Government regulation always a bad thing?

[FatherMcGruder]

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.

Profit unjustifiably increases the price, putting a home out of the reach of someone who needs it. Furthermore, the costs are sometimes zero, yet capitalists insist on taking whatever they can. Look at all these empty homes, just in the Hartford, CT area. Either nobody wants them, or some capitalists are preventing people from moving (back) in.

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!

Only to the extent that they are capitalists. Some people are only partly capitalists, lending to friends without interest, doing favors, etc. For the sake of these people, I do not promote violent revolution. Their capitalist behavior sucks, however.

[1713581931]

1713581931

[1713581931]

1713581931

[breandan81]

It might be a bit late to make this post, but there are already a number of private and semiprivate organizations that provide non binding codes for various things.  W3C for web standards, Underwriters Laboratories for all kinds of stuff, in Germany TUV (with dots over the U sorry, on a US keyboard) started as a  private organization to make steam engines safer (though I'm not sure how it's run now), FAA doesn't regulate skydiving dropzones, but there are rules set up by the amateur organizations.   There is no reason to believe that buildings would be any different, it is almost certain the building codes did save some lives, since without coercion there would be less than 100% compliance with any code, but if I want to build a building that is going to fall down, and it won't damage the neighbors buildings when it does, I should have the right to do that.  Obviously telling tenants that it is up to some earthquake code, then knowingly constructing to lower standards would be fraud, and very few libertarians would say that is ok.  As for the more complex issue, of say, skyscrapers that cannot collapse without significant damage and loss of life on neighboring properties, I don't really see much way around regulation there. 

[AllYourBase]

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.

Perhaps that's because all of their customers decided these "food safety" standards are unnecessary, or at least not worth the extra cost.  Having traveled to Asia and eaten things the sight of which would make my grandmother keel over, I staunchly oppose the whole FDA racket, and eagerly seek out any restaurant that looks like it in some way might be skirting FDA regs. 

[BitterTea]

Profit unjustifiably increases the price, putting a home out of the reach of someone who needs it.

Unjustifiably? First, without the incentive for profit, most of the homes would not have been built. Second, how do you know that that person needs a house?

Furthermore, the costs are sometimes zero

What? How can the cost of a home be zero? Capital was expended creating the home, you expect it to just be given away?

Look at all these empty homes, just in the Hartford, CT area. Either nobody wants them, or some capitalists are preventing people from moving (back) in.

The capitalists aren't preventing people from moving in, the system of law is doing so.

Only to the extent that they are capitalists. Some people are only partly capitalists, lending to friends without interest, doing favors, etc. For the sake of these people, I do not promote violent revolution. Their capitalist behavior sucks, however.

What about the capitalists who profit by increasing the standard of living of others?

Capitalism is the private ownership of property. You have asserted that private ownership of property is exploitative, but not provided an argument why this is so. What is your moral basis for believing that every individual is entitled to the full potential value of their labor, rather than only what can be agreed upon with others?

[theymos]

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?

They were contracted to do a job, which they are presumably doing according to the specifications provided by the buyer. If the builder is not building according to specifications, then he is in breach of contract, and the buyer should demand a refund.

If you're worried about being crushed by buildings, then you will ensure that you live and work in a safe building. Some office buildings still have asbestos, and some people avoid working there -- this is the same thing. Those willing to risk their lives in unsafe buildings will get more money in return.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Japan is relatively wealthy, which is why you don't see so many building collapses.  People who have enough money to invest in a good home/building and who live in earthquake zones will obviously make sure it is earthquake-resistant.

[FatherMcGruder]

Unjustifiably?

Yes. No one should ever take the product of the labor of someone else without paying them fairly for it.

First, without the incentive for profit, most of the homes would not have been built.

That is also a problem as in the case of urban sprawl.

Second, how do you know that that person needs a house?

If he builds one, occupies an abandoned one, or exchanges the surplus of that which he produced, directly or indirectly, for one, presumably he needs one.

What? How can the cost of a home be zero? Capital was expended creating the home, you expect it to just be given away?

There's no cost to occupy an abandoned home, except that which a landlord might impose.

The capitalists aren't preventing people from moving in, the system of law is doing so.

The capitalist bank owners removed the homes' inhabitants because they couldn't collect enough interest. The government provides eviction services, or the threat of eviction, thereby helping capitalists profit. Capitalists profit by government. If they decide that they aren't making enough profit, the capitalists will overthrow it and make a more profitable one.

What about the capitalists who profit by increasing the standard of living of others?

Capitalism deprives most people of the product of their labor. When the worker's, renter's, or borrower's standard of living increases, it's either incidental or the result of capitalists attempting to prevent mutiny. In either case, they typically experience a net loss in the long run.

Capitalism is the private ownership of property. You have asserted that private ownership of property is exploitative, but not provided an argument why this is so. What is your moral basis for believing that every individual is entitled to the full potential value of their labor, rather than only what can be agreed upon with others?

Private property ownership isn't inherently exploitive. Charging people to use property for which you have no use without transferring ownership means that you gain at their expense. Therefore, you have taken advantage of them and their lack of property or the means to avoid the kind of extortion in which you engage. Taking advantage is the dictionary definition of exploitation. It's wrong to exploit people because in doing so, you disrespect their humanity. People are not livestock. Now, if the person your dealing with knows that he's on the loosing end of the deal but enjoys it, he's either doing you a favor or playing out a fetish.

If you're worried about being crushed by buildings, then you will ensure that you live and work in a safe building. Some office buildings still have asbestos, and some people avoid working there -- this is the same thing. Those willing to risk their lives in unsafe buildings will get more money in return.

What a miserable choice.

[kiba]

What a miserable choice.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[FatherMcGruder]

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

What a miserable choice.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Just today I had an apple off the neighbours  tree for lunch. It didnt cost me anything. 

[FatherMcGruder]

Just today I had an apple off the neighbours  tree for lunch. It didnt cost me anything.  

Well, it costs you some labor in the action of picking the apple. Under capitalism, your neighbor can claim any size portion of that apple even if he has already collected enough apples from the tree to compensate for any work he has put into the tree. The only reason he can get away with that is if he has the power to enforce his rules. Government gives him that power and is therefore profitable. As such, if your neighbor is a capitalist, he will create government in its absence.

[kiba]

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Exactly.

And thus, you may have to choose between an expensive earthquake-proof building and building that are cheap but unsafe.

[FatherMcGruder]

And thus, you may have to choose between an expensive earthquake-proof building and building that are cheap but unsafe.

Two points: One, workers pay for their lunch as well as that of the governing capitalists. Two, the safety of the building one works in does not affect the quality and amount of work that one does, so the amount which one earns should not differ depending on the safety of the building.

[BitterTea]

so the amount which one earns should not differ

You seem very comfortable dictating what other people should and should not do when engaging in voluntary interactions. I think that's why socialists sound so much like statists to me.

[kiba]

Two, the safety of the building one works in does not affect the quality and amount of work that one does, so the amount which one earns should not differ depending on the safety of the building.

Wrong, it's governed by the law of supply and demand.

Quality and amount of work one does is a factor, but is not the sole factor. Increased Workplace safety may impede profitability of a corporation and their ability to pay their workers.

[kiba]

You seem very comfortable dictating what other people should and should not do when engaging in voluntary interactions. I think that's why socialists sound so much like statists to me.

He doesn't understood my angry outbrust last time and I doubt he will understand now.

He is also living in a community where profit is valued, not something that is evil. Hence the bewilderment of members here.

[FatherMcGruder]

You seem very comfortable dictating what other people should and should not do when engaging in voluntary interactions. I think that's why socialists sound so much like statists to me.

I am merely informing, not dictating. I impose no consequence on you for not listening. Although, if I held a position of power over you, like that of an employer, we'd have a different situation.

Wrong, it's governed by the law of supply and demand.

Quality and amount of work one does is a factor, but is not the sole factor. Increased Workplace safety may impede profitability of a corporation and their ability to pay their workers.

Why should the price of a building affect the value of the product of one's labor within that building?

He doesn't understood my angry outbrust last time and I doubt he will understand now.

He is also living in a community where profit is valued, not something that is evil. Hence the bewilderment of members here.

I still don't. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion.

[kiba]

Why should the price of a building affect the value of the product of one's labor within that building?

Actually, it's the worker who is in the position to neogitate as it is related to workplace condition. This is not related to worker competition but employer competition.

Worker: Why should I work in this cheap-o building instead of working in that safe building?

Employer: I pay twice as much wage as that other guy over there.

Worker: Hmm, I think I walk away...

Employer: No, don't go. I'll pay triple as much wage.

Worker: ok.

I still don't. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion.

We are unable to have a rational discussion because people here do not feel exploited when somebody profit off of them. Nobody feel ashamed and nobody cares.

If you don't simply feel exploited even though you fully understand the situation, well..what ya going to do?

[JA37]

What if I build an unsafe house that impacts those around it. Let's say that my house is prone to fires, and that will destroy/damage every house around it. Isn't it resaonable to have regulations in place to prevent damage to other peoples property?

[kiba]

What if I build an unsafe house that impacts those around it. Let's say that my house is prone to fires, and that will destroy/damage every house around it. Isn't it resaonable to have regulations in place to prevent damage to other peoples property?

Nobody is proposing the idea of no regulation.