There is zero technical reason why housing can't be cheap as hell in this day and age. It's all due to government restrictions. And I'm not talking about shanty towns either - that's what you get when legal housing is too expensive to build!
Indeed, housing can be very cheap. See military barracks or flop houses/SROs. Housing is expensive as a means to keep poor people away from the middle class.
Then why can't you build a perfectly fine cabin on your own rural property without government inspectors coming around and micromanaging.
US/Canadian automobiles are also needlessly expensive, there are many awesome vehicles sold in Mexico etc., like the Hilux, and I don't see it as a conspiracy to keep poor people down, but an overabundance of caution from bureaucrats covering their ass and regulatory capture.
It's really hard to argue the libertarian point of view because you're always trying to point out the "unseen costs".
The secondary market makes universal standards generally helpful. As much as everyone says buyer beware you have to beware a lot less when housing and vehicles were built to a certain standard.
Having to track down whoever built the house to figure out what standards they followed is painful enough when the house is a few years old let alone decades.
Similarly vehicles safety isn't just about the driver (although that is very important) some of the safety changes have been made to minimize impact on others. While everyone bitches about easy to scratch bumpers those bumpers help almost accidents not result in terrible things for pedestrians.
Not to say there isn't regulatory capture or that the rules are the correct strictness. It is just it is less "unseen costs" and more "things people don't think about" of course the only reason they don't think about it is the bureaucracy.
Dude, it's a cabin. It's made out of logs. You should at least be able to opt-out. If you're concerned about resale value then you can pursue a NACHI seal of approval.
You should be free to drive a car with friggin spikes on the front, and the insurance industry should be free to charge you accordingly for the liability risk. That's freedom.
On the topic of housing: As long as it is obviously not normal housing I agree. If people want weird bespoke things in the middle of nowhere then that is different. If you are building your cabin an hour from town I think the government getting ahead of a housing shortage by ensuring your house can be available when you inevitably sell it is fine for everyone.
After all the city gets a house for the supply and you get your money back when you sell. Statistically everyone sells on long time scales after all.
On the topic of cars: that is stupid. 16.5 people died per day in 2019 in the US from being hit by cars. It is in everyone's best interest to bring that number down. It was double that in 1979 and while no one thing necessarily explains a big change like that newer safety requirements have helped a lot.
To be clear while recently some vehicle safety tests that protect the passengers from weird impacts have come up nearly as many regulations are actually related to protecting pedestrians whenever possible. Obviously hitting someone at highway speeds can't be helped but you would be surprised how much technology can reduce injuries in more minor accidents (and by extension reduce deaths in the non-extreme cases).
So you're saying that people should not be allowed to build log cabins because they don't contribute to your definition of acceptable housing stock? What if someone would prefer to live in a log cabin than commie block apartment? Is there any human freedom safe from such communistic arguments?
Regulations are not the primary reason for safety in vehicular design. I know you'll never believe that, however, it probably goes counter to your entire world view, so don't bother responding.
Whether you like it or not, there is dollar number on the value of a human life, and liability insurance (and vehicle design and regulation) revolves around it. Safety has diminishing returns and there is a market clearing point. Brush guards are just as dangerous as spikes, for instance, would you like to ban them? Or would you make a government form to apply for an exception if the brush guard is for an approved acceptable use by you for someone who has a license for their proper use off-road by someone with an acceptable economic reason fitting the social and economic calculations for the current five year plan determined by your Ministry of Truth?
> So you're saying that people should not be allowed to build log cabins because they don't contribute to your definition of acceptable housing stock? What if someone would prefer to live in a log cabin than commie block apartment? Is there any human freedom safe from such communistic arguments?
Huh? That isn't what I said. I said "there are benefits". You can totally build a log cabin in jurisdictions that require inspections you just need to do a little more than setup some logs... Additionally I bet the definition of "house" is more flexible than you imply from your offhand information.
> Regulations are not the primary reason for safety in vehicular design. I know you'll never believe that, however, it probably goes counter to your entire world view, so don't bother responding.
I mean I can point to regulation changes resulting in additional safety but you don't believe that at all. The reality is vehicle safety has trended very closely to regulations if you pay any attention. Some minimal amount of safety is provided but it isn't like consumers are asking what happens if you impact a another care at 55 MPH vs 35 MPH.
> Whether you like it or not, there is dollar number on the value of a human life, and liability insurance (and vehicle design and regulation) revolves around it.
That is an incorrect statement. California has a minimum liability for injury of $15,000. We do not as a society agree that a human life is worth that little.
> Safety has diminishing returns and there is a market clearing point. Brush guards are just as dangerous as spikes, for instance, would you like to ban them? Or would you make a government form to apply for an exception if the brush guard is for an approved acceptable use by you for someone who has a license for their proper use off-road by someone with an acceptable economic reason fitting the social and economic calculations for the current five year plan determined by your Ministry of Truth?
You are just making shit up now. Feel free to quote any sources rather than making up stuff.
> and I don't see it as a conspiracy to keep poor people down, but an overabundance of caution from bureaucrats covering their ass and regulatory capture.
These are one in the same. Regulation is a euphemism for corruption, market manipulation, favoritism, cronie "capitalism", and so on. The intention might not be to keep the status quo (e.g., poor remain as such) but that - time and again - is the result.
Given these are the facts. This is the tradition. It's not all that difficult to argue the libertarian pov because if nothing else it's obvious what is not working.
