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

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.

Yeah, it seems government is ultimately involved in everything. It seems that OSHA recognizes UL as a safety benchmark, but not clear if OSHA actually regulates how UL operates. UL has been around much longer than OSHA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories

UL is one of several companies approved for such testing by the U.S. federal agency OSHA. OSHA maintains a list of approved testing laboratories, known as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories.
 
I think there are two answers here. The first being that they are probably flawed and not indicitive of Libertarian ideas of Liberty in general.

The second answer is what to do about them. I say nothing, at least in any direct way. The argument will never gain any traction at the Federal level, although there is hope that should regulation such as this return to states, a movement for government deregulation could be successful.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee
 
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?


I just joined so forgive me for not observing the other responses so far.

I question this as you do and I believe in sort of a Rand.-Libertarian compromise that is minimal. I do not know what Rand's government would be but I imagine it would not aid nor hinder the free markets, but it would lean on a minimum of municipals.

Here are the areas where I think more objective research and not utopian anarchist predictions are needed:


1. Public safety codes, as you permitted. I oten think about asbestos and lead paint and lead in toys coming from China as simple safety examples as well..
Compromise? Have the basic government call out for competitive bids from private companies to perform testing.
That said, I believe that the government should not tell you how to pipe in water or restrict building energy innovations. I am a big supporter of off-the-grid liviing if I and others could do it one day.


2. FDA - I see no need for DOE or DOA, but I believe that we can't just advocate an immediate ending of the FDA. Instead consider a gradual reduction and maybe merge all "safety" departments into one Dept of Safety. They would be small and contract private groups to perform testing, each test round going to a different bid winner.


3. Safety also can be measured in the quality of air and water we consume. These ubiquitous resources are shared by everyone and no one can really claim ownership unless the resource is bounded by property lines and does not flow out into other properties (creeks, rivers, etc.)
Protection of these IS protecting the health rights of others and pollution of these resources IS an attack on another person's health liberty.
 
Contractors who want to be able to use as a selling point that they belong to their local (and state and national) home builders associations have to meet quality control guidelines, which is another word for building codes. This is true right now, and would still be true if every level of government got out of the business of mandating their own building codes through force of law.
 
I just joined so forgive me for not observing the other responses so far.

I question this as you do and I believe in sort of a Rand.-Libertarian compromise that is minimal. I do not know what Rand's government would be but I imagine it would not aid nor hinder the free markets [?], but it would lean on a minimum of municipals.

Here are the areas where I think more objective research and not utopian anarchist predictions are needed:


1. Public safety codes, as you permitted. I oten think about asbestos and lead paint and lead in toys coming from China as simple safety examples as well..
Compromise? Have the basic government call out for competitive bids from private companies to perform testing.
That said, I believe that the government should not tell you how to pipe in water or restrict building energy innovations. I am a big supporter of off-the-grid liviing if I and others could do it one day.


2. FDA - I see no need for DOE or DOA, but I believe that we can't just advocate an immediate ending of the FDA. Instead consider a gradual reduction and maybe merge all "safety" departments into one Dept of Safety. They would be small and contract private groups to perform testing, each test round going to a different bid winner.


3. Safety also can be measured in the quality of air and water we consume. These ubiquitous resources are shared by everyone and no one can really claim ownership unless the resource is bounded by property lines and does not flow out into other properties (creeks, rivers, etc.)
Protection of these IS protecting the health rights of others and pollution of these resources IS an attack on another person's health liberty.

Do you honestly believe that any of your 3 proposals don't hinder the free market? What in the world do you think a free market is if those things are compatible with it?
 
No Wiggle Room in a Window War; State's New Building Code Collides With Amish Tradition

In the unyielding world of the Old Order Amish, very little changes, not the horse and buggy they ride in, not the capes and bonnets they wear.

The Amish home, too, remains a bulwark of simplicity and modesty. Religious tradition in this community in western New York, conservative even by Amish standards, dictates everything from the plumbing (gravity fed, cold water only) to the oil lamps used in place of electricity (kerosene) to the size of window openings (five square feet).

It is those windows that have suddenly thrust the 50 Amish families here into an uncomfortable spotlight, placing them -- and town officials -- at loggerheads with the state. The problem is a new state code that requires a minimum opening for bedroom windows, meant to ease both the escape of residents during a fire and access by rescuers.

I've been in some Amish built barns that were probably 100 years old and the joinery was so tight you'd think it had been built only a couple of years ago. Can't imagine their home is any worse even if not "built to code."

XNN
 
Contractors who want to be able to use as a selling point that they belong to their local (and state and national) home builders associations have to meet quality control guidelines, which is another word for building codes.

The most important factor in quality is the builder/contractors. Coincidentally, there was just a show on (Holmes on Homes), where he had to completely redo a remodel because it was all screwed up. I guess the bottom line is that government regulations don't always prevent incompetent or lazy contractors from doing dangerous things.

I am thinking that the best solution is independent, private inspectors. Experts who can be hired to review plans and inspect the construction process. One step better than just having Building Association guidelines. It may cost a little extra, but at least it would be a competitive market instead of government inspectors.

Just trusting any random construction contractor is not a good idea.
 
No Wiggle Room in a Window War; State's New Building Code Collides With Amish Tradition

I've been in some Amish built barns that were probably 100 years old and the joinery was so tight you'd think it had been built only a couple of years ago. Can't imagine their home is any worse even if not "built to code."

XNN

From the above article:

''It gets to the point where sometimes you have to do what you think is morally right,'' Mr. Willcockson explained. ''We had a lot of support from people in the community. The Amish are a real benefit. They pay their taxes for everything although they don't use a lot of the services. They don't complain. They're just a great bunch of people to have around.''

:rolleyes:
 
Just ask anyone that has spent some time in the trades; once a minimum standard is in place, it becomes the highest anyone shoots for. Regulation is incompatible with free market, but when disasters result because of partial regulation, it is always the free market that gets the blame.:eek:
 
Regulations and codes tend to both monopolize standards (prohibiting choices in the market that are equally as good or better), and then take false credit for delivering value. How I rue how NASA sucked up all the praise for decades for the space program and for advancing scientific discovery, when in fact the government program probably inhibited progress since the regulations associated with it prohibited parties in the private sector from developing or deploying their own space craft. Building codes likewise deny us the ability to see how well the market would have solved the problem without government, as the codes prohibit exceptions to its 'standards.'
 
I am thinking that the best solution is independent, private inspectors. Experts who can be hired to review plans and inspect the construction process. One step better than just having Building Association guidelines. It may cost a little extra, but at least it would be a competitive market instead of government inspectors.

Those exist now too. I used to be one. Whether they are used on a given job or not depends on the contract. And of course, as it is in the status quo, the specifications that these inspectors are using are in part determined by relevant government-based codes. But in the absence of those laws, buyers would still demand quality control measures be written into their contracts, and these measures would still involve specifications and independent inspectors, and we wouldn't be any less safe with the government staying out of the whole process.

The free market is just as amenable to having powerful regulatory agencies apart from the government to ensure the safety of buildings and pharmaceuticals as it is to having regulative agencies to ensure for Jewish shoppers that a given product in the supermarket truly is kosher.
 
Haiti's earthquake was closer to the surface and closer to the population center.


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theh...hat-haiti-and-chile-don-t-have-in-common.aspx
More on What Haiti and Chile (Don't) Have In Common
Jeneen Interlandi
On Saturday I pointed out that the Chilean quake would likely claim far fewer lives than the one that struck Haiti in early January, and offered some of the reasons for that (better building codes, a more earthquake cognizant country, etc.). I want to add a few important technical points to that list.

First, although the Chilean quake was significantly stronger than the Haitian one, it also occurred 22 miles below the earth’s surface – twice as deep as the Haitian quake. That means there was twice as much earth to absorb the shock before it reached building foundations. It’s also worth pointing out that the epicenter of Saturday’s quake was about 70 miles from the nearest big city (Concepcion), compared with 10 miles between city and epicenter in the Haitian quake. On top of that, Concepcion has less than half the population of Port-Au-Prince (900,000 vs. 2 million).

Even so, the Chilean quake and its aftermath are proof positive that, as many experts have been saying since the 2004 quake in Banda Aceh, preparedness matters. A lot. So far Chilean officials – who are accustomed to dealing with big quakes - have declined offers of assistance and seem to be managing the crisis well enough on their own; in some affected regions, telephone service has already been restored.

Of course, as many will undoubtedly point out, Chile and Haiti are sort of apples and oranges. Yes, both countries sit atop active fault lines. But compared to Haiti, Chile is rich. Chile has the money to buy decent concrete, and the institutional power to enforce its use. Chile can purchase and store heavy equipment and other tools to respond quickly in the wake of a potentially city-leveling disaster. Haiti is too poor to do any of those things. So, even if the country had a better sense of its own geology before the quake, what could its citizens really have done with that information?

It’s a fair question, but I think it misses the point. The same things which enable a country to police its construction industry and implement basic disaster preparedness plans, can also lift that country out of poverty and help its people thrive – namely, law enforcement, education and some semblance of accountability. After the 1960 tremblor, Chile started getting serious about building codes and earthquake resistant engineering; The attention ultimately bolstered the construction industry, which now factor’s heavily in the country’s economic fortunes. (By 1970, construction was responsible for roughly 8 percent of Chile’s GDP, up from just a few percent in 1960). More economic development meant more money and further improvements. It may be a bit of a chicken-and-egg tangent, but I think it’s worth considering.

Incidentally, for a great piece on how some cities are heeding the lessons of Haiti and trying to get out in front of their earthquake susceptibility, check out Andrew Revkin’s article from early last week.
 
The unintended consequences of building codes are huge, too. Let me tell a little story.

Ten years ago, I decided to build a little cabin in the woods, all Thoreau like, right?

Except the county required at least 1200 sq ft in any dwelling. Since I had a small loft, that counted as a second floor, raising the requirement to 1600 sq ft.

Sure, I could put in a composting toilet, but I'd still have to put in a full septic system. I could drill my own well, but I had to pay for the water system hookup anyway. Solar power was groovy, but those lights have to be 110 volts, so you'll have to hook up to the power grid anyway. No 12-volt DC systems, they're not in the code for permanent structures.

Yeah, go ahead and put in that solar wall, the big wood stove, and the super insulation. You've still got to have central heat if you want an occupancy permit. And you don't have to have A/C by law, but that huge increase in size got me tangled with a bank, and they just insisted it have air.

Yeah, you can act as the contractor and hire your own subs, but you'll have to pay a licensed contractor to front for you on all the paperwork.

It went on like this for months. Caca after caca after caca. Never again. I sold it all and moved onto a sailboat. When I retired I bought a fifth-wheel. Screw them and their property taxes. :D
 
("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.

You have hit the nail on the head.

The question is not whether citizens are capable of taking care of themselves (though that's what the collective wants you to believe) but whether we want to do it ourselves.

You said it right there, it becomes "burdonsome" because it is a responsibility.

Do you give your responsibilities over to people you don't know? Is that responsible?

I personally find it hard to believe the people can be responsible on their own, without mama government looking out, but I am also aware that this is programming. This is a social phenomenon that's been shown on a large scale many times. It's been argued for thousands of years.

Examples:

Aristotle believed slavery was natural

"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." - Aristotle

People believed african slaves needed to be ruled as well, and when they were finally freed (in many nations) there was a belief they couldn't take care of themselves.

These ideas all stem from a psychological rationalization. People see others "accepting" of oppression, and then come to believe that is what they desire, or need. We now have it on a smaller scale in United States. An overall amnesia of the past, this belief that we need the government to protect us, control us, and regulate us.

I think a more rational method would be, every person needs to get assurance as to the safety and viability of what they pay for. If a person or company lies, or cuts corners to gain profit at the expense of safety, they have commited a crime.

Something socialists like Jon Stewart, or Olbermann, or Nancy Pelosi do not understand is that individual rights, and individual freedom does not mean anarchy. It does not mean that people have a right to harm others. Government exists for just that purpose, to be an objective third party that can maintain justice, without vigilantism.

The basic edict of individual rights, is that

You have no right to harm others. No one has a right to harm you. The government exists to preserve those two points.

We don't need government to preserve our rights. Rather government should be a more effective method when in a society.

Unfortunately this idea of the purpose of government as Locke said in the 1600s, and was lifted into the Constitution, "to protect life, liberty, and property" has been lost. Now it's become the progressive platform of Teddy Roosevelt,

"The supreme duty of the nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice." -Opening sentence of the official platform of the Progressive Party, 1912.

aka: make laws punishing businessmen and their businesses, to preserve the poor working man. That is America's main purpose now.

Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, Workers Compensation, Health Insurance, war against nations that aren't advancing our goals of helping the working class, bailouts to businesses to help employment, bigger government for better employment, more taxes and debt spending to give to the poor, and fund all peripheral efforts for the poor. What is called corporatism, is a deal between government and business leaders to make the businesses fall in line with the government, in their ever expanding authority, with the kickbacks to those businesses. It is a trick, that the government is now the unions and the Pinkertons. With fancy titles given to the two sides, warring for ultimate control of resources they have stolen.

That is all America is now.

The idea that even one measure of American government would get off the back of industry is laughable at this point. It is as Obama said, to make a point and prove America loves this system;

"We can set up a system where food was probably cheaper than it is right now, if we just eliminated meat inspectors. And we eliminated any regulations in terms of how food's distributed and how it's stored. I'll bet in terms of drug prices, we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn't have a drug administration that's make sure that we trust the drugs so that they don't kill us. But we don't do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives. And we have bipartisan support for doing it." -Obama during the health insurance summit 2/25/10

We don't do that. America is the nation of epic regulation, red tape, and bureaucracy. Obama is right. He can and will put forth more and more regulation against your liberty, because that is what we do.
 
Last edited:
This is why demonizing and restricting competition in insurance is bad.

Who has more of an incentive to minimize loss...government or insurance companies?

The worst moral hazard is backstopping insurance companies (AIG come to mind?)
 
Do you honestly believe that any of your 3 proposals don't hinder the free market? What in the world do you think a free market is if those things are compatible with it?



Okay. I can agree with items 2 and 3 if no transition was wanted.

I still stand by my argument for air and water standards. We may not need or want an EPA but we would need to allow for court awarded damages against those who pollute the air or water of another individual or group.
 
I will probably get some heat for this, but.....

I am a libertarian, but with a small "l", as you can see. While I think that war on drugs, war on terrorism and monopoly money we use to get things are bullshit, I think that, in some, very few instances, government interference improved the quality of life. Government interference is why, if you get sick at work, they won't just throw you out and replace you with a healthier specimen, why we have airbags in our cars, why our cars GENERALLY are better in just about all respects, why I know exactly what is in the can of food before I open it up and introduce the contents into my organism.

And yes, the codes that make buildings tougher and, therefore, save lives are due to government interference, so I welcome them, too.

And while may be it's not Washington's job to do these things, I do believe that at least a state governing body should exist to regulate these kinds of things.

Flamesuit on.
 
The reason there were less casualties could be attributed to the following:
1. Better Emergency Response
2. Better and available Emergency Equipment.
3. Quake was deeper than that in Haiti.
4. Quake epicenter was not in a densely populated area.
5. Subterranean structure was different than that of Haiti.
 
Last edited:
But what do I know. I'll just have the MSM tell me the truth.
 
The unintended consequences of building codes are huge, too. Let me tell a little story.

Ten years ago, I decided to build a little cabin in the woods, all Thoreau like, right?

Except the county required at least 1200 sq ft in any dwelling. Since I had a small loft, that counted as a second floor, raising the requirement to 1600 sq ft.

Sure, I could put in a composting toilet, but I'd still have to put in a full septic system. I could drill my own well, but I had to pay for the water system hookup anyway. Solar power was groovy, but those lights have to be 110 volts, so you'll have to hook up to the power grid anyway. No 12-volt DC systems, they're not in the code for permanent structures.

Yeah, go ahead and put in that solar wall, the big wood stove, and the super insulation. You've still got to have central heat if you want an occupancy permit. And you don't have to have A/C by law, but that huge increase in size got me tangled with a bank, and they just insisted it have air.

Yeah, you can act as the contractor and hire your own subs, but you'll have to pay a licensed contractor to front for you on all the paperwork.

It went on like this for months. Caca after caca after caca. Never again. I sold it all and moved onto a sailboat. When I retired I bought a fifth-wheel. Screw them and their property taxes. :D
I think it's a 50/50 deal. For every "damn the codes" story, you will likely hear the equally convincing "thank God for the codes" story.
 
Back
Top