When acting man envisions a plan with profit (money or psychic) as an end, he must include a best guess of both future prices and the future wants of the consumer (which may be himself — acting man qua consumer). Are there any other obstacles?
Of course there is uncertainty. And there is the most pernicious unknown of all: government.
My father simply wanted to make a small change to his house — what he considers his own property. All good and well, until government stepped in and derailed his plan.
Writes John Fedako from Sarasota:
We live in Florida; a pleasant place to live when you have grown up in the snow, sleet and cold rain of the North.
When we retired to Florida, the house we built was a typical Florida house, which means open design, lots of sliding glass doors, a large screened-in lanai, and usually a pool. We chose not to have a pool. Because of the native bug population and the summer heat and humidity, the lanai was seldom used and so after all these years we decided to close it in and essentially increase the size of the living room that opened up into the lanai. It would serve as a place for quiet reading or computer use.
I considered doing the work myself but the task seemed too much for just one person and so I called a local building contractor who specialized in room enclosures and additions.
I was naive enough to think it was my house. I had no mortgage; all my taxes, insurance, and utilities were up to date. I even have the deed secured in a safe deposit box at the bank. So I would hire the builder to install some windows and a door and close it in; work I could not do alone. All done to my liking; after all it was my house.
The builder was very professional. He arrived with a measuring tape and sketchpads and proceeded to measure all the existing walls (the outside of the house) that would now serve as the walls for the expanded area to include in the design sketch. He was definitely a registered builder; had all the credentials issued by the County and his company had been doing similar work for years.
We discussed the type of door and windows (sliding he recommended), the inside and outside finish, stucco or not to match the existing house and other details. We arranged for another meeting to discuss costs and scheduling plans and other minor details such as my contribution of some finish painting and other minor woodwork. That is when we were shocked to discover there was another aspect of the job I had not considered.
The builder told us that the county may require us to increase the size of our bedroom windows since the lanai was no longer an egress and the fire code required a large window for egress for us and ingress for fire fighters in case of a fire. We could now not get out the same way as we did before since there was a door as part of the lanai and there was a pocket door between the bedroom and the large window in the bathroom.
My idea of using existing electric outlets just inside where the sliding glass doors are was not code (keep in mind that the existing sliding glass doors would be removed). There was an existing outlet in the lanai, overheat lights and a fan – more than sufficient for us as a reading or computer space. The electrical code required us to have outlets in the room because we may use a space heater during the occasional Floridian cold spell and running extension cords from the outlets in the living room may present a potential fire hazard. We also needed switches in the room. The present switches for the overhead lights and fan are located just inside the sliding doors and would not be code; switches must be provided inside the room to meet standards and pass inspection. The insulation on the only outside wall, a two foot high panel just below the sliding windows had to meet standards and be inspected.
The door had to meet hurricane standards at a cost of some $2000 even though my present front door and sliding glass doors do not. The windows had to meet hurricane standards at a cost of some $4000 even though the ones we have now do not.
The air conditioning would probably have to be increased even though we always cool at 80 degrees and did not feel additional cool air was needed. An air conditioning expert could come and make the necessary measurements to determine requirements to meet standards.
I do not know the total amount of the additional cost. But, needless to say, I canceled the project.
Thanks to the county and its building regulations, jobs have been lost. But everybody is safer (supposedly, anyway). And sadly I now realize I am no longer the sole owner of my house.
Thankfully, we have a government that protects its citizens from their own stupidity.
{ 25 comments }
I miss the old days. An envelope discreetly delivered by a trusted intermediary. Approval issued immediately. For sure, that’s not libertarian, but if I am going to be a serf, at least give me the option of buying a little bit of extra freedom here and there.
Modern municipal government is useless. Everyone, without exception, from the lowliest clerk to the elected “representative” on top, is only only concerned with keeping his “job.” More rules = more jobs; strict enforcement = more jobs. Soon, all of the US will be Detroit.
In my own hometown, in the midst of 20+% unemployment, the City is working overtime to regulate current businesses out of existence, while at the same time harassing potential new businesses to the point they say “forget it.”
HL,
At least with the discreetly delivered envelope, you had a pretty good idea of the conditions and costs going into the project. Sure beats the large unknowns we face today.
Don’t let them find out that you occasionally flavor your food with salt!
If you know a regulator of any type, show them this as an example of unforeseen consequences of their actions.
Something else the government would like to do: A “kill switch” for the Internet: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html
“Modern municipal government is useless. Everyone, without exception, from the lowliest clerk to the elected ‘representative’ on top, is only only concerned with keeping his ‘job.’ More rules = more jobs; strict enforcement = more jobs. Soon, all of the US will be Detroit.”
So true. My ex-girlfriend is a hair stylist, and when she owned her own salon, an overseer came to inspect the place (because of, you know, the multitude of deaths from unclean scissors before the government inspected barbershops and salons). My ex had everything perfect. However, she was not given a perfect score. Why? Because the inspector said that she was not allowed to give a perfect score. The inspector cited my ex for not having caps over the scissors. The horror!
I told my ex that of course the goons cannot give out perfect scores; otherwise they would not be able to justify their parasitic existence.
Sounds like Australia. Have been a builder doing similar work as above and new developments. Extension and alterations can take ages to get through council or private certifier. Some councils want no development at all, like mitcham council here in South Australia so even media reports have shown their delaying tactics to get you to give up. Some government planners and certifiers don’t understand the laws they suppose to govern for they are voluminous and complicated so small builders get their development proposals put to the bottom of the pile and are endlessly chasing planners to get approval. In South Australia Really Big Developers now have got the State Government to approve their developments quickly and bypassing planning laws of the State Government and Local councils, for the State Government says these developments are too significant to go through normal planning channels – so I believe this proves that the State Government knows planning laws are too burdensome.
Then there’s Government mandated Home Owners Warranty Insurance there to protect the owner supposedly in the case a builder dies or goes bankrupt. The big insurance companies are making huge money with very little risk, it is the least paid out insurance in Australia with 45% of claims being knocked back, compared to the average of 2% of insurance claims on other types of consumer claims being knocked back i.e. house and contents, motor vehicle. I got annoyed when in a 12 month period the Warranty I had to pay to build a new house this year had more than doubled from $350 to $850 from the last house I built 12 months ago and the house I am building now will be 2/3 the cost of the one I built 12 months ago. But then I saw on TV what was happening in Perth Western Australia, a builder in Western Australia with 25 years of experience had the cost of warranty insurance he needed for the average mid range house that he builds go from $700 to $14,000 and some Western Australia builder’s just can’t get insurance, because they are not “capitalised” enough, although sucessfully running businesses for many years, in other words the insurance companies have got the governments to rigg the system so that the warranty premium is virtually money for nothing – they take no risk. 30 Federal and State enquiries since 2000 have been done on the Warranty System because it is so bad most liberal and labor (mainstream parties here like republican and democrat in US) have followed the party line and tried to keep the status quo for insurance companies are big party donors. Although independents and minor parties have pointed out the significant problems with the Warranty scheme during these enquiries, including Big Government Anti-business Federal Green Senator Christine Milne (who her own party lobbied with the Australian Consumers Association to bring in the Home Owners Warranty) now saying Builders should have a choice if they pay Home Owners Warranty or not on their work. Oh well maybe she’s had of crisis of conscience, which most labor and liberal politicians have in general have not – except those ones who had a ground swell of builders and consumers in their electorates complain to them and these politicians know big party donors like insurers can’t always buy them votes they need to stay elected they actually have to serve the voters in their electorate once in a while.
I live in Florida as well. I was dismayed (well, technically I was enraged, but then dismayed that I let them get me that way) to find out I needed a permit to change the color of my front door. Not even to replace it – which would be ludicrous to require a permit for – but just to paint it.
What about HOAs that force the same crap? And before you pull out the “but you voluntarily choose to associate with them whereas you don’t for city regulations”, no you don’t. They are attached to the property the same way that the city regulations are attached to the property. In both cases, you “voluntarily” agree to the rules by purchasing the property in the first place.
The trick being one is public property and the other is private property. It’s all about not so much the ‘claim to a monopoly of force’ but rather if the person/entity owning property the rightful private owner.
Where is the “public” property in any of the examples above? HOA memberships are forced onto private home owners.
The HOAs are a private form of governance, they may co-exist with that which part of the government’s but are still private.
When you buy the property, the city laws come with the contract. Why are these less legitimate than HOA laws? Both are contracts, attached to the property, and both have their own functions for changing the rules, which are also part of the contract.
Also, what is this “public” and “private”? In both cases, we deal with the question of who partially controls your property in joint with you. In both cases, your ownership is partially public and shared in the sense that you are not the sole master of your domain.
Muddled nonsense.I sold real estate in my former career. Never once did the government have a representative at the table indicating an ownership interest in the property exchanging hands, nor was it implied. The allocation of capital was not directed by a government official, thank goodness, to this particular residence or that one. The contracts were all voluntary exchanges of private property. I don’t remember a single buyer or seller indicating that they had to check with their “joint owner, the gubment” to determine if it was a good deal. Nor would it ever be necessary as no third party – local, state, or federal – has any reason to be involved in property exchanges.The fact that parisitic bureaucrats making six times what they would be worth in the private sector, if they have any worth at all, use money robbed from the people to further increase the loot and exert their influence over property exchanges should be sickening to any person with a brain and a heart. It’s clearly not justified for any reason, has no practical or moral purpose, and is merely a form of theft.
Actually yes, it is implied. You voluntarily accept the government contracts as the law of the land when you purchase the property, and you contractually accept to pay property taxes as part of that contract. It may be inefficient, but it is not a form of theft any more than condo fees are a form of theft. If you don’t want to pay, then don’t buy the property.
The general Libertarian view is that government didn’t homestead the land or didn’t acquire the land legitimately or that it is a illegitimate organisation and ought not to have the right to acquire anything at all.
I am sympathetic to that view, but if that is true, how can any property contract possibly be valid whatsoever? The whole chain of ownership is corrupt since there was coercion or force applied at some stage, for every single property. Therefore, almost all private property is also illegitimate. Anybody living in pretty much anywhere in the world is guilty of this.
Surely there must be a statute of limitations, or else just about all property everywhere becomes invalid.
All yes, the illusion of personal property. Every time I hear someone talking of owning their own property I always remind them that they will never “own” anything. Don’t pay your property taxes for a few years and you will find out who *really* owns your property.
Just my thoughts,
SOD
SOD,
I used to feel the same, until I realized that taxes are not “ownership” in any meaningful sense. See my comment above. Ownership reflects an interest in the means employed to acheive ends. Property taxes are merely theft at the point of a gun, rent seeking by a parasitic third party that will take your entire home if you do not comply with the decrees of the mafioso. That’s not ownership, just as the mafia does not own the butcher shop that it extracts 10% from.
I was saddened to hear about the depth of the intrusion of socialism into the Australian economy. People all over the world are sitting back ignorantly and letting the State remove individual sovereignty.
America Is Destined To Revolt Against The State.
It is my understanding that the destiny of America is to revolt against the (socialistic and fascistic) State and return itself to a model classical liberalism society thereby stimulating similar revolts all around the world so that the State is finally purged from the system of civilized life on this planet.
Will humans rise to their calling, activate their entrepreneurial spirit and search after truth, and find the order and law needed to cement together an ever-advancing civilization? The answer: sooner or later, the sooner the better!
You might want to sound a little less Karl Marxish there, Bruce. Swap a few words and you’d fit right in with the communists!
I don’t doubt your intentions, just the format of the message
Anyways, the world is going more polycentric. We will see more variation and less monolithic blocks, and probably not blocks of classsical liberalism, more desirable though it may be.
At a high level we already have panarchism, just need to start extending that concept of sovereignty downwards, all the way to the individual. That will allow increased competition between cities, and a more an-capish world that will still retain various diverse rules in place. Future trends favour the associated city_state model fairly nicely.
All the codes being cited by the builder, the fire code, the electric code, the building code, are consensus standards developed independent (at least partially) from the government and are typically just adopted by the various states (although not all states), not by the Feds. I agree that you should be allowed to do what you wish with your own property, but I would bet that if the state wasn’t requiring conformance to these codes, your homeowners’ insurance company would or your policy would be cancelled (or the premium at least raised).
I’m going to argue with this a little. From my limited experience there is an awful lot of government involvement in the business of building, fire and electric codes.(I’m not a contractor but a product engineer that has had to deal with various code authorities for several different projects). In many cases the codes are written by a semi-private agency, but enforced by the government, not by insurance mandates or increased premiums. This means homeowners have no choice but to comply with the codes, even when compliance would provide no benefit to them (as in the case written about where the author had no choice but to purchase hurricane-rated doors and windows even though the rest of the home was not so well equipped). Building codes in particular seem to be primarily the domain of the government and are frequently written not to improve safety but to mandate that homeowners hire licensed plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc to do even the most routine tasks.
If the motivation for code compliance did come from insurance premiums or contractual obligations they would be much better written, and applied far more rationally. Compliance would also be far simpler and cheaper, as I can’t imagine not having a fully nationwide or even world-wide code authority within a few years. Currently codes can vary from state to state and even city to city (a nightmare for those of us trying to design and manufacture products to comply with all of them). Features, safeguards, etc that are mandatory in some areas are forbidden in others. And good luck getting a comprehensive list of requirements from the code authorities of NY, Chicago, San Francisco, etc… They don’t have them and wouldn’t give them to you if they did. Compared to product safety standards (i.e. the UL standards) construction codes are highly state-driven and enforced, and so not surprisingly highly arbitrary, difficult to interpret, inconsistent, contradictory, burdensome, and corrupted.
My point is that even without state mandated standards, there would still be standards. Organizations like UL, NFPA, FM all existed and created standards before government co-opted their functions. One of your own examples, UL, depends on much of its business because of the electric code (all components used under the electric code must be UL listed).
Wow Florida is really an Awesome place. My grand mother asked me to take them to Florida last year but I couldn’t fulfill her desire. Anyway guys thanks for posting the nice stuff.
Comments on this entry are closed.