With Grenfell Tower, we’ve seen what ‘ripping up red tape’ really looks like

[Bethere]

For years successive governments have built what they call a bonfire of regulations. They have argued that “red tape” impedes our freedom and damages productivity. Britain, they have assured us, would be a better place with fewer forms to fill in, fewer inspections and less enforcement.
But what they call red tape often consists of essential public protections that defend our lives, our futures and the rest of the living world. The freedom they celebrate is highly selective: in many cases it means the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor, of corporations to exploit their workers, landlords to exploit their tenants and industry of all kinds to use the planet as its dustbin. As RH Tawney remarked, “Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-deregulation

[Ethereal]

"Regulation" is largely a pretext for cronyism and power lust. It's sold to the public as "safety" and "transparency". It's a very effective racket.

[Chris]

Going along with Eth, as Lord Acton said, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Further, how can some elites in DC know what's in my interests, what I value and want, to be able to decide what's best for me, or you, or anyone, for that matter, but themselves? No, they can't. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

[Bethere]

Going along with Eth, as Lord Acton said, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Further, how can some elites in DC know what's in my interests, what I value and want, to be able to decide what's best for me, or you, or anyone, for that matter, but themselves? No, they can't. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

Building codes and such are largely local in nature.

[Tahuyaman]

Of course it's not ALWAYS a good thing. It is in many cases though.

[Bethere]

Of course it's not ALWAYS a good thing. It is in many cases though.

How about in the case of Grenfell Tower?

[Dr. Who]

Building codes and fire codes tend to evolve often because of tragedy or at the very least property damage. Building codes involve engineering best practices, which can simply be adopted because of the development of new materials, new techniques or in response to factors like changing weather patterns and cycles, which may be better understood now than 50 years ago. For instance, in northern climates things like snow load factors affect building code. If receiving 8 feet of snow all at once is expected to only happen once every 100 years, the code for roof construction will not be adjusted to accommodate that level of snow load. Now if science's understanding of weather cycles changes, such that the cycle may really be that such a snow phenomenon is likely to occur every 25 years, that is then factored into the building code. Similarly the code for the building envelope is much different in California than in New York because California receives far less rain.

Things like height restrictions on wood frame construction are both based on engineering factors as well as fire safety factors. These are not useless or nice to have codes. They are in place to ensure that buildings don't collapse or become fire traps. They are not always convenient and add cost to construction, but they are not put in place for frivolous reasons. It's not just useless bureaucracy or predicated on marketing some entity's product. Building codes are rigorously vetted by engineering associations and fire services before they are submitted as changes and modifications to the code.

[Bethere]

Building codes and fire codes tend to evolve often because of tragedy or at the very least property damage. Building codes involve engineering best practices, which can simply be adopted because of the development of new materials, new techniques or in response to factors like changing weather patterns and cycles, which may be better understood now than 50 years ago. For instance, in northern climates things like snow load factors affect building code. If receiving 8 feet of snow all at once is expected to only happen once every 100 years, the code for roof construction will not be adjusted to accommodate that level of snow load. Now if science's understanding of weather cycles changes, such that the cycle may really be that such a snow phenomenon is likely to occur every 25 years, that is then factored into the building code. Similarly the code for the building envelope is much different in California than in New York because California receives far less rain.

Thinks like height restrictions on wood frame construction are both based on engineering factors as well as fire safety factors. These are not useless or nice to have codes. They are in place to ensure that buildings don't collapse or become fire traps. They are not always convenient and add cost to construction, but they are not put in place for frivolous reasons. It's not just useless bureaucracy or predicated on marketing some entity's product. Building codes are rigorously vetted by engineering associations and fire services before they are submitted as changes and modifications to the code.

The Japanese earthquake experience teaches us that such codes are a huge lifesaver as well as a good thing for property both public and private.

Lesser earthquakes, such as in Istambul 1999, resulted in massive/needless destruction and devastating loss of life.

[Tahuyaman]

Of course it's not ALWAYS a good thing. It is in many cases though.

your poll question doesn't ask about one specific case. It said "Is deregulation always a good thing". I answered the question.

[Chris]

Building codes and such are largely local in nature.

As a localist, I'm fine with local laws.

But people tend to thing bigger is better for the solutions they dream up.