Why building codes should be abolished

[aociswundumho]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished

That's ridiculous. There was a fire in a condo complex. It only took out 1 unit because of a firewall. Really stupid post.

 

[BirdinHand]

Yeah, I mean who needs to know that the building they are walking into meets safety codes, right?


What an idiotic proposal and idea.

 

[NatMorton]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

Completely disagree. Building codes are entirely consistent with government's role of protecting citizens from the kind of harm that they cannot often avoid on their own. It's not unlike food safety in that way.

Have building codes been used to advance a political agenda? Yes, absolutely, and where that's done such regulations should be repealed. But codes for things such as construction materials, wiring, plumbing, weight bearing structural design make all the sense in the world.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Anyone remember the triangle shirt waste factory fire?

 

[Gordy327]

What an idiotic proposal and idea.

Well, consider the source.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

Hogwash. Standards are a good thing and they protect the consumer in many ways. Lower standards result in disasters for poor construction.

 

[watsup]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

More libertarian nonsense. They need to go live on a desert island all by themselves and then they could make all sorts of silly rules like this one.

 

[NY guy]

While we are at it get rid of licencing for electricians and plumbers , what can go wrong

 

[aociswundumho]

That's ridiculous.

What an idiotic proposal and idea.

Completely disagree. Building codes are entirely consistent with government's role of protecting citizens from the kind of harm that they cannot often avoid on their own.

Hogwash. Standards are a good thing and they protect the consumer in many ways. Lower standards result in disasters for poor construction.

Over half of the nation's housing stock is over 50 years old. Do all of you support forcing these homeowners to upgrade their "unsafe" homes to comply with the current building code?

 

[Gordy327]

Over half of the nation's housing stock is over 50 years old. Do all of you support forcing these homeowners to upgrade their "unsafe" homes to comply with the current building code?

Are the structures deemed unsafe?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Over half of the nation's housing stock is over 50 years old. Do all of you support forcing these homeowners to upgrade their "unsafe" homes to comply with the current building code?

Remember the high rise condo collapse in Florida. Fees are going through the roof to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[Surrealistik]

That's ridiculous. There was a fire in a condo complex. It only took out 1 unit because of a firewall. Really stupid post.

And merely one of so very many.

 

[BirdinHand]

Over half of the nation's housing stock is over 50 years old. Do all of you support forcing these homeowners to upgrade their "unsafe" homes to comply with the current building code?

Yes.

When and if the house is sold, it needs to be brought up to current codes.

My septic system, for example, doesn’t meet current codes.

When we go to sell the house, it will need to be brought up to code.

People can continue to live out their entire lives in houses that aren’t up to code (if it is their residence) but when houses are sold, the systems in the house - electric, plumbing, septic, etc - need to be brought up to current codes.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles.

 

[Lovebug]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

Yes, it is about trade-offs. They try to balance the need for safety with making housing affordable. They could require every home to be an indestructible medieval fortress, but no one could afford them. On the other hand, by requiring certain minimum standards in construction, they will save in the long term due to less stress on emergency services and property values will remain adding to a stable tax base.

If there were no building codes, builders would build with the lowest standards of materials just to increase their profits, families would be endangered, and the public at large would be at risk.

If ever there was a demonstrable purpose to government, this is it.

 

[aociswundumho]

Are the structures deemed unsafe?

No, and they would never come close to being code complaint.

 

[aociswundumho]

Remember the high rise condo collapse in Florida. Fees are going through the roof to make sure it doesn't happen again.

How about answering the question.

When and if the house is sold, it needs to be brought up to current codes.

No, it doesn't. You would have to replace the entire plumbing and electrical systems. Oh, and you'd have to reframe the entire house.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Older version of building codes > no building codes at all.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Over half of the nation's housing stock is over 50 years old. Do all of you support forcing these homeowners to upgrade their "unsafe" homes to comply with the current building code?

Many times codes are changed to reflect improvements in materials, technology, and knowledge.

In California, they have upgraded their building codes to reflect their greater understanding of earthquakes. That does not mean that every old building in California must be torn down and rebuilt. However, all new construction has to meet the new standards.

In contrast, in 1980, there was a catastrophic fire at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas where almost 100 people lost their lives. Following that, the fire safety codes were dramatically upgraded, and every hotel had a time limit to retrofit their buildings and get into compliance with the new standards. Las Vegas now has the highest fire safety standards in the nation. They consider it "good for business."

 

[Port & Starboard]

Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

I guess all those thousands of sheets of 5/8" fire code sheetrock I threw up were just a waste of time.? Installing the proper breakers and wiring gauge make homeowners worse off?

I'm glad that building architects and city inspectors demand that certain UL ratings are kept so I don't get someone like yourself building next to my property.

Underwriters Laboratories has saved millions of lives.

Underwriters Laboratories have saved people trillions of dollars in property loss/damage.

 

[aociswundumho]

Wow, I actually got an intelligent response:

Yes, it is about trade-offs. They try to balance the need for safety with making housing affordable.

But it's entirely subjective. Why should the state override the homeowner regarding a completely subjective issue, when both the property and the money to build the home belong to the individual and not the state?

If there were no building codes, builders would build with the lowest standards of materials just to increase their profits, families would be endangered, and the public at large would be at risk.

Some would, but most wouldn't. In any free or even semi-free market, there is typically a wide range of quality available. Consider the shoe market. Shoe manufacturers can use the lowest quality materials if they choose to, but most don't.

Furthermore, low quality means low prices. For many people, a low quality home is better than renting for life and making their landlord rich.

Do you disagree with that last sentence?

 

[Lisa]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

This post has to be one of the most moronic things that I have read in weeks. That building code is there for safety, of the people who live there, first responders and the community. If anything building codes are lax to make homes more affordable because if they were raised, the prices of homes would cost even more than they already do.

If I was in the market to building I would exceed the code by a minimum of 10-15% because the codes are a bare minimum for safety.

Guide to Understanding Building Codes | ArchitectureCourses.org

Guide to Understanding Building Codes. Discover the essentials of building codes with our comprehensive guide. Learn about their history, importance, and how to navigate them effectively.

architecturecourses.org

 

[aociswundumho]

Many times codes are changed to reflect improvements in materials, technology, and knowledge.

Is that a yes or a no?

I guess all those thousands of sheets of 5/8" fire code sheetrock I threw up were just a waste of time.?

Hey, me too! I was a commercial carpenter for about year when I was young.

Installing the proper breakers and wiring gauge make homeowners worse off?

Do you support forcing all existing homeowners to upgrade their homes to be compliant with the 2024 NEC?