Government regulation always a bad thing?

[FatherMcGruder]

I think we should reserve nuclear power for space travel.

[1715280902]

1715280902

[1715280902]

1715280902

[1715280902]

1715280902

[1715280902]

1715280902

[1715280902]

1715280902

[kiba]

I think we should reserve nuclear power for space travel.

Why?

[FatherMcGruder]

Why?

Because it's useful and you don't have to worry about the waste. On Earth, we get all the energy we need from the Sun and should concentrate our efforts accordingly. Using to Sun for useful propulsion between here and, say, Mars, not as easy as with nuclear power.

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

[kiba]

Because it's useful and you don't have to worry about the waste. On Earth, we get all the energy we need from the Sun and should concentrate our efforts accordingly. Using to Sun for useful propulsion between here and, say, Mars, not as easy as with nuclear power.

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

I must remind you that next generation nuclear power plants will reduce problem with nuclear waste, risk nuclear proliferation, as well increase efficiency. We may get all the "energy we need from the sun" but we're terribly inefficient at gathering such source. Nuclear power seem to be the more promising road.

Of course, a free market should be able to test our prediction.

[Anonymous]

The decision should be left to the market.

[fergalish]

In an anarchist society, you could, for example, have engineering guilds that would publicly certify buildings and building plans as safe or unsafe. With no exploitative employers or landlords to deceive or otherwise coerce people into working or living in or building unsafe buildings, preventable structural failure would rarely hurt anyone.

I don't know how likely this would be to happen.  If you read the anti-libertarian faq (see other thread), the author there makes an excellent point that while governments have set food safety and quality standards, restaurants do not have to obey them, and almost no restaurant has voluntarily adhered to any such a standard.
Besides, if it was a free market, you'd have multiple guilds cropping up, and what then?  Is the average John Doe supposed to understand the technical differences between them?  Maybe, after some long period of bad buildings, and lots of dead people, one guild would emerge successful.
But really, I doubt any construction firm would voluntarily adhere to a standard that reduced its competitiveness in the market.

It's a prisoner's dilemma.  If all construction firms adhere, then there is an advantage (short-term profit) to every firm to defect and build bad buildings.  And also, what's to stop any building firm from displaying the logo of a guild, without adhering to the standard?

That person is guilty of fraud, and will be boycotted by everyone forever. It's a very bad business decision. I'm not saying that no one could make such a decision, but they will be quickly eliminated from the market.

But if there are no regulations, who's to say you can't commit fraud?  You move in, make your short-term profit, pull out ignoring all the damage you caused.  Start up again with a new brand, repeat.

[Littleshop]

Are we really to believe individuals would have not build earthquake resistant structures in Japan but for the Japanese government?

Just go to Haiti for your answer.  Tough building codes saved a lot of lives in Japan and lack of them killed a ton of people in Haiti.

[theymos]

Just go to Haiti for your answer.  Tough building codes saved a lot of lives in Japan and lack of them killed a ton of people in Haiti.

That's not a valid argument. How do you know that building codes were responsible for the difference, or that not having the building codes wouldn't have saved even more lives?

[kiba]

Just go to Haiti for your answer.  Tough building codes saved a lot of lives in Japan and lack of them killed a ton of people in Haiti.

Haiti don't have the wealth to prepare itself as an earthquake ready society.

[fergalish]

Why would anyone make buildings that will be destroyed by earthquakes? That's a massive loss of money. Construction companies would lose all reputation if their buildings can't withstand expected local conditions.

Here's an interesting case (bad translation though).  In the town of Aquila in Italy, hit by a large earthquake in 2009, there are builders who have been contracted to reconstruct some apartment blocks, but they are not following regulations.  So, theymos, what massive loss of money were you talking about?  Which reputation will the builders lose?  Their actions suggest they are not at all worried about another earthquake destroying the buildings.  And if they won't follow government regulations, why the hell would they ever follow private regulations or the terms of a private contract?

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abruzzoitalia.it%2FNotizie%2FL-Aquila%2FTerremoto-denunce-su-ristrutturazione-case.html

Don't get me wrong, I think libertarianism would be a wonderful utopia, but I think it would only ever work in very small communities where everybody *personally* knows everybody else.  A town of a few thousand people would probably already be too big.

[caveden]

Here's an interesting case (bad translation though).  In the town of Aquila in Italy, hit by a large earthquake in 2009, there are builders who have been contracted to reconstruct some apartment blocks, but they are not following regulations. 

I didn't read the text, but there are two possibilities:

- These contractors were hired to provide something they are not providing, therefore they are committing fraud and should be punished accordingly (either forced to provide what agreed or return the money).

- People who hired them actually knew they would not follow some safety standards (maybe because it's cheaper, don't know), and didn't care. Then, it's their problem only. What's your solution? Point them guns and force them to follow the safety standards you judge adequate? Honestly, if that's your opinion you're a wannabe dictator.

Of course, if the irresponsibility of some harms others (like your reckless built building falls over mine), then they are involuntarily violating the rights of these innocents, and should pay for it. If you want to be safe against such risk anyway, you could try to live in a neighborhood where everybody follows a set of safety standards that pleases you. Legitimate "neighborhood laws" can exist in a libertarian society, as long as the entire neighborhood was legitimately "built" by a group which sells the lands under a specific contract.

[FatherMcGruder]

If a landlord or an employer doesn't live or work in a given building, how much does he really care about the quality of its construction? Perhaps he's willing to spend less on a building constructed by a builder with a poor record than one with a good record. If he makes a profit, it's all good.

[caveden]

Yep, it's true.
Just two things: he doesn't have the right to fraud the contract by saying that the building has safety standards which it doesn't, nor he has the right to silence a competitor, like another real state agency, which publicly defame him by exposing the fact that his buildings are not safe.

[FatherMcGruder]

I've never come across a lease contract that stated any safety guarantees. Of course, there's little to no profit incentive to include them. Ultimately, landlords profit when affordable housing is scarce. Few inhabitants of an unsafe building will find a safer, affordable alternative. So, if a landlord starts touting the safety of his building in comparison to others, it will just be to raise his rates. Because renters have so little recourse, the landlords of unsafe buildings have little to no profit incentive to reduce rates or improve safety. Under capitalism though, profit make the situation okay.

[BitterTea]

I've never come across a lease contract that stated any safety guarantees. Of course, there's little to no profit incentive to include them. Ultimately, landlords profit when affordable housing is scarce. Few inhabitants of an unsafe building will find a safer, affordable alternative. So, if a landlord starts touting the safety of his building in comparison to others, it will just be to raise his rates. Because renters have so little recourse, the landlords of unsafe buildings have little to no profit incentive to reduce rates or improve safety. Under capitalism though, profit make the situation okay.

Are you saying that landlords consciously or unconsciously want to keep supply low to drive up prices? Do you realize that this situation creates an opportunity for someone else to come in and satisfy the market demand at lower prices? I guess that doesn't really mesh with your world view, though.

[FatherMcGruder]

Are you saying that landlords consciously or unconsciously want to keep supply low to drive up prices?

Yes.

Do you realize that this situation creates an opportunity for someone else to come in and satisfy the market demand at lower prices? I guess that doesn't really mesh with your world view, though.

Yes, but a capitalist will not want to kill that opportunity by making affordable, safe housing abundant. He will only rent out just enough housing so as to extract maximum profit. Perhaps he has no regard for the fact that such behavior ensures the existence of homelessness. Maybe he does it just to get by while satisfying the demands of his lender. We can trace the problem to a capitalist worldview.

[kiba]

Yes, but a capitalist will not want to kill that opportunity by making affordable, safe housing abundant. He will only rent out just enough housing so as to extract maximum profit. Perhaps he has no regard for the fact that such behavior ensures the existence of homelessness. Maybe he does it just to get by while satisfying the demands of his lender. We can trace the problem to a capitalist worldview.

Then a capitalist figure out that making affordable, safe housing abundant make him rich, therefore making the "problem" moot.

[FatherMcGruder]

Then a capitalist figure out that making affordable, safe housing abundant make him rich, therefore making the "problem" moot.

He will only make available just enough to maintain his profits. If he satisfied everyone's need, there'd be no more demand and no more profit. Providing safe, affordable housing, or even the ability to build it, to those who need it is not profitable. Therefore, a capitalist won't do it.

[kiba]

He will only make available just enough to maintain his profits. If he satisfied everyone's need, there'd be no more demand and no more profit. Providing safe, affordable housing, or even the ability to build it, to those who need it is not profitable. Therefore, a capitalist won't do it.

Bollocks. This is a matter of cost and selling price. If the cost is low enough, you can make a profit selling at a slightly higher price.

[BitterTea]

He will only make available just enough to maintain his profits. If he satisfied everyone's need, there'd be no more demand and no more profit. Providing safe, affordable housing, or even the ability to build it, to those who need it is not profitable. Therefore, a capitalist won't do it.

Bollocks. This is a matter of cost and selling price. If the cost is low enough, you can make a profit selling at a slightly higher price.

But Kiba, don't you know that all capitalists are profit blinded, short sighted, evil exploiters? Given the choice between improving the lives of others and profiting, or profiting more at the expense of others, they will always choose profiting more at the expense of others!