Building codes saved lives in Chile earthquake. Are building codes anti-freedom?

[MN Patriot]

People are attributing the low number of casualties in Chile to a wealthier society and strict building codes. Haiti's earthquake wasn't as severe, but hundreds of thousands died because structures that weren't built as well collapsed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_tale_of_two_quakes

The libertarian position of building codes is that they are an intrusion into the private matters of citizens. But in this case, it seems that the requirement to build robust structures is an overall positive benefit to society.

If we are to have a liberty revolution, should building codes, and other similar regulations like car safety mandates, be eliminated? The libertarian in me says, yes, get rid of the bureaucrats and all the added expense to the economy. But after events like these two earthquakes, it compels me to question whether or not ending government regulation in certain areas is a good thing.

Ending regulations would force people to be more careful, to always analyze things. ("I am entering a large building that is privately owned in an earthquake zone. Has it been properly constructed so if there is a quake the building won't collapse?") But that can become burdensome, if we can't be certain that anything we do will be reasonably safe.

So if we can elect enough liberty candidates to federal and state office, how to we proceed to reducing the size of government regulations without allowing hazards to be introduced to our lives? I anticipate the standard libertarian answer is the free market will take care of that. But can it?

 

[Epic]

It's not the building codes - it's the wealthier society.

Strong builidings is something that people naturally want, and private certification will emerge if the government doesn't take on the activity.

http://cafehayek.com/2010/01/a-tale-of-two-quakes.html

 

[brandon]

Yea because if there weren't building codes everyone would live in mud huts and straw houses.

 

[silverhandorder]

Private citizens in large part are more strict on them selves then government.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Why does this have to be a function of gunvernment? Underwriter Laboratories is private, yet few people get electrocuted by small appliances these days. Manufacturers build to UL specs because insurers demand it, retailers won't stock non-UL stuff, and even some consumers are savvy enough to watch for that label.

If I'm renting office space in a libertarian society, I'm going to look for the equivalent of a UL sticker on the building. If I'm building a house, my builder will be certified by some organization that I know has a good reputation of certification. It ain't rocket science.

ETA: And even if I'm not smart enough to figure that out, you can bet that the banker that loans the building funds and the insurer I select are both going to demand it, or the rates will be astronomical.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

this is the same argument as seat belt laws.

 

[teamrican1]

Building Codes are utterly redundant from a safety perspective and evil from a moral perspective. Structures are insured. Chile suffered the worst earthquake in modern history in 1960, so the entire nation (including the insurance industry) was on notice to the threat. If building codes didn't exist, Insurance companies would demand similar requirements as conditions of issuing policies. The private market is more than capable of dealing with this problem in a way that is consistent with freedom. Haiti's problem was a population so pathetically poor that they couldn't afford to build structures that comply with modern safety standards. Government decreeing a "building code" wouldn't change that. It would just prevent buildings from being built at all and force the people to live outdoors.

 

[MN Patriot]

Wow, 3 answers within 3 minutes of posting this. Thanks for the fast response.

But how do we convince the general public that reducing the size of government and ending regulations will ensure our buildings, cars, airplanes, etc are safe?

The rapid leftist Democrat/progressive/liberal/commie will never accept the idea that private citizens and free markets will provide safe goods. Government is God and all that Government regulates is good. Not regulated = evil.

But more reasonable people who haven't completely accepted our liberty agenda need to be assured that buildings won't collapse in a free market environment.

 

[brandon]

this is the same argument as seat belt laws.

Similar, but this is much more dangerous.

Strict building codes makes it harder to build buildings. Prices of structures will skyrocket. If their were stricter building codes in Haiti,the country would have been much much poorer. Nearly everyone would be homeless, because the places they live now would not be up to code.

 

[silverhandorder]

Wow, 3 answers within 3 minutes of posting this. Thanks for the fast response.

But how do we convince the general public that reducing the size of government and ending regulations will ensure our buildings, cars, airplanes, etc are safe?

The rapid leftist Democrat/progressive/liberal/commie will never accept the idea that private citizens and free markets will provide safe goods. Government is God and all that Government regulates is good. Not regulated = evil.

But more reasonable people who haven't completely accepted our liberty agenda need to be assured that buildings won't collapse in a free market environment.

By becoming students of history and bringing up all the instances where idnustry evolved despite or before regulations were put in place. People like Thomas Woods are invaluable.

 

[fj45lvr]

Good construction protects people NOT CODES....get that through your head.

 

[mczerone]

I had to shut off MSNBC during their coverage, because they specifically said, "Thanks to more strict building codes and regulations, there's less structural damage than Haiti."


BS. There were better built buildings because the people in Chile expect regular violent earthquakes, and build their buildings to reflect that. The "codes" and "regulations" are just a restatement of the local tendency, and probably do more to inhibit growth and capital investment than to promote structural integrity. Haiti couldv'e had all the codes in the world: there just would have been more mudhuts and scrap-metal lean-tos because the people couldn't afford, nor would have seen the purpose of more strict regulations.

This is mostly a case of well-intentioned short-sightedness, but it pisses me off to no end to think that there are a few key-holders that know that this "codes and regulations" crap is just "rich get richer, and poor get f***ked", and so use their talking heads to subtly reinforce the interventionist mindset.

 

[tmosley]

Building codes restrict innovation. If we didn't force everyone to comply with old technological standards in construction, we would likely have developed a system that is both cheaper than current systems and more resistant against natural disasters.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Buildling codes and permits make it harder to innovate or use cutting edge designs.

When I do work on my house, I do it ABOVE code, without a permit. Why? Because I want the best in my house. Not because someone told me to.

When I sell this house, I plan on going off grid. I will build a structure that will last generations, and will be entirely self sufficient. Codes hinder that by forcing the use of A/C rather than an all DC operation. Not to mention the silly use of septic instead of composting energy reclamation.

 

[Bruehound]

In a Free Society building codes and standards would be insisted on by those who insure the buildings or the mortgage holders and it would be independent of government. Building science trade associations would promulgate best practice standards..

If the insurance markets were allowed to function as they should it is an industry whose specialty is managing risk. We should let them do it and that way all transactions and "code" compliance would be voluntary.

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

If they had strict building codes in Haiti, many of the people who had lost homes probably never would have had them to begin with.

 

[John Taylor]

People are attributing the low number of casualties in Chile to a wealthier society and strict building codes. Haiti's earthquake wasn't as severe, but hundreds of thousands died because structures that weren't built as well collapsed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_tale_of_two_quakes

The libertarian position of building codes is that they are an intrusion into the private matters of citizens. But in this case, it seems that the requirement to build robust structures is an overall positive benefit to society.

If we are to have a liberty revolution, should building codes, and other similar regulations like car safety mandates, be eliminated? The libertarian in me says, yes, get rid of the bureaucrats and all the added expense to the economy. But after events like these two earthquakes, it compels me to question whether or not ending government regulation in certain areas is a good thing.

Ending regulations would force people to be more careful, to always analyze things. ("I am entering a large building that is privately owned in an earthquake zone. Has it been properly constructed so if there is a quake the building won't collapse?") But that can become burdensome, if we can't be certain that anything we do will be reasonably safe.

So if we can elect enough liberty candidates to federal and state office, how to we proceed to reducing the size of government regulations without allowing hazards to be introduced to our lives? I anticipate the standard libertarian answer is the free market will take care of that. But can it?

In a free society, people are left free to decide how to live, and in what kind of house they would like, even if those decisions lead to negative results.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Building Codes and Regulations Required... Yes.... A function of Government? No way.

 

[PBrady]

Why does this have to be a function of gunvernment? Underwriter Laboratories is private, yet few people get electrocuted by small appliances these days. Manufacturers build to UL specs because insurers demand it, retailers won't stock non-UL stuff, and even some consumers are savvy enough to watch for that label.

While UL seems to be a pretty good example, while researching a bit further, I came across this:

http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html

I'm not sure if this means that OSHA oversees their work or not. In other words, must UL standards be at least the same as OSHA standards?

I'm just a little confused on gov't involvement (if any) in to companies like UL.

 

[MN Patriot]

Why does this have to be a function of gunvernment? Underwriter Laboratories is private, yet few people get electrocuted by small appliances these days. Manufacturers build to UL specs because insurers demand it, retailers won't stock non-UL stuff, and even some consumers are savvy enough to watch for that label.

If I'm renting office space in a libertarian society, I'm going to look for the equivalent of a UL sticker on the building. If I'm building a house, my builder will be certified by some organization that I know has a good reputation of certification. It ain't rocket science.

ETA: And even if I'm not smart enough to figure that out, you can bet that the banker that loans the building funds and the insurer I select are both going to demand it, or the rates will be astronomical.

I agree, the libertarian arguments aren't hard to understand, but trying to convince the public is difficult when most people have been brainwashed to think government must regulate everything.

Regulation works in the favor of banks and insurers. If the insurance company uses the government as an insurer of last resort ("We insured houses in flood plains and earthquake zones that conformed to regulations, but they were destroyed and we are now bankrupt. We are too big to fail, so bail me out").

The point of this thread was to come up with good arguments to convince the public about ending regulations. We can convince each other in these forums, but battling it out with statists is something else.