Socialism’s Disastrous Consequences
Chinese police broke up protests at a school that collapsed due to last month’s earthquake. The protesters were parents of students who died in the school, angry with the poor construction of the government buildings.
Lew Rockwell explains why this specific tragedy (the building collapse) is largely the result of socialism. A common attribute of governments with socialist policies, as in this case, is the lack of accountability. It is no wonder that police are attempting to silence protest.
Rockwell asks, “What if the resources aren’t available? What if the workers lack the skill to accomplish the task? What if the machines that are to build them do not work properly and lack replacement parts? What if resource supply should be allocated differently according to the needs of the people? Under socialism, economics is beside the point. The schools must appear. This is the way the system works.”
As for the need for building codes:
And what about building codes and their enforcement? It is a great myth that these are somehow responsible for the soundness of our buildings. Private enterprise meets the demand for safety as well as it meets any consumer demand. Your house doesn’t fall in because of building codes but because the builders are liable for mistakes and because there is competition among them to build better buildings. What’s more, private enterprise regulates itself, with a vast array of regulatory codes that are self-enforcing (Underwriters Laboratory, for example, is entirely private). So why do the government codes exist? Mostly they are used by large companies to erect barriers to entry by smaller firms.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Building codes are absolutly necessary for public safety. Did you know that the port authority of NY, NJ does not have to follow any building codes. Do you think this had anything to do with the Towers and Building 7 collapsing and a serious multiple floor failure in Building 5.
Corporate leaders are always trying to eliminate any government regulations in order to reduce their costs. They wine about the big bad burocratic government not being able to get anything right while they praise private industry as being all holy. Bull.
Arthur Scheuerman author of “Fire in the Skyscraper” Why and how the Towers collapsed.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
From my experience I have seen building codes as a good guide that generally take the creativity and ingenuity out of building design. Without building codes, the motivation to build sound structures would still exist due to liability and the competition amongst builders to provide better structures. They often work against safety in the sense that engineers and builders may become reliant on them to the extent that they fail to consider circumstances that are not covered by the codes.
It is understandable that those in the construction industry would be frustrated by mandatory building codes because they generally stand in the way of innovation as they struggle to keep up with new technology. There may be a new product or design method that is more efficient (safer, cheaper, stronger, longer lasting), that is prohibited by the code because the necessary authorities have not yet approved it. These unapproved products or methods would not be used if the qualified engineers did not think they would suffice. What is the point of being educated as an engineer if you aren’t allowed to use your own judgment?
The WTC was designed to absorb the impact of planes similar (actually slightly smaller than those that were used to attack them) despite the fact that there is no such requirement in any building code in the US. If they would have designed strictly according to the building code, a much worse disaster may have occurred. When a building is designed, a certain amount of practicality must be considered. You simply cannot design a building to withstand every possible scenario. There will always exist some amount of risk involved with structures, code or not; just as there is a certain amount of risk involved with driving a car.
Building 7 of the WTC was designed to meet multiple codes. The exterior south wall had sustained significant damage from the collapse of tower 1. Everyone was able to evacuate building 7 before it collapsed which is the main intent of fireproofing a building. buildings are given fire ratings based on time, in hours. a particular building with a two hour fire rating, for instance, would be designed to maintain its integrity for at least two hours while inhabitants were able to escape to burning structure. These needs were met, and due to the demand on firefighters, lack of water, and allegedly the owner’s (Larry Silverstein) more than generous insurance payout; the building was left to burn and eventually collapse…a good call if you ask me.
I’m assuming the author of that comment was not really Arthur Scheuerman, but i could be wrong.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
p.s. by no means do I ever praise private industry as being “all holy.” It is the fact that they are (should be) held accountable for their actions — while government is almost never held accountable — that leads me to prefer private industry to public works. The incentive to provide quality and safety diminishes with accountability. With the help of government, many large corporations are allowed to escape this and are often granted quasi-monopolies through government subsidies and favoritism.
we, as consumers, are responsible for decided which products and companies best serve us, by purchasing their products and services or not. and typically, if the government hasn’t provided them with some type of immunity or favoritism, the inadequate companies will be weeded out by the market and/or brought to justice for negligence.