Sean Roach on December 16, 2009, 01:12:33 pm
Simple.  If I didn't trust my neighbor to keep a tight lid on his place, I'd make sure the seal between me and him worked real well.
There are no building inspectors for fences between properties.  If your neighbor can't keep his fence tight, and you have a problem with mingling between your property and his, your put up your own just outside his.  There are many cases of parallel fences in the area where I live.  Of course, frequently BOTH are down.  Cattle are like that.

If it was being built for ME, by a contractor I didn't already trust, I'd probably turn to Angie's List or even the BBB.  I'd ask around to see who got a good deal on a good dome.

If it was being provided to me as a part of another service, (perhaps I was enrolling kids and wanted to know they wouldn't suddenly breathe vacuum, but the place wasn't mine, nor was it a neighbor,) I'd ask to see documentation that the dome was secure; the mark or signature of a trusted inspector or construction firm.

I might simply say that if it's safe enough for my neighbor, it's safe enough for me, and go on with my life too.  If my neighbor starts agitating, I'd become more receptive to criticisms of the dome, and at a point chosen by me, I'd decide it was potentially too dangerous to ignore.  I'd either do a little research of my own, or just take the short way out, and change service providers.  I'd call this the natural way.

terry_freeman on December 17, 2009, 04:36:52 pm
What about building inspectors? Well, let's start by asking "who cares?"

Seriously. Who cares? Well, the owner cares. He wants a sound building. Might he call the equivalent of Underwriters Laboratories ( a privately-funded organization which certifies that electrical equipment is safe to use, and many other important issues ) to inspect the building? Who else cares? The builder does - he wants a good reputation. Buildings which collapse don't help. So he is likely to call a competent inspector. UL is hired by the manufacturers for similar reasons - they want to preserve their reputations.

Who else cares? The people who live and work in the building. If they see a "Seal of Approval" from the Building Inspector's Labs, they'll feell a lot safer.

In short, there is no reason why building inspection - or any other service - must be provided by a government agency, and there are many reasons not to do so. Everything we know about the disadvantages of monopolies vis a vis customers - high cost and low quality - applies particularly to agencies which can not be fired - that is, government agencies.

If it were not for the government, you would have your choice of cable companies and phone companies and so forth. In fact, when ATT's patents expired, thousands of phone companies sprang up. ATT invented a lot of specious reasoning about "natural monopolies" to justify government grants of monopoly power, to squeeze out their competitors. It was sold as a benefit to the customers, but it was really a benefit to ATT.  This is a well-established branch of economic research known as "regulatory capture."
 


KBCraig on December 18, 2009, 05:09:00 am
What about building inspectors? Well, let's start by asking "who cares?"

Seriously. Who cares? Well, the owner cares.

And that's where the concern should end.

A recent series of articles out of New Hampshire have dealt with a small group of homeless men who have built their own shack on private property (with the owner's permission), with donated materials. They have asked for nothing from the government, except to be left alone.

Wouldn't you know it, the local government is hassling them over fire code and occupancy permit violations. Because they're "concerned for their safety", of course; kicking them out of this shack would mean they have to turn to government homeless shelters, where their property is stolen and they are subject to assault.

The most recent article:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=f6af31da-eab0-483e-9d39-7a992c2768fe

terry_freeman on December 24, 2009, 08:29:27 pm
Theft and assault must be considered "minor inconveniences", compared to the benefits of keeping tabs on those ungrateful wretches.

dough560 on December 26, 2009, 02:33:23 am
Governments work hard to justify their actions.  At the same time they enact rules to protect the ruling class.

Supposedly one of the major causes of the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the arise of the Constitution was state by state interference with trade.This interference was through tolls and taxes.  A primary purpose of the Constitution was the elimination of the interference through the "Commerce Clause".

Today the Federal Government uses the  "Commerce Clause of the Constitution" to restrict trade and technology instead of insuring free trade between the states.

Under Emanate Domain, select government officials are  not subject to criminal or civil suit when they deliberately violate their oath of office.  I suspect the courts have held the oath is not binding or actionable.

The primary source of control of wayward politicians is the election process.  However, incumbents have rigged the election rules to the point an incumbent is hardly ever defeated.

The rule of law and the non-aggression principle arose with the spread of easily operated, effective personal arms.  It is cheaper and safer to go through arbitration.

Today, the government seeks to prohibit  personal arms due to a fear of the citizen.  Today's Politically Correct Thought is the "Common Man" is incompetent and can not be trusted to "Properly" use personal weapons.  The more this myth grows, the greater the government's reach for power.

Brugle on December 26, 2009, 11:41:58 am
Supposedly one of the major causes of the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the arise of the Constitution was state by state interference with trade.
I've heard the same, but the source (a government-approved textbook) was highly suspect.  What little I've read since suggests that the truth is precisely opposite.  From the point of view of politicians, the failure of the Articles of Confederation was that trade controls (tariffs, etc.) were easy to avoid by smuggling between the states.  With the Constitution, trade controls enforced over the whole group of states would be harder to avoid.  (Of course, the Constitution also enabled politicians to increase their power in other ways.)

Rocketman on December 26, 2009, 11:54:16 am
That's partly it Brugle but the main reason was that the Articles of Confederation gave the states in the eyes of the federalists too much power at the expense of the federal government which in comparison was weak.  As long as the AC was in force the federal government didn't have the wiggle room that it needed to grow.  That's why we have the Constitution now.

dough560 on December 27, 2009, 12:46:27 am
Brugle, What you read was not incorrect. You are partly right.  With strict government controls, black markets and smuggling expand exponentially.  [Alcohol Prohibition gave organized crime major footholds throughout the US.  This set the stage for the War on Drugs.  (Neither one worked as publicly intended.)]  From the various Government positions, the problem was the governments were not getting their cut of the profits.  They acted to insure they would.  And set the stage for the rise of their competition. 

Government Officials act through eminent domain and  sovereign immunity, enacting laws patently unconstitutional.  They know under existing law they may not be brought to task for their actions, but may only be removed from office.  Unless they commit a publicly abhorred offense, they will will not suffer for the loss of their job.

The Democrats have shown they are willing to risk the loss of their individual jobs in order to secure power which they plan to use to control the government and population, by any means necessary.

Rocketman on December 27, 2009, 11:08:07 am
I would add to what Dough just said by looking at legal gambling also known as the Lottery.  If you and a friend place a twenty dollar bet on a football game you have just broken the law, but you can take your entire weekly paycheck and go to the grocery store and put it on a chance of one in say twenty million of winning the lottery.  The difference is that the state gets a substantial cut so that makes it legal, of course you and your friend betting on odds of roughly 50/50 with no cut for the state is illegal.  See how government works?  >:(

terry_freeman on December 28, 2009, 10:22:22 pm
I have to toss in a GrammarNazi alert.

Sovereign Immunity means government agents can do what they like because they are the government and you are not.

Eminent domain means the government can take your land and pay you beans for it.

Rocketman on December 30, 2009, 05:00:37 pm
I have to toss in a GrammarNazi alert.

Sovereign Immunity means government agents can do what they like because they are the government and you are not.

Eminent domain means the government can take your land and pay you beans for it.
Terry, you almost got it right.  You forgot to add "because they are the government and you are not."   At the end of the eminent domain sentence.

dough560 on December 31, 2009, 04:20:09 am
Terry, you're right. I have misused Sovereign Immunity and Imminent Domain interchangeably .  Rocketman, To either term, you can add:  They have more guns than you do and are not reluctant to use them.

Telling isn't it, how they restrict access to specialized ammunition, firearms, sighting, night vision and thermal sighting / imagining equipment.  Not to mention certain types of body armor and surveillance equipment.

The entire focus of the Second Amendment, was the citizen having equipment equal to or better than the government.

Rocketman on December 31, 2009, 10:48:06 am
100 percent in agreement with that last post.  If we had the 2nd amendment that our founding fathers wanted us to have people could own F-15's loaded with cluster bombs and sidewinders, M-1A1 Abrams with a 120 smoothbore cannons or Ageis cruisers loaded with tomahawk missles.  The only problems being how can we pay for the upkeep and how do we keep the keys from junior so he doesn't pick up his prom date in the Abrams. 

terry_freeman on January 01, 2010, 12:24:43 am
Back in the day, there actually were hundreds, even thousands of privately-owned warships. They sold shares, dividing the cost among many people. No reason why we could not do the same. They were driven out by rent-seeking navies.

Who would pay for big, expensive systems in a voluntaryist world? I imagine that people like Bill Gates who own vast enterprises would have an interest in large-scale defense, since their interests are not tied to one particular storefront or factory - it is important to have customers, after all.

Many theorists focus on insurance companies; they'd certainly have an interest in a peaceful environment.

I rather think that wealthier entrepreneurs would organize and provide a lot of funding for militia in their communities. There would be shooting competitions and war games. Think of today's laser-tag / air gun / three-gun matches extended to include exercises with tanks, mortars, IEDs, and so forth. 

wdg3rd on January 01, 2010, 11:07:33 am
100 percent in agreement with that last post.  If we had the 2nd amendment that our founding fathers wanted us to have people could own F-15's loaded with cluster bombs and sidewinders, M-1A1 Abrams with a 120 smoothbore cannons or Ageis cruisers loaded with tomahawk missles.  The only problems being how can we pay for the upkeep and how do we keep the keys from junior so he doesn't pick up his prom date in the Abrams. 

Where's the problem with the kid dating in the back seat of the vehicle he likes best?  (The back seat of an Abrams is safer to screw in than the back seat of a Warthog).
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

 

anything