BillyTheMountain
2007-03-23, 03:19 PM
Why can't I build my house any which way I want? It's my land. It's my house. It's not like I'm selling pharmaceuticals....
Public scrutiny? When government fails, the program expands. When a private corporation fails, a competitor takes over. You actually have choice in who to have inspect, instead of the government monopolizing it. That's public scrutiny... the market drives out the bad.
Now, if my local city required specific building inspectors and rules, that'd be acceptable, but if the State or federal government required it, it'd be a forceful hand instead of the invisible hand. There is less benefit to the individual to have any say in the matter. A smaller scale means the individual can easily choose a location close by but in a different city that better meets their needs.
Yes, individuals. As long as the people have the individual power, liberty exists. Unfourtunately, that's not the case today.
Then that someone gets a building inspector and makes sure that the building isn't going to fall down. It shouldn't be on the builder's shoulders to do it, buto n the buyers. And if you're commisioning something to be built for you, then you get an inspector to make sure they're doing the jobs correctly. So, yeah, they have a place, but their place isn't to hinder someone building something on their property for themselves.
As to the word "factual" when I meant "fictional" you indeed caught me with my pants down....did you like what you saw?
in that case my reaction was: "want to build something here -though it is prone to be flowed by the near-by river-? ok but you sign a paper where you state you are not going to sue the state and/or will request any state help in case of damage"
never saw somebody signing this one :D
that was true in my case and because I had an intelligent manager with whom we set up those documents (which were approved by the local politicians -who were also clever and honest by the way-)
I think it is not true all the time and everywhere: people differ.
but again we played a sure hand: nobody signed it! that was a really clever trick to stop the usual grumble about "those govenment bastards always on my back!" ... 90% of the time the guys went out of my office with a smile in their face (and elected back their representatives!)
edit: don't be misled other rules were mandatory! but usually no problem about those.
You lost me on this. I have no idea what kind of specific situation you are refering to here.
Services still allows the consumer (buyer) to have choices, just like goods do. The consumer, based on knowlege they attain, choose an entity to perform the service, they form a contract to meet the desired specifications, and the contractor performs the task and is liable if they do not adhere to the contract. The consumer can evaluate the performance, possibly by using a professional inspector. All by the use of voluntary actions. No force needed.
Public scrutiny? When government fails, the program expands. When a private corporation fails, a competitor takes over. You actually have choice in who to have inspect, instead of the government monopolizing it. That's public scrutiny... the market drives out the bad.
Now, if my local city required specific building inspectors and rules, that'd be acceptable, but if the State or federal government required it, it'd be a forceful hand instead of the invisible hand. There is less benefit to the individual to have any say in the matter. A smaller scale means the individual can easily choose a location close by but in a different city that better meets their needs.
Yes, individuals. As long as the people have the individual power, liberty exists. Unfourtunately, that's not the case today.
Then that someone gets a building inspector and makes sure that the building isn't going to fall down. It shouldn't be on the builder's shoulders to do it, buto n the buyers. And if you're commisioning something to be built for you, then you get an inspector to make sure they're doing the jobs correctly. So, yeah, they have a place, but their place isn't to hinder someone building something on their property for themselves.
As to the word "factual" when I meant "fictional" you indeed caught me with my pants down....did you like what you saw?
in that case my reaction was: "want to build something here -though it is prone to be flowed by the near-by river-? ok but you sign a paper where you state you are not going to sue the state and/or will request any state help in case of damage"
never saw somebody signing this one :D
that was true in my case and because I had an intelligent manager with whom we set up those documents (which were approved by the local politicians -who were also clever and honest by the way-)
I think it is not true all the time and everywhere: people differ.
but again we played a sure hand: nobody signed it! that was a really clever trick to stop the usual grumble about "those govenment bastards always on my back!" ... 90% of the time the guys went out of my office with a smile in their face (and elected back their representatives!)
edit: don't be misled other rules were mandatory! but usually no problem about those.
You lost me on this. I have no idea what kind of specific situation you are refering to here.
Services still allows the consumer (buyer) to have choices, just like goods do. The consumer, based on knowlege they attain, choose an entity to perform the service, they form a contract to meet the desired specifications, and the contractor performs the task and is liable if they do not adhere to the contract. The consumer can evaluate the performance, possibly by using a professional inspector. All by the use of voluntary actions. No force needed.