Post #244,714
2/15/06 4:01:03 PM
|
Insurance
Your place burns down. It didn't meet fire code. You have to pay for the cost of fighting it. While I didn't specify, that includes the cost of damage to others' property. Now go try to insure your building. Oh, it will cost more to insure it than to comply with the fire codes? Works for me. Thought experiment. - Laws are as they are today. You are required to meet fire code. A city-paid inspector signs off on it. You have insurance. The place burns down. The city absorbs the cost to fight the fire, passed on to everyone through taxes. Your insurance company covers the damage to your property.
- Second case, you decide meeting the fire code is too expensive. You try to get insurance. The cost is more than complying with the fire code. You decide to comply. The insurance company sends out an inspector. The place burns down. If your insurance company can't prove the building was up to code, they are on the hook for not just your damages but everyone else's, and the cost of fighting the fire.
In which case is the inspector more likely to be thorough? And for the non-financial, what if someone next-door dies because your non-code building burns down. Sounds like negligent homicide to me. It all comes down to a simple idea. Anything I do that causes demonstrable harm to someone else, I'm respnsible for making it right. Not things that may cause harm, things that do cause harm. Anything else is no one's business but mine. ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,721
2/15/06 4:13:46 PM
|
Comes under the category of "reasonable"
Or case 3: You decide meeting the code is too expensive, you don't care about insurance, and you burn down your neighbor's business, killing 3 people, after which you skip town.
If there's a reasonable chance that your firetrap will burn down and possibly kill someone in my building, then yes, I should be able to prevent a situation that *may* cause harm. Because an upset insurance company doesn't do jack for the person dead in the fire. You can't fix everything with money, and there's always someone out there greedy or stupid enough to Just Not Care.
Do whatever you like that can only cause harm to yourself. You can go stuff yourself if you think I'm not going to get upset when you open Moe's Indoor Open Pit Barbecue And Pinata Festival next door, though. If there's a reasonable expectation that your actions can cause harm to me, then I don't want them happening in the first place, insurance or no. I also don't want blind people driving or drunk pilots flying airlines.
I don't trust people's ability to overcome their own stupidity and greed when it comes to my personal safety. Post facto is too late.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,729
2/15/06 4:30:03 PM
|
You just jumped the shark
Or case 3: You decide meeting the code is too expensive, you don't care about insurance, and you burn down your neighbor's business, killing 3 people, after which you skip town. You just argued that we need a strict law to regulate risky behavior on the basis that some people will run from the law after committing actual harm to others. This is the same reasoning that says that because we have some people who keep driving drunk even after we take away their license, that we have to lower the allowable BAC. The problem in both cases is that we are trying to solve a problem with one group of people -- the ones who Just Don't Care -- by applying a law to everyone else. ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,735
2/15/06 4:40:28 PM
|
WTF?
And you think that one line was the sum total of my post... why? Hello, Bryce, is that you? But just to play along: This is the same reasoning that says that because we have some people who keep driving drunk even after we take away their license, that we have to lower the allowable BAC. Uh, wrong. That would be true only if there were no law against driving drunk in the first place. The reason we don't let people drive drunk is because there is a reasonable expectation that they will cause someone else harm. You're saying we should just let them drive drunk, even though we have a pretty good idea that someone is going to get hurt, because we can just raise their insurance rates and throw them in jail afterwards and that will Make It All Right. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,741
2/15/06 4:53:34 PM
|
Do you support random roadblocks?
Because otherwise, the only time police stop a drunk driver is when they see him driving badly. And once that happens, I don't care why he was driving badly. Is it OK to weave from lane to lane because you're on your cell phone? Is it OK to run a red light because you're tired? Is it OK to cut someone off because you're eating while you drive?
All those are cases of actually doing something wrong. We already have laws against them. If that's not enough, if we want to pre-emptively arrest anyone who we suspect is more likely to do something wrong, then we need the roadblocks. And while they've got us stopped, they might as well check for unregistered weapons, in case we might go hurt someone. And they can check for fertilizer in case we might want to blow something up.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,755
2/15/06 5:11:17 PM
2/15/06 5:16:21 PM
|
No.
I'm fine with stopping them when they're weaving.
Buildings don't move, so it's more effective to inspect them as part of the process of creating the building. Different situation with a different practical solution.
I'm going to repeat all of this too, since you insist on dragging this off track:
If there's a reasonable chance that your firetrap will burn down and possibly kill someone in my building, then yes, I should be able to prevent a situation that *may* cause harm. Because an upset insurance company doesn't do jack for the person dead in the fire. You can't fix everything with money, and there's always someone out there greedy or stupid enough to Just Not Care.
Do whatever you like that can only cause harm to yourself. You can go stuff yourself if you think I'm not going to get upset when you open Moe's Indoor Open Pit Barbecue And Pinata Festival next door, though. If there's a reasonable expectation that your actions can cause harm to me, then I don't want them happening in the first place, insurance or no. I also don't want blind people driving or drunk pilots flying airlines.
I don't trust people's ability to overcome their own stupidity and greed when it comes to my personal safety. Post facto is too late.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Edited by admin
Feb. 15, 2006, 05:16:21 PM EST
|
Post #244,724
2/15/06 4:17:41 PM
|
That's too simplistic.
IMO. The fire code laws don't exist to make insurance affordable, they exist to reduce the risk of fire in the first place. Fire departments, and regulations designed to limit fires, existed [link|http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_031400_firedepartme.htm|before] insurance: The history of the fire service in the United States begins in New Amsterdam (later New York), when Director-General Peter Stuyvesant appointed four fire wardens in 1648. Similar legislation followed in Boston in 1653, and this city purchased its first fire engine in 1654. Philadelphia secured an engine in 1719, and New York in 1731.
Early efforts at fire prevention and extinction relied on chimney laws, bucket brigades, simple ladders, and hand-pumped engines imported from Europe, all manned by loosely organized volunteers. Actual fire companies and departments, however, were active in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia early in the eighteenth century. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, as well as other prominent men, were among the ranks of these early volunteers. The earliest mention I've found of fire insurance is [link|http://www.firemarks.co.uk/History.htm|1667] in the UK. Society doesn't merely exist to retroactively punish people for offense or lack of foresight - it exists to "promote the general welfare". Having safe public places certainly fits within that mandate. Cheers, Scott.
|
