The Restoration of The British Monarchy. Is It Possible? - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14864842
This whole thing was brought up by a discussion of the thesis of Kuhnheldt-Leiden in his work "Liberty of Equality?" who argues that monarchies are self-interested authoritarian hierarchies that are not totalitarian either in the sense of mob-totalitarianism as in representative government, or as in individual totalitarianism as in the case of Hitler or a mao. Rather, he argues that the preservation of family rule in governance has typically required the monarch to avoid the intrusive behavior of regulation that is common in "democratic societies" today in order to prevent rebellion and overthrow.

There is a difference between regulation, which is usually introduced by democratic governments to protect the public from imposture or fraud on the part of merchants or cartels (as Adam Smith pointed out, most associations of merchants have as their chief aim the defrauding of the public), and the interference of that state in its citizens' everyday lives which is characteristic of totalitarian populist states. Does a modern democratic (or semi-democratic) state intervene more actively in the everyday activity of society as a whole? Undoubtedly. But there are good reasons for this - the public must, after all, be protected from the depredations of the capitalists in order to avoid a social and political catastrophe, and the development of modern industrial-technological society requires a higher degree of micromanagement than a feudal social and economic system, which pretty much runs itself due to the devolved and localised nature of social and economic power in a feudal system. This is not the same thing as a 'totalitarian' system, though I suppose from the point of view of a feudalist almost everything that isn't feudalism looks totalitarian. Lol.

He makes some compelling points, and he sees a direct connection between democratic and totalitarian institutions (much based on his experience as an Austrian who witnessed the rise of Hitler out of democratic institutions).

Hitler rose out of the experience of the First World War and of Germany's defeat in that industrial slaughterhouse; and he didn't rise 'out of' democracy, he hated and destroyed democracy, which he saw as a sign of degeneracy. He certainly used democratic institutions to gain power, but then so did the Bolsheviks from 1917-21, who didn't hesitate to use the Duma and the workers' soviets to gain political leverage in their bid for power. Does this mean that the Bolsheviks rose out of democracy in Russia? :eh:
#14864846
Funnily enough it is not well known but true that there are vast tracts of farm land in the UK which are owned by HM's Armed forces, that is owned directly by HMAF, worked as commercial farms by tenants who pay rent to the Military for the privilege. The funnest thing is this isn't a hang over from yea olde ancient times when such arrangements were considered by modern people to be the normal way of funding the military caste, ie: so-called "feudal times", the 11th century or thereabouts. No, all this land was acquired by the military in confiscations during WW2 in aid of the war effort, and they just quietly kept it when it was all over.

The whig theory of history is once again proven bunkum by actual reality.

---------

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Whig-T ... so-popular
#14864932
Potemkin wrote:Does a modern democratic (or semi-democratic) state intervene more actively in the everyday activity of society as a whole? Undoubtedly.


I suppose this is the only point that I was trying to make, in piggy-back, to that of Kuhnheldt-Leiden. The fact that you go on to extrapolate the benevolent reasoning behind the regulations is quite beside the point, it would be unfair for me to assume that even the most statist of marxists was malevolent in his intent to expand government regulations in the lives of individuals (I do think they mean well from their worldview perspective).

But....Good intentions or not, my point was only to say that making a 1-to-1 comparison between monarchies and modern dictators (since WWI) regarding their powers over individuals is a false equivalency. @SolarCross, said this well earlier, that there is a difference between authoritarian and totalitarian and both modern representative democracies and and modern dictatorships are forms of totalitarianism, but the former is popular totalitarianism whereas the later is authoritarian totalitarianism, monarchy is neither (historically speaking).

Potemkin wrote:the development of modern industrial-technological society requires a higher degree of micromanagement than a feudal social and economic system, which pretty much runs itself due to the devolved and localised nature of social and economic power in a feudal system. This is not the same thing as a 'totalitarian' system, though I suppose from the point of view of a feudalist almost everything that isn't feudalism looks totalitarian. Lol.


This is also to the point I was making; however, I would qualify that even the British Monarchy during the height of the Industrial Revolution still managed to allow a great deal of individual liberty compared to, lets say, Castro's Cuba or Ceausescu's Romania less than a hundred years later. There is a difference between micromanagement and general management. Favoring the latter to the former does not mean that any scrutiny of such has to come from a perspective as extreme as medieval feudalism as you are implying.

A Nationalist protectionism will be broad and not specific and will likely accomplish many of the same ends as totalitarian micromanagement even though the teleology is quite different. Totalitarian regimes desire to create a change in the population over time. This is true of Marxist thought and even National Socialism/Fascism (though for different end goals), a Traditionalist Monarchist and Nationalist, such as myself, wants to preserve those systems that guarantee and promote social vitality alone and also wants to protect the people, even from themselves in a broad sense; whereas, libertarianism doesn't give a shit what the people do or become over time.

But this is the point, it is part of the essence of such structures to be totalitarian, something the American fathers failed to realize when they combined the essentially incompatible ideas of minarchism and popular government in their own system. It is not in the essence of a natural occuring monarchy to be totalitarian, because it is not in the interest of such structurally; whereas, the expansion of power is implicit in both mob rule, and of a dictator that is given authority over a ubiquitous system of government that manages, fully, both the economy and socio-civil spheres.

Potemkin wrote:Hitler rose out of the experience of the First World War and of Germany's defeat in that industrial slaughterhouse; and he didn't rise 'out of' democracy, he hated and destroyed democracy,


I don't deny any of this, this isn't my point, but you do mention my point here:

Potemkin wrote:He certainly used democratic institutions to gain power,


Bingo. This is Kuhnheldt-Leiden's historical criticism, that democratic institutions tend towards absolutism and create a highly involved and micromanaging system of government that easily transfers from an inefficient mob to a highly efficient dictator via a transfer of power. This is what is meant by arising out of democratic institutions.

Democratic institutions in the west arose out of a reaction against European monarchies, and then, the mob expanded government overreach and created massive power structures that they failed to manage very well, then at a time of crisis or concern, a "strong-man" arises to take the reigns of these power-structures previously created by democracies. We have seen this happen over and over again from the French Revolution to the present.

Kuhnheldt-Leiden's point is that there is a direct line of development from democratic institutions to totalitarian regimes in Europe and the world abroad. The former sets up the later.

Potemkin wrote:but then so did the Bolsheviks from 1917-21, who didn't hesitate to use the Duma and the workers' soviets to gain political leverage in their bid for power. Does this mean that the Bolsheviks rose out of democracy in Russia?


Lets be honest though, after the October Revolution, who was in power was no longer a question. So I don't know if we can compare the Bolsheviks acquisition of power with that of Hitler. Hitler's rise was less of a violent revolution and more of sinister manipulation of existing power structures combined with, at first, covert violence.

In a sense though, Marxists throughout the world have infiltrated democratic institutions for the purpose of using them to achieve goals in line with their ideology. Now, don't get me wrong, I do not think this is a bad strategy, it is perfectly reasonable, but one can easily see how such scenarios could progress from a marxist-leaning social democracy to the installation of "permanent" leader who would act to make the whole program more efficient.

That is Kunheldt-Leiden's point. Like I said, I do not fully agree with him, but there is something to this that should not be dismissed out of hand.

1. Democracies expand power structures.

2. Democracies are inefficient, partisan, and divisive.

3. Dictators, have, historically arisen out of such institutions to solve the inefficiency problem, and often with an initial popular support.

4. Such Dictators are totalitarian because they take over power structures initiated by the previous democratic institutions.

5. None of the above is true of natural monarchies, historically speaking.
#14864966
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So why press the matter? Your argument proves too much to claim that a lack of regulations v. historic monarchy was merely a pre-scientific coincidence.

Likewise, whether or not monarchies or representative democracies have either more or less regulations than one another has yet to be demonstrated by anyone.

So, whats your point?


Nothing you are saying here seems to contradict the notion that there is no reason to assume monarchies at better at regulations, which was my point.

Feel free to reply to me and repeat

Victoribus Spolia wrote:.....
.....what PoD and I are bickering about (and quite pointlessly as all conversations I have with him usually are), is whether or not monarchies were intrusive into the lives of individual citizens via regulations on a level equal or greater than that of representative governments today.


To be honest, it seems like you are not clear on what I was discussing. I was not, for example, discussing intrusiveness.

As to your point about a comparison, I think that modern monarchies with a capitalist economy would not have significantly more or less regulations than modern democracies with a capitalist market. As Potemkin points out, modern regulations are a reaction to modern economics.
#14865003
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Let me just be clear.

Interestingly, the rest of your post has muddied things for me a lot.

what PoD and I are bickering about (and quite pointlessly as all conversations I have with him usually are), is whether or not monarchies were intrusive into the lives of individual citizens via regulations on a level equal or greater than that of representative governments today. he seems to concede the point that this is historically true

I thought it was you who had conceded that historically, monarchies were more intrusive

but argues it was merely a historical coincidence

and I thought it was you who said it was historical coincidence, and that modern monarchies would be the less-regulated environments you desire. That's why I pointed out that most modern monarchies are very intrusive into people's lives - religious and personal.

I responded that this can only be demonstrated by a comparison of modern democracies v. modern monarchies to see if this, in fact, is the case. I have not done that research yet and so I do not have a definitive answer at this time.

Well, we have the examples I've suggested. If you want something objective, how about Freedom House's Civil Liberties rankings? Sort on the 'CL' column, and you find the power-wielding monarchies score pretty poorly (constitutional monarchies do fine, however).

This whole thing was brought up by a discussion of the thesis of Kuhnheldt-Leiden in his work "Liberty of Equality?" who argues that monarchies are self-interested authoritarian hierarchies that are not totalitarian either in the sense of mob-totalitarianism as in representative government, or as in individual totalitarianism as in the case of Hitler or a mao. Rather, he argues that the preservation of family rule in governance has typically required the monarch to avoid the intrusive behavior of regulation that is common in "democratic societies" today in order to prevent rebellion and overthrow.

Which makes little sense. If he thinks that monarchs will do what's needed to keep a mob happy and prevent their overthrow, then it's no better than his scenario of "mob-totalitarianism" at best. But it's more likely they will regulate and intrude to hold on to their power. And you have the problem of inherited power wielded by inadequate people.
#14865027
I'd like to see an aggressive purge carried out on whatever royal families remain as heads of state, in the West at least. I don't see how any self respecting human could put someone else's family name ahead of their own.

If I'm not the king then no one else should be.

I also have a strong dislike for hereditary politicians.

For a long time in Ireland there was a problem with families being aligned with certain political parties, probably a by product of the civil war. Fortunately, thanks in part to the financial crash this is no longer as prevalent.
#14866266
Pants-of-dog wrote:To be honest, it seems like you are not clear on what I was discussing. I was not, for example, discussing intrusiveness.


I was, but you refused to discuss with me the different purposes as to regulations, nor would you concede any. I have had the same point the entire thread, Any disjunction or confusion is therefore of your own device.


Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Interestingly, the rest of your post has muddied things for me a lot.


well, things are rarely as clear as we would like them to be. This admission at least shows that you desire some objectivity, which is admirable.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I thought it was you who had conceded that historically, monarchies were more intrusive


No, I made no such concession.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:and I thought it was you who said it was historical coincidence, and that modern monarchies would be the less-regulated environments you desire. That's why I pointed out that most modern monarchies are very intrusive into people's lives - religious and personal.


No, that was not my argument, that was PoDs, though I am not opposed to some intrusiveness, my point was that historically monarchies were less intrusive, but in response to PoD who said that this gap was a historical coincidence, and in light of some agreement between myself and Potemkin, I made the point that instrusiveness into people's lives is conceptually unrealisitic for a monarchy of atleast a semi-absolutist nature because it is not in the interests of such and that the political anthropology of Monarchal societies is different than that of either representative democracies or totalitarian dictatorships.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Which makes little sense. If he thinks that monarchs will do what's needed to keep a mob happy and prevent their overthrow, then it's no better than his scenario of "mob-totalitarianism" at best. But it's more likely they will regulate and intrude to hold on to their power. And you have the problem of inherited power wielded by inadequate people.


We have representative power wielded by inadequate people now..... :lol:

As to your point here though, I think you are erecting a bit of a straw man. Of course, a monarchy will have some instrusion and will be irritating by the standards or most libertarians; however, its degree of instrusiveness is limited by its own self-interests.

This is not so much the case in representative governments, for if a party holds majority power it feels that as a collective it has the right to legislate whatever it more or less wants and it does so as a wager against the chances of a sweep election, or that in the event of such that the party will be erradicated, and against the chances that the opposition party will overturn everything they did. Since the chances of any such outcomes are relatively unlikely, the very fact of majoritarian rule has been historically sufficient to effectiverly stifle resistance to the legislature's expansion of power and control over the populace.

Representative democracies have increase bueracracy and instrusivenes overtime. Totalitarians typically hold the power they do because they take over such as already created under the democratic regimes that precede their assent.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Well, we have the examples I've suggested. If you want something objective, how about Freedom House's Civil Liberties rankings? Sort on the 'CL' column, and you find the power-wielding monarchies score pretty poorly (constitutional monarchies do fine, however).


I think the definition of Freedom House is highly suspect. I would consider, for instance, most western european countries as highly repressive. Their definition of "civil liberties" is not what a libertarian would call freedom or a lack of instrusiveness.

Let me give an example of such: (note: I do not necessarily advocate any or all of the following)

If you can't: willfully educate your own children at home, possess an Ak-47 with ammo, drink booze, smoke pot or even opium openly on your own property, openly discuss controversial opinions about minorities with your neighbors, including how you feel slavery was good or that the holocaust didn't happen, build a home on your own land with materials from your own land, smack your kids assess with a switch or a wooden spoon, raise chickens in your yard, start a campfire in your front lawn where you burn all of your paper-waste, or give birth in your basement without government instrusion, then you are not a free under the point I am making.

You can willfully do, almost none of these, in any one state of Western Europe without express government permission or regulation, and often not at all. You could do almost all of these, or their equivalents, during the time of absolutist monarchies in Europe. Therefore, are absolutist or semi-absolutist monarchies more or less intrusive? Also, am I more likely to be able to do these sorts of things in Jordan or Saudi Arabia? Possibly. Though, I do not know if Islamic monarchies are of the same nature as historically Christian monarchies on these issues and they are definitely not the form of monarchies under discussion by Kuhnheldt-Leiden.

Overall, I believe monarchies will be less intrusive on these points and they have been so and i don't think the changes under representative governments can be solely explained by economic changes or increases in scientific knowledge as some have insinuated on this thread. There are a whole host of justifications for the changes, but the patterns are the same. Representative Democracies increase their intrusion into people's personal business via an expansion of power and are able to get away with it.

As Kuhnheldt-Leiden argued, the chances of Louis XIV getting away with the Prohibition of Alcohol as the American congress was able to, is highly unlikely. He neither had the beuracracy to enforce it, nor would he have had the will to do so, nor would it have been in his interest to do so. Why? Because monarchies rarely are in the business of changing the nature of the population, nor can their royal families risk inflaming the masses into a potential revolt. In America, the congress felt that it was Vox Populi, Vox Dei and therefore that they had license to do as they willed and they had likewise created the bueracratic machine to enforce such a will, with little fear of threat from the people. Hence, representative governments can create unprecedented amounts of laws, regulations, agencies, and instrusions. Unlike monarchies.
#14866278
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I was, but you refused to discuss with me the different purposes as to regulations, nor would you concede any. I have had the same point the entire thread, Any disjunction or confusion is therefore of your own device.


Considering the fact that you have not mentioned or supported any other reason for regualtions, your complaint about me refusing to discuss them seems more like victim posturing.

No, that was not my argument, that was PoDs, though I am not opposed to some intrusiveness, my point was that historically monarchies were less intrusive, but in response to PoD who said that this gap was a historical coincidence, and in light of some agreement between myself and Potemkin, I made the point that instrusiveness into people's lives is conceptually unrealisitic for a monarchy of atleast a semi-absolutist nature because it is not in the interests of such and that the political anthropology of Monarchal societies is different than that of either representative democracies or totalitarian dictatorships.


At first you accuse me of not wanting to discuss intrusiveness, and then you claim I was discussing that.

....
If you can't: willfully educate your own children at home, possess an Ak-47 with ammo, drink booze, smoke pot or even opium openly on your own property, openly discuss controversial opinions about minorities with your neighbors, including how you feel slavery was good or that the holocaust didn't happen, build a home on your own land with materials from your own land, smack your kids assess with a switch or a wooden spoon, raise chickens in your yard, start a campfire in your front lawn where you burn all of your paper-waste, or give birth in your basement without government instrusion, then you are not a free under the point I am making.

You can willfully do, almost none of these, in any one state of Western Europe without express government permission or regulation, and often not at all. You could do almost all of these, or their equivalents, during the time of absolutist monarchies in Europe. Therefore, are absolutist or semi-absolutist monarchies more or less intrusive? Also, am I more likely to be able to do these sorts of things in Jordan or Saudi Arabia? Possibly. Though, I do not know if Islamic monarchies are of the same nature as historically Christian monarchies on these issues and they are definitely not the form of monarchies under discussion by Kuhnheldt-Leiden.


I can do several of these things, and have done so.

The only one that seems to qualify as regulations is the ine about building your own home on your own land. If you live in the country, you can do so. Unless you are indigenous, in which case you cannot, thanks to colonialism. The reason you cannot do so in a city is due to fire safety.

Now assuming that the laws of physics do not magically change when monarchies are around, why would monarchies in this day and age ignore fire safety regulations?

Overall, I believe monarchies will be less intrusive on these points and they have been so and i don't think the changes under representative governments can be solely explained by economic changes or increases in scientific knowledge as some have insinuated on this thread. There are a whole host of justifications for the changes, but the patterns are the same. Representative Democracies increase their intrusion into people's personal business via an expansion of power and are able to get away with it.


Maybe you should support this claim with actual examples. As it stands now, this is just a counter-intuitive hypothesis.
#14866301
Victoribus Spolia wrote:my point was that historically monarchies were less intrusive

Ah, here's the problem - you're wrong. Monarchies were, of course, far more intrusive. They had laws about who was allowed to set up businesses, what religion you could be, who had to work for others, what sex you had to be to own property, what you could or couldn't say about the monarch or the state in general - they were really oppressive. They imposed taxes on all kinds of things (eg windows), and people didn't get a say in it. In a democracy, you do. And they'd use their troops against you if you complained.

Why do you think there were revolts against monarchies? Do you really think people were saying "our life is just too free, we need to restrict ourselves"?
#14866669
Pants-of-dog wrote:Considering the fact that you have not mentioned or supported any other reason for regualtions, your complaint about me refusing to discuss them seems more like victim posturing.


Sure. Whatever.

Pants-of-dog wrote:At first you accuse me of not wanting to discuss intrusiveness, and then you claim I was discussing that.


You are obviously struggling with reading comprehension. I know its a common problem for you, but you can get help. Local tutors aren't that expensive, I might even give a charitable donation towards the cause of your proper care.

What I said was your argument, and not mine, was not "instrusiveness," but this assumption by Prosthetic Conscience:
and I thought it was you who said it was historical coincidence, and that modern monarchies would be the less-regulated environments you desire.


Pants-of-dog wrote:I can do several of these things, and have done so.


Well I didn't say none of these are permitted anywhere, but I am curious, which of these did you do and did you do it legally, or did you just do it and got away with it?


Pants-of-dog wrote:The only one that seems to qualify as regulations is the ine about building your own home on your own land. If you live in the country, you can do so. Unless you are indigenous, in which case you cannot, thanks to colonialism. The reason you cannot do so in a city is due to fire safety.

Now assuming that the laws of physics do not magically change when monarchies are around, why would monarchies in this day and age ignore fire safety regulations?


I've worked in construction my entire life, and still work in the field as a designer, i'm sorry to break it you, but building codes in more developed areas are far more involved than "fire concerns," I'm sorry, but whether you do a double or a triple header over a window is not a fire concern, making everything ADA compliant for wheelchair accessibility for kitchen islands (36-42 inches of space), is a load of horseshit. Requiring EVERY outlet in a kitchen and a bathroom be GFCI is a load of horseshit. These are intrusive regulations that can make everything more expensive. There are codes for EVERYTHING in the city and if you are required to get permits, etc., this becomes stifling for home owners. Likewise, some towns REQUIRE all plumbing, electrical, framing, etc., be done by those "licensed to do so," that is both intrusive and expensive.

Now, inspecting electrical work to make sure everything is grounded, yes, that is a potential fire safety concern, but that is not any more legal in the country than in the city. Likewise, requiring headers and prohibiting balloon framing, can be justified as a fire safety matter, but once again, these are not different from country-to-city in a place I have ever lived or worked, and since I was contractor for almost five years in Pittsburgh, knowing code was my business. But even on the two "fire concerns" I mentioned, most cities permit older buildings to keep their current framing and knob-and-tube ungrounded wire as grand-daddied in. So, if fire concern, even here, was as serious as they claimed, they would require all of the electrical redone and headers put in walls (or atleast blocking) to close up potential flu spaces between different levels (if we are talking about balloon framing).

These codes were implemented by local administrative bureaucracies that are a subset of the larger representative bodies of local governance that is itself a subset of the broader representative government in the nation. Once again, mob rule creates these things for self-enrichment and to expand power as much as "helping the people." Charging for dozens of inspections run through the local government offices, etc, etc., which in turn make it nearly impossible for a 20 year-old kid with a young wife and baby to build his own home without becoming a debt-slave (if he even has the credit rating to get started) is a load of crap, but this is just a small example of what representative bodies do overtime.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Maybe you should support this claim with actual examples. As it stands now, this is just a counter-intuitive hypothesis.
.

Why is this counter-intuitive?

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Ah, here's the problem - you're wrong.


Nah, i'm not.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Monarchies were, of course, far more intrusive.....Why do you think there were revolts against monarchies? Do you really think people were saying "our life is just too free, we need to restrict ourselves"?


I never denied that groups, especially the American founders, believed that their vision of a constitutional federal republic with checks and balances and limitations on its scope would be "superior" for the cause of human liberty, in general, in comparison to monarchy; however, what they created, over time, ended up being worse. This is why I argued that modern democracies are more repressive than monarchies historically.

Even at the start, the best example of a free nation reverted to tendencies that they supposedly were against when it came to the monarchy: for instance, before 1800 America had already placed sedition laws which punished political opposition and speech, had placed heavy tariffs on foreign imports, chartered a national bank, had internal taxes on things like stamps, etc.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:They had laws about who was allowed to set up businesses,


Be more specific, this can mean several things. Are you talking about licenses?

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:What religion you could be, who had to work for others


Like I said, I am not saying that there were no intrusions, or even that I am opposed to all intrusions, I am actually okay with religious establishmentarianism, tariffs, mercanitilist regulations, requiring only that men can formally own property etc., none of that bothers me.

What I am talking about is micro-managing intrusiveness. There is no comparison on that, even on the religion point you made, Monarchies still acted different than contemporary dictatorships in that Monarchies were the protector and preserver of what the people had already historically been (Christian), they were not trying to change the people into something else that they were not historically, like Atheists, (i.e. the program of the communists in Soviet Russia).

In Social Democracies across the west, how you discipline your children, what medical treatments you want to pursue, how you speak to you wife, how you frame your windows, how you dispose of your garbage, how you wish to educate your children, the sugar content of your fucking soft drinks, are all regulated by the State. This sort of intrusion, and the bureaucracy to enforce it , did not exist under historic monarchies and you are being incredibly dishonest to say that they did.

In England, in 1650, if you wanted to timber-frame your own Pub and Inn in the woods outside of Canterbury, you could pretty well do it yourself and make all the food and beer in-house, and have your five year old twins wait tables, and you didn't have to worry about fucking inspectors, 400 different building codes, 15 different permits, and 40 different fees other than taxes and perhaps a right to serve via an upfront fee to the local magistrate.

No one was going to take your kids away for child labor, no one was going to inspect your hand-washing procedures, no one was going to do a water test on what you used to do your brewing, you didn't have to guarantee 36-42 inches of walk through space for wheelchair accessibility, and you didn't have to add a transgender bathroom, or hire so many immigrants to be diversity-quota compliant. You just sound dumb when you say that there were more regulations and impositions of an intrusive nature such as these under 17th century monarchies as compared to today's "democracies."

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:what sex you had to be to own property, what you could or couldn't say about the monarch or the state in general - they were really oppressive.


Even the United States, at the point of which it was most consistent with the professed values of limited government, restricted land ownership to white males who owed a certain amount of land. some states required these men to have at least 40 acres. Likewise, before 1800, the Federalists had pushed through the Alien and Sedition Act (1798) which punished speech in opposition to the United States government (which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court under Marshall). Like, I said, even at the point of which the quintessential limited government was the least intrusive, it was still almost as intrusive as the monarchy had been previously, doing all the things the Americans had bitched about regarding England, and the U.S. only became worse overtime.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:They imposed taxes on all kinds of things (eg windows), and people didn't get a say in it. In a democracy, you do. And they'd use their troops against you if you complained.


More laws have been produced under representative governments than under monarchies, by exponential rates. Yes, everyone has a say through their representatives, but having a saying does not necessarily mean that the result will be less intrusive, that is a non-sequitur. Indeed, if representatives believe they have majority support, they often feel they have a license to legislate whatever they want, no matter how retarded it might be.
#14866678
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Sure. Whatever.

You are obviously struggling with reading comprehension. I know its a common problem for you, but you can get help. Local tutors aren't that expensive, I might even give a charitable donation towards the cause of your proper care.

What I said was your argument, and not mine, was not "instrusiveness," but this assumption by Prosthetic Conscience:


This is yet another argument free post from you to me.

For a guy who always pats himslef on the back for being so smart and good at arguing, you spend wat more time patt8ng yourself on the back than you do putting forth arguments.

Well I didn't say none of these are permitted anywhere, but I am curious, which of these did you do and did you do it legally, or did you just do it and got away with it?


Who cares?

I've worked in construction my entire life, and still work in the field as a designer, i'm sorry to break it you, but building codes in more developed areas are far more involved than "fire concerns," I'm sorry, but whether you do a double or a triple header over a window is not a fire concern,


Yes, structural safety issues are also part of the reasin for regulation, not just fire safety.

Please show me the actual regulation. But yes, if you are building a public builidng that people will use, it would be better for windows in loadbearing walls to have lintels that can actually carry the load.

making everything ADA compliant for wheelchair accessibility for kitchen islands (36-42 inches of space), is a load of horseshit.


And since kitchens are not all required to be like that, this complaint is also horse feces.

Requiring EVERY outlet in a kitchen and a bathroom be GFCI is a load of horseshit.


Or basic safety for outlets that will almost certainly get wet, preventing electric failures and electric fires.

These are intrusive regulations that can make everything more expensive. There are codes for EVERYTHING in the city and if you are required to get permits, etc., this becomes stifling for home owners. Likewise, some towns REQUIRE all plumbing, electrical, framing, etc., be done by those "licensed to do so," that is both intrusive and expensive.


And when you have an example of a regulation that is truly onerous let me know.

Now, inspecting electrical work to make sure everything is grounded, yes, that is a potential fire safety concern, but that is not any more legal in the country than in the city. Likewise, requiring headers and prohibiting balloon framing, can be justified as a fire safety matter, but once again, these are not different from country-to-city in a place I have ever lived or worked, and since I was contractor for almost five years in Pittsburgh, knowing code was my business. But even on the two "fire concerns" I mentioned, most cities permit older buildings to keep their current framing and knob-and-tube ungrounded wire as grand-daddied in. So, if fire concern, even here, was as serious as they claimed, they would require all of the electrical redone and headers put in walls (or atleast blocking) to close up potential flu spaces between different levels (if we are talking about balloon framing).


And when you do renovations that affect these, you are obligated to bring things up to code as they are no longer grandfathered.

But thanks for showing how these regulations are not burdensome because of grandfathering.

Most municipalities allow you to get exemptions from building regulations if you can show that the risk associated with said regulation is not going to be an issue. This is why stair rails in heavy industrial sites have guardrails that childrne can climb up or squeeze through: because it can be said that children would not be using stairs in a working foundry.

These codes were implemented by local administrative bureaucracies that are a subset of the larger representative bodies of local governance that is itself a subset of the broader representative government in the nation. Once again, mob rule creates these things for self-enrichment and to expand power as much as "helping the people." Charging for dozens of inspections run through the local government offices, etc, etc., which in turn make it nearly impossible for a 20 year-old kid with a young wife and baby to build his own home without becoming a debt-slave (if he even has the credit rating to get started) is a load of crap, but this is just a small example of what representative bodies do overtime.


No. Regulations are determined by committees of people who are staffed by stakeholders, mostly not politicans and bureaucrats. Stakeholders are people who are affected by regulations, such as consumer interest groups, contractors, fire prevention officers, etc. These regulations are then examined periodically to see if they are actually useful by groups like the National Research council in Canada.

Why is this counter-intuitive?


Because monarchies have historically been more oppressive and intrusive.

You think that a serf being beaten by their lord for not grovelling properly is going to be all like “This oppression almost made me want to revolt, but then I remembered that the king allows guardrails on stairs and balconies less than 42” high, and this freedom made all the difference!”.
#14866687
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is yet another argument free post from you to me.

For a guy who always pats himslef on the back for being so smart and good at arguing, you spend wat more time patt8ng yourself on the back than you do putting forth arguments.


This was addressing your list of accusations that were, likewise, themselves non-arguments.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Who cares?


You made these assertions as evidence to the contrary of my point, So I care.

Support your assertions from personal experience, or expect them to be dismissed as inadmissible hogwash.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But yes, if you are building a public builidng that people will use, it would be better for windows in loadbearing walls to have lintels that can actually carry the load.


No one is denying that, but you and I know, that double framing a window v. additional supports is not a safety hazard. This goes for other regulations as well, like, not being permitted to ledger a deck off of a mobile home with no foundation. This is not a structural issue per se, other than that the deck overtime will settle with the mobile home; however, this is not a guaranteed outcome and even decks with concrete footers at 36inches will settle over the same given period of time. They are thoughtful regulations, but not necessary and are expensive and intrusive.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Or basic safety for outlets that will almost certainly get wet, preventing electric failures and electric fires.


Once again, I think outlets next to sinks should be GFCI, but the outlet on the other side of kitchen that is not next to a sink should not have to be GFCI. Thats my point, GFCI breakers that make the whole series ground-fault are expensive, and individual outlets that are GFCI are expensive. requiring more than that which is next to the sink in either bathroom or kitchen are not necessary. They are intrusive.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And since kitchens are not all required to be like that, this complaint is also horse feces.


Old kitchens no, new kitchens in my business, yes. Its called ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance, I do not know if there is an equivalent in Canada. It is a pain in the ass.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And when you have an example of a regulation that is truly onerous let me know.


Define Onerous.....Otherwise, I am talking about intrusive, unnecessary, and nanny-state B.S.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And when you do renovations that affect these, you are obligated to bring things up to code as they are no longer grandfathered.


Also not denied. That was not what I was talking about.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But thanks for showing how these regulations are not burdensome because of grandfathering.


No, the point is that their intentions cannot be completey as you say if such grandfathering exists. If fire safety is such a serious and imminent concern, no grand-fathering would be allowed, hence there is implicit assumption in the actual codes that allow such, that the requirements are somewhat unnecessary or that the risks involved can be nominal. If this is the case, why burden new construction that already has higher quality products in the first place if the concerns are not serious enough to require updating older homes?

That is the point.

My old man built our first home himself, except for the foundation, 1985-1986 and was able to do it for $26,000.00, it was a decent sized 3 bedroom home with 30 foot cathedral ceilings, great home. Because of regulations and permit fees, I could not build that home for $26,000.00 today even if I got the materials for the same price as he did. Now, a sand-mound septic system is required for new homes which alone increases the project cost by $5,000.00-$10,000.00 and is absolutely unnecessary with grey-water recycling (which many states prohibit) and in fact, most old septic systems (once again, grand-fathered in) work just fine and do not adversely affect the water table. This is just ONE example that would increase the same project by up to 30%.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Regulations are determined by committees of people who are staffed by stakeholders, mostly not politicans and bureaucrats. Stakeholders are people who are affected by regulations, such as consumer interest groups, contractors, fire prevention officers, etc. These regulations are then examined periodically to see if they are actually useful by groups like the National Research council in Canada


There is not a 1-to-1 correlation between American and Canadian processes i'm sure, but building codes have to be ratified and accepted at the state and local levels in the United States. For instance, The International Plumbing Code is not accepted in all U.S. States because at the end of the day, what regulations are implemented, are determined by ELECTED BODIES. Having these codes for inter-personal recognition, or guild-accreditation is one thing, but once the politicians (who are rarely tradesmen) get a hold of these codes and ratify them, its on them. Its dishonest to say the government is not the source of regulations because they got the actual code suggestions from private committees, trade associations etc.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Because monarchies have historically been more oppressive and intrusive.


I thought you claimed that they weren't, but only because of historical coincidence due to variables in economic development and scientific knowledge? Which is it? :eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:“This oppression almost made me want to revolt, but then I remembered that the king allows guardrails on stairs and balconies less than 42” high, and this freedom made all the difference!”.


Straw-man. :roll:
#14866703
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This was addressing your list of accusations that were, likewise, themselves non-arguments.

You made these assertions as evidence to the contrary of my point, So I care.

Support your assertions from personal experience, or expect them to be dismissed as inadmissible hogwash.


Cool. And since you have an equal amount if support for your claim that we cannot do any of these things, we will treat yours equally.

No one is denying that, but you and I know, that double framing a window v. additional supports is not a safety hazard. This goes for other regulations as well, like, not being permitted to ledger a deck off of a mobile home with no foundation. This is not a structural issue per se, other than that the deck overtime will settle with the mobile home; however, this is not a guaranteed outcome and even decks with concrete footers at 36inches will settle over the same given period of time. They are thoughtful regulations, but not necessary and are expensive and intrusive.


Yes, the amount of framing required for windows is a safety concern, because if the lintels collapse, the loadbearing wall could collapse, there y i juring or killing occupants.

Once again, I think outlets next to sinks should be GFCI, but the outlet on the other side of kitchen that is not next to a sink should not have to be GFCI. Thats my point, GFCI breakers that make the whole series ground-fault are expensive, and individual outlets that are GFCI are expensive. requiring more than that which is next to the sink in either bathroom or kitchen are not necessary. They are intrusive.


I thought you had kids.

GFI outlets are safer when there is a reasonable risk of water contact. This is true in kitchens and bathrooms. If you consider having all outlets in WCs and kitchens to be intrusive, then your standard for intrusive is very low.

Old kitchens no, new kitchens in my business, yes. Its called ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance, I do not know if there is an equivalent in Canada. It is a pain in the ass.


No. Wheelchair accessibility is not universally required in all kitchens everywhere.

Define Onerous.....Otherwise, I am talking about intrusive, unnecessary, and nanny-state B.S.


Since none ofnthese regulations are unnecessary or intrusive, we can use your definition here.

Also not denied. That was not what I was talking about.

No, the point is that their intentions cannot be completey as you say if such grandfathering exists. If fire safety is such a serious and imminent concern, no grand-fathering would be allowed, hence there is implicit assumption in the actual codes that allow such, that the requirements are somewhat unnecessary or that the risks involved can be nominal. If this is the case, why burden new construction that already has higher quality products in the first place if the concerns are not serious enough to require updating older homes?

That is the point.


The reason grandfathering is allowed is because regulations are not meant to be onerous, and because if the building has not harmed anyone despite not being up to code, there is no pressing need to fix it.

My old man built our first home himself, except for the foundation, 1985-1986 and was able to do it for $26,000.00, it was a decent sized 3 bedroom home with 30 foot cathedral ceilings, great home. Because of regulations and permit fees, I could not build that home for $26,000.00 today even if I got the materials for the same price as he did. Now, a sand-mound septic system is required for new homes which alone increases the project cost by $5,000.00-$10,000.00 and is absolutely unnecessary with grey-water recycling (which many states prohibit) and in fact, most old septic systems (once again, grand-fathered in) work just fine and do not adversely affect the water table. This is just ONE example that would increase the same project by up to 30%.


Personal anecdote. Pleae see your previous dismissal.

There is not a 1-to-1 correlation between American and Canadian processes i'm sure, but building codes have to be ratified and accepted at the state and local levels in the United States. For instance, The International Plumbing Code is not accepted in all U.S. States because at the end of the day, what regulations are implemented, are determined by ELECTED BODIES. Having these codes for inter-personal recognition, or guild-accreditation is one thing, but once the politicians (who are rarely tradesmen) get a hold of these codes and ratify them, its on them. Its dishonest to say the government is not the source of regulations because they got the actual code suggestions from private committees, trade associations etc.


Again, politicans and bureaucrats do not make up regulations. They empower them and enforce them.

I thought you claimed that they weren't, but only because of historical coincidence due to variables in economic development and scientific knowledge? Which is it? :eh:


You misunderstood. Monarchies are not more intrusive about regulations. But they were far nore oppressive in actual laws, statutes, etc.

Straw-man. :roll:


No. That is exactly the argument you are making. If it weren’t, you would explain the difference.
#14866736
Pants-of-dog wrote:Cool. And since you have an equal amount if support for your claim that we cannot do any of these things, we will treat yours equally.


You made an Anecdotal claim, i made a general claim of things prohibited by law in many western states. Not the same.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the amount of framing required for windows is a safety concern, because if the lintels collapse, the loadbearing wall could collapse, there y i juring or killing occupants.


First, i didn't deny that it was safety concern to support windows, I stated that requiring them to framed beyond the typical double-frame is unnecessary, and even requiring ALL windows of all sizes to be double-framed are themselves unnecessary.

This discussion on the JLC forum goes straight to the point:

Re: Double 2x For Window Sill-Why?

Originally posted by TSJHD1

I run into this debate with guys more than most: I get asked why I don't double my window sills when framing walls. (I will double them if the window is long) I ask them why I should. The response I always get is to give the apron trim more to nail to. I say if the apron trim extends down below the sill, nail it into the cripple studs. They then say, "Well, it's a lot easier if there's two sills for the trim guys." This is about when I get sarcastic and say, "Well with that reasoning, why not use double bottom plates on ALL the walls so it will be easier to nail the base trim? Wait! Base trim is bigger than aprons, so let's TRIPLE the bottom plates! And while we're at it, let's put in continuous blocking for the chair rail! Don't forget about the crown moulding, either." That reason for double sills is ridiculous! Find the studs just like anywhere else. What do you think?
Tom

Tom,
I agree with everything you said. 22 years ago when I started framing we never used double sills unless it was 6' and bigger. We also never doubled up on attic stair openings or hvac return openings. We always doubled up on skylights. We never once put in joist hangers on skylights, ceiling joists or attic and hvac openings.

Then about 12 years ago inspectors started coming around in different towns and failing the framing for single sills and then we had to start using joist hangers everywhere. They also started making us double around attic stairs and hvac openings.


http://forums.jlconline.com/forums/foru ... w-sill-why

Pants-of-dog wrote:I thought you had kids.

GFI outlets are safer when there is a reasonable risk of water contact. This is true in kitchens and bathrooms. If you consider having all outlets in WCs and kitchens to be intrusive, then your standard for intrusive is very low.


I do have kids, but I don't think every outlet needs to be GFCI in the bathroom and kitchen, in fact my last old house had NONE when I bought it, requiring every kitchen and bathroom to be updated to GFCI is unnecessary and expensive and therefore intrusive.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Wheelchair accessibility is not universally required in all kitchens everywhere.


Good thing I didn't say that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since none ofnthese regulations are unnecessary or intrusive, we can use your definition here.


What definition?

Pants-of-dog wrote:The reason grandfathering is allowed is because regulations are not meant to be onerous, and because if the building has not harmed anyone despite not being up to code, there is no pressing need to fix it.


If the buildings are not of serious risk, why require the changes at all? if SAFETY is the ultimate standard, "being lucky so far" is not a valid exception and the outdated materials and construction should be redone. period. The reason they don't require this is because the risk of danger is nominal. It is low risk; therefore, requiring new construction to conform to these standards is onerous because it requires homeowners to pay for materials, inspections, permits, and techniques of building over concerns of a very low risk. Hence, they are UNNECESSARY. If the risk is so low that existing houses that are purchased are permitted to continue with their previous styles of wiring, framing, etc., then such risk is low enough that people should be permitted to emulate those building practices that have, historically, been sufficiently safe.

I think Timber-Framing (post-and-beam) is a prime example of super-safe and tried-and-tested construction method that has not been sufficiently approved by local regulators and codes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, politicians and bureaucrats do not make up regulations. They empower them and enforce them.



I never denied that, the point is, ultimately, the regulations come from the politicians because they would never become a public burden had they not been ratified by an elected body. LIKE I SAID, if building codes were codes between tradesman and trade associations, we would not be having this conversation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You misunderstood. Monarchies are not more intrusive about regulations. But they were far nore oppressive in actual laws, statutes, etc.


I never claimed that they did not laws and statutes that required religious affiliation etc., nor have I objected to those things (I support them), I objected to a micromanaging of peoples lives through intrusive policies. I gave real life examples over-and-over again of this. My meaning should be clear, I am not talking about laws pertaining to one's baptism, or whether one has to be a man to own property etc., I am referring to that which is intrusive to the performance of a subject's day-to-day activities: I'll repeat to you what I said to Pros. Conscience above:

Like I said, I am not saying that there were no intrusions, or even that I am opposed to all intrusions, I am actually okay with religious establishmentarianism, tariffs, mercanitilist regulations, requiring only that men can formally own property etc., none of that bothers me.

What I am talking about is micro-managing intrusiveness. There is no comparison on that, even on the religion point you made, Monarchies still acted different than contemporary dictatorships in that Monarchies were the protector and preserver of what the people had already historically been (Christian), they were not trying to change the people into something else that they were not historically, like Atheists, (i.e. the program of the communists in Soviet Russia).

In Social Democracies across the west, how you discipline your children, what medical treatments you want to pursue, how you speak to you wife, how you frame your windows, how you dispose of your garbage, how you wish to educate your children, the sugar content of your fucking soft drinks, are all regulated by the State. This sort of intrusion, and the bureaucracy to enforce it , did not exist under historic monarchies and you are being incredibly dishonest to say that they did.

In England, in 1650, if you wanted to timber-frame your own Pub and Inn in the woods outside of Canterbury, you could pretty well do it yourself and make all the food and beer in-house, and have your five year old twins wait tables, and you didn't have to worry about fucking inspectors, 400 different building codes, 15 different permits, and 40 different fees other than taxes and perhaps a right to serve via an upfront fee to the local magistrate and there is a good chance you pub is still standing today.

No one was going to take your kids away for child labor, no one was going to inspect your hand-washing procedures, no one was going to do a water test on what you used to do your brewing, you didn't have to guarantee 36-42 inches of walk through space for wheelchair accessibility, and you didn't have to add a transgender bathroom, or hire so many immigrants to be diversity-quota compliant. You just sound dumb when you say that there were more regulations and impositions of an intrusive nature such as these under 17th century monarchies as compared to today's "democracies."


[EDIT] Below Was Added A Few Minutes After Initial Post.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. That is exactly the argument you are making. If it weren’t, you would explain the difference.


I never said that serfs accepted beatings from their regional lords because they were concerned about hand-rail liberties, nor did I use, even an approximate comparison, to argue for monarchy. So, yes, that is the exact definition of a Straw Man.

Likewise, even under your example, getting a beating from your local lord is not an example of intrusiveness....how often did bowing before a local lord enter into the day-to-day lives of your average peasant? They could go years without even seeing the local lord and enforcing respect is not something I am opposed to. I am talking about micromanagement.

Of course, those who rebelled against monarchies did so because they believed they would increase liberty, but thats my point, the opposite happened because they did not realized that the mob was more prone to expand power than the monarchs. The cure was worse than the disease from the perspective of liberty.
#14866755
Victoribus Spolia wrote:You made an Anecdotal claim, i made a general claim of things prohibited by law in many western states. Not the same.


Sure. Since my point was that your original point to which I was responding was unsupported, I am not going to bother discussing my personal life about these things. Since it is anecdotal and unsupported, it is therefore inadmissible hogwash, as you put it.

.
First, i didn't deny that it was safety concern to support windows, I stated that requiring them to framed beyond the typical double-frame is unnecessary, and even requiring ALL windows of all sizes to be double-framed are themselves unnecessary.

This discussion on the JLC forum goes straight to the point:

Re: Double 2x For Window Sill-Why?

Originally posted by TSJHD1

I run into this debate with guys more than most: I get asked why I don't double my window sills when framing walls. (I will double them if the window is long) I ask them why I should. The response I always get is to give the apron trim more to nail to. I say if the apron trim extends down below the sill, nail it into the cripple studs. They then say, "Well, it's a lot easier if there's two sills for the trim guys." This is about when I get sarcastic and say, "Well with that reasoning, why not use double bottom plates on ALL the walls so it will be easier to nail the base trim? Wait! Base trim is bigger than aprons, so let's TRIPLE the bottom plates! And while we're at it, let's put in continuous blocking for the chair rail! Don't forget about the crown moulding, either." That reason for double sills is ridiculous! Find the studs just like anywhere else. What do you think?
Tom

Tom,
I agree with everything you said. 22 years ago when I started framing we never used double sills unless it was 6' and bigger. We also never doubled up on attic stair openings or hvac return openings. We always doubled up on skylights. We never once put in joist hangers on skylights, ceiling joists or attic and hvac openings.

Then about 12 years ago inspectors started coming around in different towns and failing the framing for single sills and then we had to start using joist hangers everywhere. They also started making us double around attic stairs and hvac openings.


http://forums.jlconline.com/forums/foru ... w-sill-why


I am not discussing sills.

I am discussing lintels. Lintels are part of framing. Sills are not. Lintels hold up loads. Sills just need to stay straight enough to ably support the flashing and other window joints elements, in order to avoid infiltration.

Lintels should be double or triple framed as regulations and local climate conditions dictate.

I do have kids, but I don't think every outlet needs to be GFCI in the bathroom and kitchen, in fact my last old house had NONE when I bought it, requiring every kitchen and bathroom to be updated to GFCI is unnecessary and expensive and therefore intrusive.


So it is unnecessary and intrusive because you feel that way, and because you lived in a house where it was grandfathered.

And regulations do not require you to update them, unless you are doing renovations there anyway.

Good thing I didn't say that.


Then you will need to repeat your argument clearly if you wa;t me to address it.

Anyway, wheelchair accessibility in kitchens is probably only an issue in government built housing. Residential construction does not require it.

What definition?


The one you just gave: “intrusive, unnecessary, and nanny-state B.S.”

If the buildings are not of serious risk, why require the changes at all? if SAFETY is the ultimate standard, "being lucky so far" is not a valid exception and the outdated materials and construction should be redone. period. The reason they don't require this is because the risk of danger is nominal. It is low risk; therefore, requiring new construction to conform to these standards is onerous because it requires homeowners to pay for materials, inspections, permits, and techniques of building over concerns of a very low risk. Hence, they are UNNECESSARY. If the risk is so low that existing houses that are purchased are permitted to continue with their previous styles of wiring, framing, etc., then such risk is low enough that people should be permitted to emulate those building practices that have, historically, been sufficiently safe.


You are vastly oversimplifying risk here.

Each regulation has a different risk assessment involving a different set of variables. You cannot simply say they must be all risky or all not.

Let us look at lintels again. Lintel structure in Canada depends on snyow load. And you do not take the average snow load. You take the load for 100 year storms. This creates a safety margin, because 99% of all storms in the areas will not have enough snow load to matter. And this safety margin is one of the reasons you can grandfather things.

It is actually more complicated than this, with forensic engineers looking at collapsed buildings, and recreating the event in lab conditions, and compiling statistics, and analysing different materials, and doing a zillion other things that requires a certain level of science.

I think Timber-Framing (post-and-beam) is a prime example of super-safe and tried-and-tested construction method that has not been sufficiently approved by local regulators and codes.


Really? In Canada, heavy timber framing is explicitly dealt with in the National Building Code. Better fire rating that steel.

We use glue laminated timbers for atriums in low rise buildings all the time, because it is so pretty.

I never denied that, the point is, ultimately, the regulations come from the politicians because they would never become a public burden had they not been ratified by an elected body. LIKE I SAID, if building codes were codes between tradesman and trade associations, we would not be having this conversation.


The fact that the state enforces them does not magically make them more intrusive than other laws also enforced by the state.

And if the codes were only written by tradespeople, you would be ignoring many groups of industry stakeholders, including fire prevention officers, the end users, and municipal authorities in charge of infrastructure.

I never claimed that they did not laws and statutes that required religious affiliation etc., nor have I objected to those things (I support them), I objected to a micromanaging of peoples lives through intrusive policies. I gave real life examples over-and-over again of this. My meaning should be clear, I am not talking about laws pertaining to one's baptism, or whether one has to be a man to own property etc., I am referring to that which is intrusive to the performance of a subject's day-to-day activities: I'll repeat to you what I said to Pros. Conscience above:


So, the difference is that you do not like these, but you like the other ones.

If it is just about your feelings, fine. I hope you understand why I will simply move on.

As for your edit:

You seem to be arguing that the micromanagement of having 42” guardrails is more intrusive than serdom.
#14866767
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:You're a joke, aren't you? Conversation over.


What are you talking about? I am a Paleo-Colonialist, Neo mercantilist, Neo-Monarchist, and an Imperialist, I hold to theocratic and patriarchal notions of societal structure. What did you expect my views to be? They are pretty transparent on my profile.

Its fine if you don't want to continue the conversation, you clearly get triggered easily.
#14866847
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If you can't: willfully educate your own children at home, possess an Ak-47 with ammo, drink booze, smoke pot or even opium openly on your own property, openly discuss controversial opinions about minorities with your neighbors, including how you feel slavery was good or that the holocaust didn't happen, build a home on your own land with materials from your own land, smack your kids assess with a switch or a wooden spoon, raise chickens in your yard, start a campfire in your front lawn where you burn all of your paper-waste, or give birth in your basement without government instrusion, then you are not a free under the point I am making.


So if some nobleman can rape and murder your wife with impunity it doesn't matter as long as you can burn your garbage in the front lawn? I'd call that postmodern decadence.
#14866860
If you can't: willfully educate your own children at home, possess an Ak-47 with ammo, drink booze, smoke pot or even opium openly on your own property, openly discuss controversial opinions about minorities with your neighbors, including how you feel slavery was good or that the holocaust didn't happen, build a home on your own land with materials from your own land, smack your kids assess with a switch or a wooden spoon, raise chickens in your yard, start a campfire in your front lawn where you burn all of your paper-waste, or give birth in your basement without government instrusion, then you are not a free under the point I am making.

Sounds like anarchist23's life. :excited:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 16
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]