Libertarian Question

L

L-Frame

New member
I was reading the “ Take the libertarian purity test” post by dz and found it interesting. Now I don’t know much but for the most part libertarians think that people should be responsible for them selves. With that in mind:

What I want to know is if we where to repeal something like local housing code laws what would we replace them with? What length of time would it take to deconstruct? Would I want to live in a house or would I be better off in a tent? Do you really think repealing these particular laws would help us or hurt us?
 
I wouldn't like to see them repealed. I'm not the "pure libertarian" some others on this board are though.

Things like housing codes (at the LOCAL level) are exactly what the govt should be doing. For example, if you live in California, the earthquake danger is real. If you have a code you can prevent death and destruction. Free market forces won't do much to curtail shabby or inappropriate construction techniques.
 
The problem with socialism is that when you invite the government in to do somthing, then you ask for a whole new set of laws protecting the government's interest in that particular endevor. When the government decided to regulate transportation, they pass all sorts of laws to regulate such. When the government decides to take care of those who get involved in motorcycle accidents without a helmet, they also mandate laws like helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and laws that either are redundant, or were already covered under common law. Each month in the United States we are subjected to 150,000 new laws or regulations. EACH MONTH. How can we actually say we are free? Free to do what? Every aspect of life is controlled by the government at one level or another. Heck, just the other night on TFL, I found out the government even has laws regulating the "providing of impliments of masturbation". Wow, I never would've guessed they'd eventually regulate that.
What I want is the government to do that which the people absolutely cannot do for themselves. Major highways, National defence, and coin money. I would love to see the rest go, or at least be given to the lowest levels of government to do such as county law enforcement, and building codes.
 
I too, took the Libertarian purity test. It was very enlightening to see what the real agenda of the Libertarian party is. As a conservative Christian, I cannot agree with legalization of drugs, abortion on demand, etc. etc. While I am absolutely 100% PRO RKBA, I cannot vote for an anarchist party. There is no doubt that our government is an instrument unto itself and must be radically changed. The department of education must go, HUD needs to be doing its job, not persecuting gun owners, and the entire legal system needs complete reform. Punitive damages need to be limited to 100,000 maximum. The reason things have slipped so far is due to ClintonGore. The American Trial Lawyers Association have never had such a staunch supporter as ClintonGore.
 
Disclaimer: I'm not a Libertarian. :)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What I want to know is if we where to repeal something like local housing code laws what would we replace them with? What length of time would it take to deconstruct? Would I want to live in a house or would I be better off in a tent? Do you really think repealing these particular laws would help us or hurt us?[/quote]

L-Frame, I think most Libertarians would answer those questions by pointing out that they trust people to decide for themselves what sort of house they want to live in.

Thus, if you on your own property want to build a structure that is physically unsound and likely to be knocked over by the next (hurricane, earthquake, car driving past and stirring up a breeze), it's up to you. It is YOUR property, YOUR home, and YOUR problem if it falls over. With the liberty to build as you wish comes the responsibility of dealing with the consequences.

So you wouldn't ask anyone else whether you would end up living in a tent. That's up to you.

The free market is supposed to take care of sound/unsound structures built by construction companies. Companies who build unsound buildings would go out of business. Those who built well would thrive.

Would you knowingly buy an unsound house to live in? Would you willingly work in a high-rise that wasn't rated for certain structural tensions? Would you rent an apartment in a building that wasn't sound?

The Libertarian idea is that people bear the consequences of their own decisions. IOW, if you don't think the company's building is safe to work in, don't work for them. If you don't think the apt building is sturdy, don't rent there.

As for how long it would take to deconstruct building code laws, let's just say it ain't gonna happen any time soon. In the political climate we're living in, everyone wants someone else to blame whenever something goes wrong.

pax

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you please unless it causes others harm. With it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."P.J. O'Rourke
 
You may be shocked to learn that building codes are not universal in the United States. Actually there are counties in Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia, for instance that have no building codes.

A friend actually wrote a dissertation on this topic and researched it thoroughly. There were fewer fires in counties without building codes(contrary to most intutition)than in equivalent population density areas with building codes.

Homes in counties, factoring for other desireables, without building codes sold were valued higher than in counties with building codes. Of course this is a complicated study and you have to do debateable regression studies to find equivalent homes(things such as quality of school districts factor in not just square footage and location).

Historically large buildings followed a code set not by government but by insurance agencies. Insurance companies don't like to lose money on obvious hazards.

Now zoning is another question, but clearly anyone that wants to base government on the need for building codes has failed, you need to find a new argument. Constructing quality products at a reasonable price is something that the market does remarkably well, something that government fails at miserably.

So my answer is building codes and zoning are slightly different things. In many cases building codes mandate old less-safe materials and discourage innovation in safer building techniques and materials. People will still fight over zoning, what sorts of buildings should be built where, etc. You could drop all building codes immediately and it would make little difference in most cases though it would allow poor people to afford better shelter, lower the prices of new construction by eliminating a huge amount of inefficiency and bribes which occur under the current system. One of the main reasons for these codes is to deny poor people housing or to force them to live in different areas.
 
Byzantine5.56 and Westtexas, if you believe that anarchism and libertarianism are the same thing, you need to do some more reading about one or both. Anarchism is the theory that all government is unnecessary and undesirable. Libertarianism recognizes the preservation and protection of the rights of the individual as a legitimate and desirable function of government.
 
If it where up to me I would live where I live and not in my tent. I like the idea of getting rid of as much government as possible though. This small story is case in point.

I have a friend that wanted to open up a small shaved ice shack, for those that don't know what I am talking about another name for them is snowballs. Well he found out what license he needed and began to build the shack, yes he built it him self.

The construction phase of this took a year and it was done for fun mostly a project to work on and maybe even make some cash some day. I want to tell you the hell he went through trying to please the local government was insane. He had to have 4 sinks one to wash, rinse, and sanitize the utensils he used and one more for washing his hands. He only had one utensil. A plastic spoon used to shape the top of the shaved ice so it would be round. Well I would tell you all more but this kind of crap makes me sick but I don’t know what the heck we would do about it. Lets face it if someone wanted to sell us a food product with something nasty in it or use utensil that where unclean then what do we do about it? Just because they force the guy to put in four sinks in this 4 by 8 trailer doesn’t mean he is going to use them.
 
Some of the Libertarian philosophy is a bit "pie-in-the-sky". For instance, I was reading Mary Ruwart's Short Answers to Tough Questions, a sort of libertarian "primer", as it were. She states that if the US would just lift all trade restrictions and allow unregulated trade with whomever, many countries which now threaten terrorist actions against us would relent, as they could get their cut of the capitalist pie.
What about those countries whose enmity against us is based on religious beliefs, such as Iran? They already think we are too free; America is the "great Satan" because we don't have enough control over ourselves, and a libertarian form of gov't would seem, to the Iranians, to be a step in the wrong direction. They'd become even more opposed.

Not all the answers posed by the libertarians seem practical, but of all the political philosophies out there, IMO it seems to offer the best mixture of regard for individual rights, liberty, responsibility, practicality, and need for gov't.

There will never be a perfect gov't, because gov't is the creation of imperfect creatures; that which is imperfect cannot create perfection.



------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
 
From what I understand about the Libertarians is that they(me)want government back to their given Constitutional powers. I haven't ever heard Harry Browne say lets get rid of all government, correct me if I'm wrong. Harry Browne, "Why I'm running for President I am running for President because it's obvious that no Democrat or Republican is going to stop the relentless growth of the federal government. No one but a Libertarian will reduce your taxes dramatically, allow you to live your life as a free American, and restrict the federal government to its Constitutional limits." http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/

Why are some of you so afraid of freedom or at least having more of it?


------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
 
A bit late to the party, but here goes...

Despite my handle, I am not a pure libertarian. I have issues with the open borders and some of the trade issues. However, I do not think that the LP is promoting anarchy in any way. Personal responsiblitiy is the mainstay of libertarianism, and that responsibility extends to the community around you as well as your own self. Anarchist (IMO) feel that responsibility ends at your skin. Everything outside is on its own.
 
I think you need to be careful when you describe anarchists. In the United States it tends to have a different connotation than in Europe.

In both cases they want the absence of government, however that is defined, but the European anarchists tend to be a variant of Communism where there is no private property. Since characters such as Murray Rothbard and David Friedman, in the US, anarchism is associated more with anarcho-capitalism. This is where you have private property but no government.

No government doesn't necessarily mean no laws in this view. Friedman argues that medieval Iceland was an example of such an anarchic country. There was private property, families, elected judges and established law, but they had no power to tax, and all enforcement was privately conducted.

In the US some of the formost anarchists are very traditional, personal responsibility individuals. Lew Rockwell is an example. So I don't think you can easily stereotype the American anarchist crowd.

You wouldn't have free immigration in the same way under an anarcho-capitalist system. Depending on how any territory was owned the owners could keep essentially anyone out that they wanted to. Many Libertarians extol open borders where many anarcho-capitalists decry that government ownership of things such as streets mean any sort of scum can wander through your neighborhood with out you having any say so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top