It's a far stretch to say that our being willing to live with only 250 gallons of water a day rather than having a guaranteed availability of 400 gallons endangers anybody. And our building a house where it can be seen from the water isn't endangering anybody -- it's just that they don't like to see it there.
As to safety codes, we did without them for thousands of years. The great houses and cathedrals of Europe didn't have to comply with building codes, and they've lasteld longer than anything in America.
Basically, I think people have the basic right, and duty, to take primary responsibility for themselves. In areas where there are actual and significant dangers to others -- such as in row housing or apartments where others share the building -- some codes are appropriate. But in a house isolated on five acres of land? No.
<i.Those lines are drawn by elected officials or those
accountable to them, and reflect the preferences of the community.
Well, not really. As Karen and I have been pointing out here, on the national level, to a significant degree the bureaucracy is immune to the attempts of elected officials to rein it in. I don't think many, if any, ordinary citizens had a hand in drafting the building codes. What happens is that the most stringent options always get chosen because somebody always paints the worst case scenario picture of what might happen if we have laxer standards. So everything gets thrown in there. And basically there's a national code which is drafted far, far away from the scrutiny of elected politicians.
If the building code were actually initiated, voted on, and modified by local elected officials -- the people I see on the street daily -- I might agree with you. But their answer is just "well, we don't write the code." End of discussion.
As to the age-old argument that everything you do affects other people because they have to rescue you, this is in theory true. But if we accept that as a justification for laws of limitation, there is right to freedom, but freedom becomes redefined as what the government hasn't yet chosen to prevent you from doing. Virtually every human activity involves some risk -- people have heart attacks from having sex, they slip in the bathtub, they trip over rugs, and emergency medical personnel have to be sent to assist them and risk their lives driving at high speeds to their aid. So by your argument, government has a right to prohibit sex, prohibit owning rugs, prohibit taking showers. We just have to hope that the nice government won't get around to taking away those rights.
I guess it's just that I have a different view of the rights of people and the proper role of government than you do. |
