question.

What question, who is accountable when the majority tramples on the minority and a group tries to stop an individual? Ask King George, I heard he has some experience with that Or ask any of the 72 representatives that lost their jobs in the last month. Or any of them who have been shot at or had their offices vandalized lately.

Everybody is accountable, how else do you explain the anger and violence that's been brewing in this country lately? Right or wrong, it's simply what's going on. These aren't isolated events, this is nation wide in all states.

The absolute morality you speak of is the principle this nation was founded on, that everyone has certain inalienable natural rights that are neither granted nor revoked by "god", government, or the Constitution itself. Not democracy, not you, not "god" can take those rights away from anybody.

As for your group vs individual speak, have you forgotten that the United States was founded on the revolutionary idea even back then that the rights of an individual are more important than the group? That's why we have states, where we can still live together as a group, but amongst people who share our views.

You sure do buck to peer pressure don't you: "everybody else in the world is doing it, the US should do it too!" (re socialism, gun bans, etc). "Oh our way is too hard and has too high a price, and requires too much responsibility and risk, lets cave in and be like the rest of the world and just be puppets".

We ARE different, always have been. We favor individual liberty above collectivism and life itself, get that through your thick heads.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The absolute morality you speak of is based on the principle this nation was founded on, that everyone has certain inalienable natural rights that are neither granted nor revoked by "god", government, or the Constitution itself.

Ah, but that principle is complete shit. They CAN be revoked.
The most complete example is in that anyone can be killed and the dead have no rights.

You need to step your atheism up a notch if you are placing anything over Man but the Universe, and the universe's laws are rather mundane. (I am having difficulty coming up with a good set, though. I mean, what are the fundamental rights of a body that has fallen into a black hole? You have the right to mass, charge, and angular momentum. But black holes evaporate, so... the right to escape a singularity by being converted into energy over time? :\)

Anyway, philosophical niceties != hard fact. These inalienable natural rights of the Founding Fathers are a philosophical nicety, they have no basis in fact. Their subjective cuteness places no obligation on the universe to grant them objective power.

Meta-ethics has come a long way since the Founding Fathers. They certainly did not achieve a self-sufficient atheistic worldview.

As for your group vs individual speak, have you forgotten that the United States was founded on the revolutionary idea even back then that the rights of an individual are more important than the group?

Write in a book, "The individual has rights." Shoot it into space. Then nuke the Earth.
What has what now?

You are a brain in a vat being fed a simulation. You have no inputs from actual reality.
What are your rights to what, where?
If someone on the outside doesn't share your idea as to your right to life and is about to unplug you from your life support system, what is going to stop them? Your idea that they don't have the right?? Is the idea going to magically float from your brain to theirs and thus prevent their action?

Thoughts have no power beyond what the thinkers can actualize.

You sure do buck to peer pressure don't you:

Don't get ahead of yourself. You are not even close to the point where you can model where I have trodden.

 

[Siddhartha]

What is "personal freedom"? Is it the ability to do what you want when and where you want to do it?

 

[Exterous]

I think a lot of you are missing the point of the codes. They are meant for more than just the homeowner. First - they set a code of uniformity so you know the minimum you need to design/build for. You can also expect two houses that are built the same to have the same inspection results.

Second - they remove/reduce liability for the builders/designers. It passed code so if accidents/damages happen years down the road the builder has something to fall back on showing they correctly conformed to the code at that time (IIRC you are liable for your construction/design for at least 10 years. It might be longer though)

Third - it provides some manner of protection for home owners. If the work passes inspection you know that it is safe. There is only so much you can reasonably educate yourself about construction to know that the work being done is being done correctly.

It also is about the only way you can know if the previous home owner did that new rennovation correctly unless you want to start tearing down walls before you buy the house

It also allows the homeowner to defend the work done if there is a fire/accident and the insurance company tries to say the work wasn't done correctly and they won't cover the damanges

That said, some codes are becoming more and more bloated

Looks like we have a bunch of nanny state fascists on this forum. How dare you tell me how to build MY house on MY property? The only person at risk if my house falls down is me and my family. Nobody else is harmed if I drop a toaster in my own private bathtub without a GFCI outlet. So now it's OK to regulate how a man dies in his own home? Figures the DEMONcrats would find a way to regulate death.

Eh? Maybe if you live out in the middle of nowhere with no neighbors and never sell your house. If you live near people, have people over or sell your house, how it is constructed DOES affect other people.

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.

:thumbsup: