tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post5824645419471671860..comments2024-03-18T17:17:00.423+13:00Comments on Not PC: Fat fools call for new taxes on rent and mortgages [update 2]Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-89038165681502587832009-09-01T12:48:37.412+12:002009-09-01T12:48:37.412+12:00No, because you're threadjacking.
Take it to ...No, because you're threadjacking.<br /><br />Take it to the other thread as you've been asked many times, or go away.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-18056592539134809502009-09-01T12:28:25.852+12:002009-09-01T12:28:25.852+12:00because you cannot answer.because you cannot answer.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-67630314459928123402009-09-01T12:27:12.209+12:002009-09-01T12:27:12.209+12:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-14539317940586575342009-09-01T12:26:50.595+12:002009-09-01T12:26:50.595+12:00You've been asked politely many time, Owen. Ta...You've been asked politely many time, Owen. Take it to the other thread.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-35203136249185333212009-09-01T12:23:48.774+12:002009-09-01T12:23:48.774+12:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-41724604232269985912009-09-01T10:54:49.230+12:002009-09-01T10:54:49.230+12:00Owen, as I've pointed out to you before, the p...Owen, as I've pointed out to you before, the present system itself provides no guarantees, which is one reason why this has become a problem<br /><br />Even the system I suggest offers no absolute guarantees.<br /><br />Because in point of fact, reality itself provides no absolute guarantees. Men are not omniscient.<br /><br />I'm not suggesting a Utopia, I'm suggesting that properly sheeting home responsibility offers a better guarantee against building failure than the present bureaucratically-managed system. I'm suggesting that reputation is a better guarantee of success than the false sense of security provided by bureaucracy. I'm suggesting that a perusal of history and of other regulatory regimes would demonstrate that your bureaucratic system is a relatively recent phenomenon, but that buildings have nonetheless stood up well for centuries. <br /><br />And finally, and at this point most importantly, I'm suggesting all that on <a href="http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/08/building-its-not-free-market-maurice.html" rel="nofollow">another thread</a> that I know you haven't even bothered to read --- which tells me that it's not this subject that really interests you so much as simple nay-saying.<br /><br />Which is to say, you're a troll, and this threadjack here has gone on long enough. Take it to the thread where this is actually presented, or go away.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-68580586255659249082009-09-01T10:30:34.472+12:002009-09-01T10:30:34.472+12:00LGW: I don't need to check the integrity of bu...LGW: I don't need to check the integrity of buildings i enter now because they are checked by the government on my behalf. Providing a high level of safety as experienced in NZ over the last 100 years.<br /><br />You are making the completely fanciful assertion that every builder is going to build structurally sound buildings in the absence of any compulsory checks whatsoever. It is a dream, but in actual fact it is a nightmare because you are opening millions of innocent customers up to the potential of buildings collapsing on them because you decided to save the builder a few thousand bucks.<br /><br />Yeah, I can imagine the boon to NZ tourism that would be. HEADLINE: "American Tourists buried in building collapse in Auckland NZ". But don't worry the reparations from the irresponsible builder will be enough to maintain our reputation as a safe country and win back tourists. Not to mention all the customers who enter shops daily...<br /><br />They do not die today BECAUSE of building codes. You just are happy for some of them to die, that's all. Your position is not rational as evidenced by the 99% majority of NZ who disagree with you and would like to be able to enter buildings without every time checking the building safety certificate.<br /><br />Without any compulsory codes then one would be forced to do so. It is the reason the codes exist.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-68143942710154050162009-09-01T09:45:15.726+12:002009-09-01T09:45:15.726+12:00Owen
Not certifying a building does not cause a...Owen <br /><br />Not certifying a building does not cause any problems whatsoever. A certification does not provide structural integrity. Materials such as steel, concrete and timber erected in the appropriate fashion attain that. It is the task of the designers and builders to make certain that they provide a workable structure which is safe. What PC is trying to point out to you is that if they fail to so do, then they are (or should be) personally responsible for the consequences. Regulations and certifications are only as good as the word of the person who writes them and who signs them. Think on it.<br /><br />BTW are you prepared to check the nature of regulatory applicability and compliance of every building YOU walk into presently? What about the reputation and ability of those who wrote the regulations? What about the reputation and ability of those who signed off on the certifications?<br /><br />LGMLGMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-33975969586862065512009-08-31T20:31:49.581+12:002009-08-31T20:31:49.581+12:00KG: You are still looking at the idea from your ow...KG: You are still looking at the idea from your own perspective. But the problem is that your perspective is not rational because you have not even tried to consider the potential ramifications to your own entering of other peopl's buildings when there is no compulsory building code.<br /><br />The thing is that MOST other people ARE rational and after they take this issue into account they prefer compulsory to voluntary building compliance.<br /><br />Just because you are a cowboy means nothing. Hardly anyboy out there makes decisions like you - not even considering all possible/likely consequences of their actions.<br /><br />Well actually there are some...thy are called children. They do not have the capacity to reason rationally which is why other people make decisions for them.<br /><br />PC: So what you are saying is (that since it was you who proposed the insurance model) that the insurance model has a solution for the safety concern of structures that are unsafe due to intentional non-compliance? Because at the moment, people have to check the compliance of each and every building they enter for the rest of the their days in order to not be buried in rubble...<br /><br />But can you answer that or not? Let me guess...you will evade it once again.<br /><br /><br /><br />PC:Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-19188904316377258592009-08-31T18:02:26.307+12:002009-08-31T18:02:26.307+12:00Owen, you've established nothing because you&#...Owen, you've established nothing because you've read no explanations -- and you're not even on the right thread, ie., where the insurance model is laid out.<br /><br />There is no case to rest because you haven't made an argument.<br /><br />"An argument is a definite series of statements intended to establish a proposition . . . it's not just the automatic nay-saying of everything the other person says . . ."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=fvst" rel="nofollow">As someone once said</a>. :-)Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-53428459898742613932009-08-31T18:01:04.605+12:002009-08-31T18:01:04.605+12:00"How much of that travelling was done in coun..."How much of that travelling was done in countries WITH compulsory building codes."<br /><br />Some. Mostly,not. The bottom line is still (or should be) <i>my property, my choice.</i>KGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01940428991630766942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-79686670223970204142009-08-31T17:44:53.141+12:002009-08-31T17:44:53.141+12:00I am not trying to convince you to change you mind...I am not trying to convince you to change you mind. I am just showing you why your efforts to change other people's minds is futile...becaus they are thinking rationally.<br /><br />You said..."In years of travel all over the world I've never had a building collapse on me."<br /><br />How much of that travelling was done in countries WITH compulsory building codes.<br /><br />It is a different story when anyone is allowed to build anything they like.<br /><br />I rest my case.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-74874831606456216052009-08-31T17:07:02.617+12:002009-08-31T17:07:02.617+12:00"KG: ANd you are happy to need to check the s..."KG: ANd you are happy to need to check the structural integrity of every building for the rest of your life?"<br />The difference is, Owen that <i>I wouldn't bother to</i> because I'm not some mimsy little hand-wringing pantywaist who needs Nanny to hold me hand for me.<br />In years of travel all over the world I've never had a building collapse on me. The odds say it will never happen and I'm perfectly happy with that.<br />It's called being a grown-up.KGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01940428991630766942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-48830990317073186062009-08-31T16:59:29.306+12:002009-08-31T16:59:29.306+12:00KG: ANd you are happy to need to check the structu...KG: ANd you are happy to need to check the structural integrity of every building for the rest of your life?<br /><br />I will remember you when a chinese takeaway falls on your head because you wanted to save the owner a bit of dosh when he did some work upstairs. That kind of situation kind of reminds me of third world countries in Asia...<br /><br />I suppose that is what you want, eh.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-15644500872719447182009-08-31T16:56:58.831+12:002009-08-31T16:56:58.831+12:00aaah...the innocent children argument..
Nowadays w...aaah...the <i>innocent children argument..</i><br />Nowadays when I hear that it make we want to reach for a gun. People who argue in favour of restricting the liberties of adults in order to protest the 'innocent children' appear to be too thick to realize that--carried to it's logical conclusion--it would reduce all of us to the status of children.<br />I don't care about the safety arguments, I don't give a damn if some bureaucrats are saints on wheels. Like most people who know what comparative liberty once felt like I just want the grey leeching bastards to butt out of our lives.KGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01940428991630766942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-73949341922754517082009-08-31T16:48:25.428+12:002009-08-31T16:48:25.428+12:00PC: so that means you cannot answer simple questio...PC: so that means you cannot answer simple questions then? What was that you were saying about planets?<br /><br />Just wanted to know what would be done about the safety of innocent children and visitors/customers under a voluntary building code as you suggest? Do they have to spend their whole lives checking the safety of every building they enter for the rest of their lives...it is obviously something you have never considered. How about considering it?<br /><br />Because you and I both know there will be priovate and commercial buildings under your system that choose not to check their structural designs or builds in order to save costs. Are we all to live in fear of them? How do you solve this very real issue with your otherwise good plan?<br /><br />I am leaning more towards a compulsory building code but that people can engage with a private inspector. Much the same as a company audit is run these days. i think it would encourage most of the efficiency gains you are aiming for without risking innocent lives.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-60896877099216767652009-08-31T16:41:12.536+12:002009-08-31T16:41:12.536+12:00Owen, you do realise don't you that your troll...Owen, you do realise don't you that <a href="http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/08/building-its-not-free-market-maurice.html" rel="nofollow">your trolling is on the wrong thread</a> -- if not the wrong planet.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-32977186318889231842009-08-31T15:14:58.354+12:002009-08-31T15:14:58.354+12:00ANd it has nothing to do with tenants either becau...ANd it has nothing to do with tenants either because they have the ability to check their building's WOF. It is all about people who visit houses and customers in shops. It would be a nightmare for everyone if they had to chack a buildings WOF before entering each time.<br /><br />Can you imagine the hell that this would inflict on unsuspecting tourists?Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-57490731082908954412009-08-31T15:12:53.949+12:002009-08-31T15:12:53.949+12:00People don't have to look for building WOF'...People don't have to look for building WOF's or inspect them themselves because the local council undertakes this on everyone's behalf.<br /><br />You keep looking at things from the point of view of the person building the building when that was never why the regulations for BUilding were made. They were made to keep innocent people safe when they are in buildings they didn't create and have no knowledge of how they were constructed.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-57987375707800440672009-08-31T15:10:28.119+12:002009-08-31T15:10:28.119+12:00TWR: I understand and agree that people should re...TWR: I understand and agree that people should reap what they sow. But how about innocent kids and people who go into shops and other public buildings? They had nothing to do with the construction - are you proposing they should have to inspect each building they enter themselves? Or that they should look for a building certificate before they enter every building? That seems far less practical and more constly than the current system to me.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-85268724910768377912009-08-31T14:25:49.098+12:002009-08-31T14:25:49.098+12:00I think what PC is trying to say is that it should...I think what PC is trying to say is that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they wish to put up with the consequences of shoddy work. If they do, that's their choice, and they might get a cheaper house out of it. If it collapses on them, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Incidentally, the chances of things actually collapsing is pretty remote. A bit of water is more a financial problem than a safety one.twrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-7042675262946487902009-08-31T12:32:16.703+12:002009-08-31T12:32:16.703+12:00Sorry PC but while your points are valid you have ...Sorry PC but while your points are valid you have still failed to assure anyone that a private model with no compulsory building codes would be any more effective than the current system.<br /><br />This is because while the current system has flaws and many houses are built substandardly, this situation is still likely to occur in a private model where there is no need to comply eith anything.<br /><br />Is your argument based solely on cost? If so then private is obviously better. <br /><br />But if your model is based on greater safety from a private model you have failed to assure anyone that it would be safer, merely preferring to ignore the question and divert the topic each time.<br /><br />What you fail to grasp TWR is that the issue is not with those who choose to build things properly but with those who cut corners. A private system will encourage more of this not less because there is no need to get anything checked as long as you are willing to go with low-cost insurance or no insurance.<br /><br />So there is still no reasoned argument for anyone for why a free-market building compliance model would be safer. It will be cheaper there is no doubt, but not safer.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-38331395014475496712009-08-30T14:33:15.581+12:002009-08-30T14:33:15.581+12:00You might note that there are buildings still stan...You might note that there are buildings still standing that were built hundreds of years ago without any help from city councils. One conclusion you could draw from this is that you don't need a certificate from a council to build something that will last.twrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-16860157259922555282009-08-30T13:34:01.079+12:002009-08-30T13:34:01.079+12:00Owen, you've asked and been answered. You may...Owen, you've asked and been answered. You may not like the answers, but since you're not actually responding to them it's hard to tell.<br /><br />So either stop trolling and actually join the discussion, or run along.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-35660136017441323142009-08-29T21:32:15.593+12:002009-08-29T21:32:15.593+12:00KG: What you fail to understand is that people nee...KG: What you fail to understand is that people need to go into buildings as a necessary part of everyday life. Very very few people need to go anywhere near water or uncertified trees (most trees in public places are regularly checked by councils) as part of their necessary duties. That is the reason why buildings need to be certified whereas non-necessary nature doesn't. <br /><br />PC: There is nothing more imperfect than a building which was intentionally not certified to save on building costs collapsing on innocent people such as children. That is what you are suggesting should be allowed to happen. <br /><br />Take away the need for certification and many DIY'ers who have no idea how to build will make ramshackle buildings that are basically deathtraps. But it is usually impossible for someone to know because structural deficiencies are not always visible.<br /><br />I think you misunderstand PC that blame and responsibility matter little to dead people killed because you said there was no need for buildings to be certified.<br /><br />When you come up with a way that people can enter multiple buildings in a week without having to check their certification; and 100% prevent innocent children and customers dying because you think the people who made the building that collapsed on them should be allowed to build deathtraps if they want. THen you can keep quiet.Owen McCaffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588430362938687987noreply@blogger.com