What a crock. At least he does admit that Randites have no way to answer meaningful questions. So they have to reformulate them into something completely meaningless so they can offer a platitude to cover it.
@jmpurser what a crock? Uncle Milt did answer the question by destroying the loaded and incorrect premise of the question. I guess you embrace the Marxist victim mentality so much that you can't even have an honest discussion. Typical modern liberal mentality. Spend more time and energy bitching and pointing fingers than working on your own betterment.
Thank you Milton Freedman and Ayn Rand, you have both changed my perspective on government and monetary policy! We have a lot of work to do but with your help and philosophies we will save America yet!
The way to insure Adequate Housing for the poor is to empower poor people to get a good education. So they have the skills that they need to support themselves and get themselves good housing.
The question the kid asked is expected of an ideological college student. But, if you read the new book, Reckless Endangerment it spells how our governments attempt at this very idea is what caused the economic collapse we are now experiencing. It's a nice idea, but you know what they say about good intentions?
@FabiusMaximus1000 Funny how the central planning of big government's affordable housing crusades actually ended up making housing less affordable, and cost trillions to do so.
@Solverwiz It was planned on purpose to crash the economy. It's a tactic used successfully many times all over the world. Watch the video documentary series "The Commanding Heights". The head of Fannie Mae set the bar so low, banks were told to give loans at all costs and the gov would back them, and they did get bailed out just like he promised. He also got very wealthy at the same time. That's why you can't let commies have charge of capitalism.
So true getting us to argue amongst ourselves as to what to do about the poor when we should be asking what is the standard of being poor or well off and who decides it. We should also ask if government policy fails and should be scrubbed. Regulation and welfare and such. Not to mention as a free man I didn't know other peoples problems were mine and other people's money I was entitled to, I learned this much from some in government.
@biozamadotcom If God exists, and I doubt he does, Milton Friedman will be up there explaining to him how he should be running heaven. And I suspect Milton is right. And I suspect God will disagree and have to learn the hardway like the rest of us down here.
@Mauhadeeb28 I agree, as long as we also require the owner to take responsibility. If the uninsured house burns(through no 3rd party's fault, of course), no one but the owner should have to pay for it. Charity to help that neighbor out would be great, though! Just no govt. funds to rebuild...
@Fattboy26 Why do you assume that that would be the consequence, and indeed, why do you assume that it doesn't happen in the status quo (both assumptions seem to be wrong to me)
Oh for fucksake what planet are you on Sir? I have lived in places where there are little or no building codes and have seen what happens when things go wrong. I have seen when bodgey handymen do work that I as a licenced plumber have rectified. Stop trying to be intellectual when you cant bring it off.
@Fattboy26 I am on a planet where vested interests such as yourself argue for regulation that makes us less prosperous, less enterprising and less free by forcing regulation on us under the guise of consumer protection. The proper way to protect a consumer is through a robust court system that properly punishes tradesmen for their mistakes, providing the traders with the correct incentives.
I fortunately do not live on a planet where the measure of a man as an intellectual is done by a plumber.
Respond to this video... Imagine we were to draw a line so as to bisect a shantytown in Haiti. One side was given a stringent building code( only galvanized screws in your cardboard walls) and the other was given a system of unhampered free trade. Which side of town would see their standard of living improve? Do you think that the people in the slums and tenement yards of the world live like that because they don't have enough building codes and housing inspectors?
@Fattboy26 That is why you find a worker who is certified from an institution shown to be legitimate. You still don't need government licensing; you just need the training and to build to certain specifications. Because of this crap a woman who was on the Stossel program needed to spend $4000 on a cosmetology course in order to continue doing her african hair braiding, and the course doesn't even have anything on braiding. Special interests just use it to put up barriers to entry.
Mate even licenced tradesmen will cut corners if there is no minimum building code. Even if a good licenced tradesmen wanted to rectify problems he would have a hard time guessing because under you system of no building codes there would be no plans for him to go on. Now whats this fukin new argument about some girl doing hair braiding? Listen before posting a comment trying using your brains.
@Fattboy26 It's one of the typical examples of how licensing is used. Anyway, the customer can sign a contract with them maintaining that the work must be done to an agreed upon standard, or the institution may require that all of their work be done to that standard and any example otherwise would have them pay enormous amounts to the people with shoddy work done.
@Fattboy26 If that is who you want to hire and that is all you can afford, that is surely better than paying outrageous rental fees for the rest of your life.
Listen mate Milton Friendman is a smart man no arguing there but he is not always right. I am in the constuction industry and even when regulated there are shonks. And if you did not have any regulations it would be a nightmare even if you paid for the best workers you still would not be assured they did not make short cuts.
@Fattboy26 Your fear is that there would be more shitty construction workers but the fact is, without government regulations and safety nets people would be more aware that shitty construction workers exist and would actually pay more attention to them. They would be more alert to shitty workers.
Regulation do not help anyone except for those who obtain meaningless jobs funded solely at gun point. All at the expense and dismay of the poor and middle class.
No mate that is not my fear there is already shitty workers but we would have sub standard housing. I am a plumber and I can do real shitty work if I wanted to and the owner could be sitting over my shoulder and he/she would be none the wiser. And how many owners want to sit over someone shoulder? Please try and have a think. How does one know a shitty worker do they wear a tee shirt with the words CAUTION Shitty Worker? I believe in regulation but not over regulation.
@Fattboy26 Regulations don't stop tricksters at all. Regulations have nothing to do with it. There is no regulation now that regulates the amount of soddy plumbers. There just isn't.
What regulations deal with are what building materials you are allowed to use and how you are allowed to assemble them. They tell you how you are allowed to build your own shit. All that drives costs up, which hits the poor the most. Housing is unaffordable to them in part by these regulations.
You are just repeating my argument back to me I just said that we already have shitty workers. So you think poor families should live in unsafe sub standard housing? They do that in many nations and when disasters hit the death rate rockets.
@Fattboy26 I think poor people should be able to live wherever they want to. These regulations force them into rental properties with no way to own their own property. As long as they are poor, they are forced to pay and pay and pay and in the end, they walk away with nothing.
So, since natural disasters occur, poor people shouldn't own housing? To fix this, you stop them from building homes they can afford? You care for them, so you want prohibit them from owning homes just incase. Ridiculous.
@Fattboy26 I'd rather own my shitty little house, than pay rent to a corporation for the rest of my life.
Isn't the persons choice whether they want to build their homes on sand instead of a rock? If they were allowed to build cheaper houses, why would they choose to live in an area frequented by natural disasters. In the end, that is there choice to live there.
"Hey, I'm doing this for you poor people. Now, pay me rent or live on the streets. Your choice." Way to be soooo caring, bro.
Then earn more and buy a house a well built proper house. No its not the person choice whether their house is safe or unsafe as they might have vistors, neighbours and children in those home of which they have a duty of care to. You start to build sub standard housing the areas becomes slums which can affect other areas. When workmen need to repair services they need plans and if they are just built without proper planning then it will create a mess.
@Fattboy26 None of your arguments are remotely relevant. A person decides whether they want to go into a home or not. If they get harmed while inside, the responsibility still lies on the home owner regardless of regulations.
You are trying to say that cheap housing is unsafe for kids, but somehow welfare for life is better. They want to legitimately take care of themselves, but you don't want them to. WTF?
So get off you arse buy or rent a proper house that is safe and well built. Or find a homeless shelter the choice is yours. But building slums is not the answer.
@Fattboy26 All these poor folks must look real small to you way up there on your high horse.
I hope something never happens to you which you aren't able to afford to own a home or rent.
So you would rather have poor people be supported by tax payers and live off of welfare programs than see them live within their means, on their own. Mind boggling. I know you will change you mind sooner or later. You aren't thinking about this right at all. All I can do is plant the seed. Cheers, mate.
Mate I think you suffer from an inferiority complex. I would like to see poor people in safe housing as well as rich and middle class.
If I was poor I would like to know while I am sleeping the house does not collapse in on me. Its called peace of mind.
So you think someone living in an unsafe dangerous is ok? I dont. I am in the constuction industry and have seen dangerous dwellings and the damage they can do. Problem is you are not thinking at all. You dont have a clue.
@Fattboy26 Yo are being so ridiculous. Why would the house fall in? Building is not difficult. It is simple as putting two pieces of wood together. What I am saying is that the would and all those materials would be far ore affordable without the regulations. They would still be high quality affordable building materials absent regulations but with regulations they can't be affordable.
If they want piece of mind, they wont build a shanty. It is simple as that.
No I am not being ridiculous you are just trying to be oversmart and you are not suceeding. If a house is poorly constructed in can in all likelyhood collapse. If its service have been installed poorly it can cause problems such as electrical shocks. Building is a little more complex that putting two bits of wood together. I can see by that statement you never have worked in the constuction industry. So please do us both a favour and dont display you ignorance.
Why would a person build a poorly constructed house? two reasons: they don't care or that is all they can afford. You are trying to take that away from those people and force them to pay a business for housing. How in your mind is that right? You are extorting these people for profit by regulating them out of a home. It is sick.
ANd building is not more complex than "putting two bits of wood together". As a framer all I did was that. Building is easy. Kids do it.
Yes in many nations people do build poorly constructed house because they cant afford it. And no I am not trying to take that away from those people. Those people live in 3rd world nation and compared to you and more live in poverty. But when natural disasters strike those people are hardest hit. For example in Brazil people illegally built on the side of mountains and when the landslides hit they perished. In Iran when are earthquake hit they lost thousands.
@Fattboy26 Those people are the hardest hit by regulations as well. I guarantee they would rather have their shanties than no house at all because they couldn't afford it. Humans need shelter. They shouldn't be forced to pay a business for that unless they want to.
I understand your argument, but those people make the decisions where they live. They understand the risks, but many would rather live free and poor than a slave to renting and poor. You want to take that away.
No people in the 3rd are not hit by building regulations. I see you have not travelled much to make that statement. Look mate stop playing the intellectual till you get a real idea and the only way to do that is through experience of which I doubt you have much of. And yes they would rather have shelter than none at all I agree. But that is the 3rd world. And they are not forced to pay for building regulations as none exists for them.
@Fattboy26 So, in 3rd world country its ok to have freedom of where and how you live. But in Australia, you should be forced into government assistance? Now you are wanting not only to force the poor into government programs or to pay for housing they will never own, but now you want all of your neighbors to be forced to fund this oppression.
Your mind set keeps getting more and more uncivilized.
And by the looks of it, you are in the minority on this one. At least of those who read my comment.
Listen your argument is ridiculous. Its getting stupidier as its proceeds. Who forces who into government assistance? No one. Please stop trying to be intellectual your failing. I dont want to force anyone into government projects so please stop you strawman argument its stupid. What is oppressive about living in a safe dwelling? You iq is dropping. You're not taking medication are you? Wow I am in the minority boo hoo because one of you dimwitted friends is backing you.
@Fattboy26 If a person can't afford a home because they can't afford to pay for the price driven up by the regulations, they either live on the streets or get government aid.
The oppression lies in the force. You are forcing things on people and calling it good. Especially those that now cant afford to own housing because of your asinine regulations. You are try to "keep them safe" but in the mean time you are pushing them into further poverty by forcing them to pay rent or take gov assistance.
@Fattboy26 If you don't want to force people into government housing then why do you tell people what they are and aren't allowed to build with? You are effectively telling the poor "Sorry, but you since I want you to be safe, you can't home a home. i'm doing this for you poor people." How is this a good idea?
How can you honestly believe you are good while you force people to bend to your will?
You are the only person I've chatted with who has not been able to understand such a simple argument.
Its called a building regulation and safety code. There is a standard that all dwelling should apply to. That does not force anyone on government assisantance. If these codes did not exist then there would be numerous deaths, injuries and hazards that would cause millions to be lost. The poor deserve to live in a safe house as much as the rich. You are the type of person that would like to see the poor live in unsafe slums. You are incapable of making an argument period.
@Fattboy26 There is no standard all dwellings should apply. How are you the one to set a standard of living for other people? Your standards aren't everyone elses. You just use force to push them on peaceful people.
Before building codes building safety was already progressing. What made them safer was constantly better technology, not regulations. Just like it has always been.
THE POOR COULD AFFORD SAFE HOUSING IF IT WEREN'T FOR REGULATIONS!. You are really having a hard time with this.
Well there I disagree with you but what do I know I have only had over 20 years experience in the construction industry. The minimum safety standard is usually set by state or local government bodies. What force do I use on peaceful people so they can live in safe housing? Sir your argument is moronic. Again stop playing the intellect you're not intelligent as can be seen by your comments.
@Fattboy26 You don't personally use force, but the inspectors and police do and you approve and support that.
Funny that you say I don't have intelligence. You would be the first person to say something like that, which leads me to believe you just can't grasp the concept. Which is ok.
Just know I would never support anyone that wanted to force something on you because as a brother, I love you, even as much as our differences pain me. I completely disagree that with government we are any safer.
Look mate you are not Milton Freidman not even a poor copy of him. I approve of inspectors making sure a house is safe before people move in its called DUTY OF CARE.
I am happy that you are happy when someone calls you unintelligent. At least you are not hurt. But most fools are ablivious.
You are not my brother so refrain calling me that. And anyone that wants to put people in unsafe dwelling is quite evil.
@Fattboy26 I approve of inspectors too. I just don't approve of inspectors inspecting someone out of an establishment when they can't afford the upgrades.
II would never want to be Milton Freidman.
I don't want to put people in unsafe housing, I just don't want people to be unable to afford safe housing because of asinine regulations. It is as simple as that.
I will always consider you my brother, whether you like it or not. I will fight for you even though we disagree. Because I love you.
I wish I could say I understood your argument but I doubt you understand your own argument. I think you are arguing with me for the sake of appearing smart.
@Fattboy26 What is there not to understand. Without regulations, people will still want safe housing. Without building regulations, they will still get it. Why? Because it has been like that way before regulations started.
@Fattboy26 I do have a huge garden with goats, cows, chickens, and rabbits, but I don't believe I ever mentioned that.
A child understand what is necessary to build a structure e.g. legos, kinnects. When you get older you start to understand that the bigger things are, the stronger the materials need to be. This isn't rocket science. You are putting the idea of building on a pedestal. Humans have been building since they existed. You think way too highly of what you do. Anyone can do that.
If you had no regulation on building material I could purchase material that are sub standard without my knowledge. Sure it would be more affordable but later on could be catastophic or expensive I will give you an example years ago China exported cheaper copper pipe to Australia. Many people bought this pipe as copper is now expensive the copper was sub standard and could not tolerate the water pressure in most Australian homes and burst causing thousands in flood damages.
@Fattboy26 You would know who had quality building materials by word of mouth. Businesses that claimed superior products and sold duds don't make it in the market now. It would not be any different without regulations.
More businesses could come up with new inexpensive ways to make building materials, as was the case before all the regulations got in the way.
Doesn't it make you wonder why all the big building companies (GAF, heidleberg etc) all lobby for the regulations? MONOPOLY.
@mba2ceo If that is where you wanted to live, or that is all you could afford, why not? Why should those who can not afford insurance, inspections, and all the standard highly regulated materials be relegated to renting their whole lives? That is damning the poor for simply being poor.
milton friedman was the BEST! love watching/listening to this man.
alwaysending 5 months ago
wow what a great answer.
flyinbry 7 months ago
What a crock. At least he does admit that Randites have no way to answer meaningful questions. So they have to reformulate them into something completely meaningless so they can offer a platitude to cover it.
jmpurser 7 months ago
@jmpurser what a crock? Uncle Milt did answer the question by destroying the loaded and incorrect premise of the question. I guess you embrace the Marxist victim mentality so much that you can't even have an honest discussion. Typical modern liberal mentality. Spend more time and energy bitching and pointing fingers than working on your own betterment.
Donnybrook10 7 months ago
anteater1234567 slaughtered the plumber intellectual.
zhelko 7 months ago
The fact that Obama has no one in his cabinet who sounds even a little like this, PROVES that he has no interest in "crossing the aisle!!"
Helpmeknowthings 8 months ago
the first 49 seconds tell all you need to know about politicians and how their system works.
manoman0 8 months ago
I love how clearly he thinks. And it is so important to define terms in these kinds of discussions, to not get the real issue out of the way.
LouigiVerona 8 months ago
YEA WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE THIS WITH HIS MEANING AND INTENTION.
KEVLANEW80 8 months ago
Genius - Milton Friedman you cannot get in clearer than that.
SuperGuitarman69 8 months ago 2
Replay?
TheAthiCon 8 months ago
Thank you Milton Freedman and Ayn Rand, you have both changed my perspective on government and monetary policy! We have a lot of work to do but with your help and philosophies we will save America yet!
TrunksXV 8 months ago 4
The way to insure Adequate Housing for the poor is to empower poor people to get a good education. So they have the skills that they need to support themselves and get themselves good housing.
FRSFreeStateNow 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRSFreeStateNow ... education does NOT translate to wealth.
mba2ceo 7 months ago
what video is this from?
x86cowboy 8 months ago
I know it's been beaten to death, but I wish this guy was still around.
K20ej88 8 months ago 14
@K20ej88 I miss ol' Milton too...
sublimetrance 8 months ago
The question the kid asked is expected of an ideological college student. But, if you read the new book, Reckless Endangerment it spells how our governments attempt at this very idea is what caused the economic collapse we are now experiencing. It's a nice idea, but you know what they say about good intentions?
FabiusMaximus1000 8 months ago
@FabiusMaximus1000 Funny how the central planning of big government's affordable housing crusades actually ended up making housing less affordable, and cost trillions to do so.
Milton's plan sounds much better.
Solverwiz 8 months ago
@Solverwiz It was planned on purpose to crash the economy. It's a tactic used successfully many times all over the world. Watch the video documentary series "The Commanding Heights". The head of Fannie Mae set the bar so low, banks were told to give loans at all costs and the gov would back them, and they did get bailed out just like he promised. He also got very wealthy at the same time. That's why you can't let commies have charge of capitalism.
FabiusMaximus1000 8 months ago 7
@FabiusMaximus1000 AMEN brother. Very well said. In one post you have summed it all up. Two thumbs up
SuperGuitarman69 8 months ago
@Solverwiz While kicking the very people out of homes which the policies were supposed to help. MADNESS!!!
quinnrasta 8 months ago
LibertyPen is doing us such wonders by putting these videos up. I cannot thank you enough whoever does this.
adulby 8 months ago 11
This is a brilliant little piece from a brilliant thinker.
rescuemay 8 months ago
So true getting us to argue amongst ourselves as to what to do about the poor when we should be asking what is the standard of being poor or well off and who decides it. We should also ask if government policy fails and should be scrubbed. Regulation and welfare and such. Not to mention as a free man I didn't know other peoples problems were mine and other people's money I was entitled to, I learned this much from some in government.
LokiScoutSniper 8 months ago
Always a pleasure listening to sound reason! Lets get back to it folks.
quinnrasta 8 months ago
the people best suited to be in power don't want that power. those people know of all of the corruption involved, already.
emperorkang 8 months ago
What kind of system will Give the Greatest opportunities to the most people?
RIP Milton. God bless you.
biozamadotcom 8 months ago 31
Comment removed
cdm1972 8 months ago
@biozamadotcom If God exists, and I doubt he does, Milton Friedman will be up there explaining to him how he should be running heaven. And I suspect Milton is right. And I suspect God will disagree and have to learn the hardway like the rest of us down here.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
Don't force insurance, taxes, building codes etc. and housing will be available for all.
Mauhadeeb28 8 months ago 26
@Mauhadeeb28
Housing might be available for all under Capitalism, but politicians can't claim credit and reap the benefits this way.
CommanderGene 8 months ago 2
@CommanderGene Thats my thinking exactly, theres no glory in watching a system do all the work.
cucucachu0000 8 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28 I agree, as long as we also require the owner to take responsibility. If the uninsured house burns(through no 3rd party's fault, of course), no one but the owner should have to pay for it. Charity to help that neighbor out would be great, though! Just no govt. funds to rebuild...
cdm1972 8 months ago
@cdm1972 Sounds great.
Mauhadeeb28 8 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28 - don't initiate force, period.
furyofbongos 8 months ago
@furyofbongos I'm with you.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Right so you want to see dangerous dwelling going up? You want to see shonky builders and tradesmen constructing shit?
Fattboy26 8 months ago
@Fattboy26 Why would a construction company build something that would ruin their reputation?
FabiusMaximus1000 8 months ago
@Fattboy26 Why do you assume that that would be the consequence, and indeed, why do you assume that it doesn't happen in the status quo (both assumptions seem to be wrong to me)
Anteater1234567 8 months ago
@Anteater1234567
Oh for fucksake what planet are you on Sir? I have lived in places where there are little or no building codes and have seen what happens when things go wrong. I have seen when bodgey handymen do work that I as a licenced plumber have rectified. Stop trying to be intellectual when you cant bring it off.
Fattboy26 8 months ago
@Fattboy26 So if building codes were removed tomorrow, would you no longer do quality work?
weavermama 8 months ago
@Fattboy26 I am on a planet where vested interests such as yourself argue for regulation that makes us less prosperous, less enterprising and less free by forcing regulation on us under the guise of consumer protection. The proper way to protect a consumer is through a robust court system that properly punishes tradesmen for their mistakes, providing the traders with the correct incentives.
I fortunately do not live on a planet where the measure of a man as an intellectual is done by a plumber.
Anteater1234567 8 months ago
Respond to this video... Imagine we were to draw a line so as to bisect a shantytown in Haiti. One side was given a stringent building code( only galvanized screws in your cardboard walls) and the other was given a system of unhampered free trade. Which side of town would see their standard of living improve? Do you think that the people in the slums and tenement yards of the world live like that because they don't have enough building codes and housing inspectors?
weavermama 8 months ago
@Fattboy26 That is why you find a worker who is certified from an institution shown to be legitimate. You still don't need government licensing; you just need the training and to build to certain specifications. Because of this crap a woman who was on the Stossel program needed to spend $4000 on a cosmetology course in order to continue doing her african hair braiding, and the course doesn't even have anything on braiding. Special interests just use it to put up barriers to entry.
SecondAgeOfReason 8 months ago
@SecondAgeOfReason
Mate even licenced tradesmen will cut corners if there is no minimum building code. Even if a good licenced tradesmen wanted to rectify problems he would have a hard time guessing because under you system of no building codes there would be no plans for him to go on. Now whats this fukin new argument about some girl doing hair braiding? Listen before posting a comment trying using your brains.
Fattboy26 8 months ago
@Fattboy26 It's one of the typical examples of how licensing is used. Anyway, the customer can sign a contract with them maintaining that the work must be done to an agreed upon standard, or the institution may require that all of their work be done to that standard and any example otherwise would have them pay enormous amounts to the people with shoddy work done.
SecondAgeOfReason 8 months ago
@Fattboy26 If that is who you want to hire and that is all you can afford, that is surely better than paying outrageous rental fees for the rest of your life.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Listen mate Milton Friendman is a smart man no arguing there but he is not always right. I am in the constuction industry and even when regulated there are shonks. And if you did not have any regulations it would be a nightmare even if you paid for the best workers you still would not be assured they did not make short cuts.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 Your fear is that there would be more shitty construction workers but the fact is, without government regulations and safety nets people would be more aware that shitty construction workers exist and would actually pay more attention to them. They would be more alert to shitty workers.
Regulation do not help anyone except for those who obtain meaningless jobs funded solely at gun point. All at the expense and dismay of the poor and middle class.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
No mate that is not my fear there is already shitty workers but we would have sub standard housing. I am a plumber and I can do real shitty work if I wanted to and the owner could be sitting over my shoulder and he/she would be none the wiser. And how many owners want to sit over someone shoulder? Please try and have a think. How does one know a shitty worker do they wear a tee shirt with the words CAUTION Shitty Worker? I believe in regulation but not over regulation.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 Regulations don't stop tricksters at all. Regulations have nothing to do with it. There is no regulation now that regulates the amount of soddy plumbers. There just isn't.
What regulations deal with are what building materials you are allowed to use and how you are allowed to assemble them. They tell you how you are allowed to build your own shit. All that drives costs up, which hits the poor the most. Housing is unaffordable to them in part by these regulations.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
You are just repeating my argument back to me I just said that we already have shitty workers. So you think poor families should live in unsafe sub standard housing? They do that in many nations and when disasters hit the death rate rockets.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 I think poor people should be able to live wherever they want to. These regulations force them into rental properties with no way to own their own property. As long as they are poor, they are forced to pay and pay and pay and in the end, they walk away with nothing.
So, since natural disasters occur, poor people shouldn't own housing? To fix this, you stop them from building homes they can afford? You care for them, so you want prohibit them from owning homes just incase. Ridiculous.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 I'd rather own my shitty little house, than pay rent to a corporation for the rest of my life.
Isn't the persons choice whether they want to build their homes on sand instead of a rock? If they were allowed to build cheaper houses, why would they choose to live in an area frequented by natural disasters. In the end, that is there choice to live there.
"Hey, I'm doing this for you poor people. Now, pay me rent or live on the streets. Your choice." Way to be soooo caring, bro.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Then earn more and buy a house a well built proper house. No its not the person choice whether their house is safe or unsafe as they might have vistors, neighbours and children in those home of which they have a duty of care to. You start to build sub standard housing the areas becomes slums which can affect other areas. When workmen need to repair services they need plans and if they are just built without proper planning then it will create a mess.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 None of your arguments are remotely relevant. A person decides whether they want to go into a home or not. If they get harmed while inside, the responsibility still lies on the home owner regardless of regulations.
You are trying to say that cheap housing is unsafe for kids, but somehow welfare for life is better. They want to legitimately take care of themselves, but you don't want them to. WTF?
Way to go. Your solution is "stop being poor".
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
So get off you arse buy or rent a proper house that is safe and well built. Or find a homeless shelter the choice is yours. But building slums is not the answer.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 All these poor folks must look real small to you way up there on your high horse.
I hope something never happens to you which you aren't able to afford to own a home or rent.
So you would rather have poor people be supported by tax payers and live off of welfare programs than see them live within their means, on their own. Mind boggling. I know you will change you mind sooner or later. You aren't thinking about this right at all. All I can do is plant the seed. Cheers, mate.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Mate I think you suffer from an inferiority complex. I would like to see poor people in safe housing as well as rich and middle class.
If I was poor I would like to know while I am sleeping the house does not collapse in on me. Its called peace of mind.
So you think someone living in an unsafe dangerous is ok? I dont. I am in the constuction industry and have seen dangerous dwellings and the damage they can do. Problem is you are not thinking at all. You dont have a clue.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 Yo are being so ridiculous. Why would the house fall in? Building is not difficult. It is simple as putting two pieces of wood together. What I am saying is that the would and all those materials would be far ore affordable without the regulations. They would still be high quality affordable building materials absent regulations but with regulations they can't be affordable.
If they want piece of mind, they wont build a shanty. It is simple as that.
I have been in construction too.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
No I am not being ridiculous you are just trying to be oversmart and you are not suceeding. If a house is poorly constructed in can in all likelyhood collapse. If its service have been installed poorly it can cause problems such as electrical shocks. Building is a little more complex that putting two bits of wood together. I can see by that statement you never have worked in the constuction industry. So please do us both a favour and dont display you ignorance.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 lol "oversmart"
Why would a person build a poorly constructed house? two reasons: they don't care or that is all they can afford. You are trying to take that away from those people and force them to pay a business for housing. How in your mind is that right? You are extorting these people for profit by regulating them out of a home. It is sick.
ANd building is not more complex than "putting two bits of wood together". As a framer all I did was that. Building is easy. Kids do it.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Yes in many nations people do build poorly constructed house because they cant afford it. And no I am not trying to take that away from those people. Those people live in 3rd world nation and compared to you and more live in poverty. But when natural disasters strike those people are hardest hit. For example in Brazil people illegally built on the side of mountains and when the landslides hit they perished. In Iran when are earthquake hit they lost thousands.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 Those people are the hardest hit by regulations as well. I guarantee they would rather have their shanties than no house at all because they couldn't afford it. Humans need shelter. They shouldn't be forced to pay a business for that unless they want to.
I understand your argument, but those people make the decisions where they live. They understand the risks, but many would rather live free and poor than a slave to renting and poor. You want to take that away.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
No people in the 3rd are not hit by building regulations. I see you have not travelled much to make that statement. Look mate stop playing the intellectual till you get a real idea and the only way to do that is through experience of which I doubt you have much of. And yes they would rather have shelter than none at all I agree. But that is the 3rd world. And they are not forced to pay for building regulations as none exists for them.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 So, in 3rd world country its ok to have freedom of where and how you live. But in Australia, you should be forced into government assistance? Now you are wanting not only to force the poor into government programs or to pay for housing they will never own, but now you want all of your neighbors to be forced to fund this oppression.
Your mind set keeps getting more and more uncivilized.
And by the looks of it, you are in the minority on this one. At least of those who read my comment.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Listen your argument is ridiculous. Its getting stupidier as its proceeds. Who forces who into government assistance? No one. Please stop trying to be intellectual your failing. I dont want to force anyone into government projects so please stop you strawman argument its stupid. What is oppressive about living in a safe dwelling? You iq is dropping. You're not taking medication are you? Wow I am in the minority boo hoo because one of you dimwitted friends is backing you.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 If a person can't afford a home because they can't afford to pay for the price driven up by the regulations, they either live on the streets or get government aid.
The oppression lies in the force. You are forcing things on people and calling it good. Especially those that now cant afford to own housing because of your asinine regulations. You are try to "keep them safe" but in the mean time you are pushing them into further poverty by forcing them to pay rent or take gov assistance.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 If you don't want to force people into government housing then why do you tell people what they are and aren't allowed to build with? You are effectively telling the poor "Sorry, but you since I want you to be safe, you can't home a home. i'm doing this for you poor people." How is this a good idea?
How can you honestly believe you are good while you force people to bend to your will?
You are the only person I've chatted with who has not been able to understand such a simple argument.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Its called a building regulation and safety code. There is a standard that all dwelling should apply to. That does not force anyone on government assisantance. If these codes did not exist then there would be numerous deaths, injuries and hazards that would cause millions to be lost. The poor deserve to live in a safe house as much as the rich. You are the type of person that would like to see the poor live in unsafe slums. You are incapable of making an argument period.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 There is no standard all dwellings should apply. How are you the one to set a standard of living for other people? Your standards aren't everyone elses. You just use force to push them on peaceful people.
Before building codes building safety was already progressing. What made them safer was constantly better technology, not regulations. Just like it has always been.
THE POOR COULD AFFORD SAFE HOUSING IF IT WEREN'T FOR REGULATIONS!. You are really having a hard time with this.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Well there I disagree with you but what do I know I have only had over 20 years experience in the construction industry. The minimum safety standard is usually set by state or local government bodies. What force do I use on peaceful people so they can live in safe housing? Sir your argument is moronic. Again stop playing the intellect you're not intelligent as can be seen by your comments.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 You don't personally use force, but the inspectors and police do and you approve and support that.
Funny that you say I don't have intelligence. You would be the first person to say something like that, which leads me to believe you just can't grasp the concept. Which is ok.
Just know I would never support anyone that wanted to force something on you because as a brother, I love you, even as much as our differences pain me. I completely disagree that with government we are any safer.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Look mate you are not Milton Freidman not even a poor copy of him. I approve of inspectors making sure a house is safe before people move in its called DUTY OF CARE.
I am happy that you are happy when someone calls you unintelligent. At least you are not hurt. But most fools are ablivious.
You are not my brother so refrain calling me that. And anyone that wants to put people in unsafe dwelling is quite evil.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 I approve of inspectors too. I just don't approve of inspectors inspecting someone out of an establishment when they can't afford the upgrades.
II would never want to be Milton Freidman.
I don't want to put people in unsafe housing, I just don't want people to be unable to afford safe housing because of asinine regulations. It is as simple as that.
I will always consider you my brother, whether you like it or not. I will fight for you even though we disagree. Because I love you.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 if the cost to build a very secure house is higher then a poor person can afford to rent or buy, what good is that house for him?
kardentyrell 5 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
I wish I could say I understood your argument but I doubt you understand your own argument. I think you are arguing with me for the sake of appearing smart.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 What is there not to understand. Without regulations, people will still want safe housing. Without building regulations, they will still get it. Why? Because it has been like that way before regulations started.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
So you are farmer now? And building is not easy. I think for you to say that show you have very little experience in life in general.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 I do have a huge garden with goats, cows, chickens, and rabbits, but I don't believe I ever mentioned that.
A child understand what is necessary to build a structure e.g. legos, kinnects. When you get older you start to understand that the bigger things are, the stronger the materials need to be. This isn't rocket science. You are putting the idea of building on a pedestal. Humans have been building since they existed. You think way too highly of what you do. Anyone can do that.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
If you had no regulation on building material I could purchase material that are sub standard without my knowledge. Sure it would be more affordable but later on could be catastophic or expensive I will give you an example years ago China exported cheaper copper pipe to Australia. Many people bought this pipe as copper is now expensive the copper was sub standard and could not tolerate the water pressure in most Australian homes and burst causing thousands in flood damages.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 You would know who had quality building materials by word of mouth. Businesses that claimed superior products and sold duds don't make it in the market now. It would not be any different without regulations.
More businesses could come up with new inexpensive ways to make building materials, as was the case before all the regulations got in the way.
Doesn't it make you wonder why all the big building companies (GAF, heidleberg etc) all lobby for the regulations? MONOPOLY.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28
And I doubt you have been in construction unless it was cleaning up. Or you would not by making such a stupid argument.
Fattboy26 7 months ago
@Fattboy26 Drywall and framing for 15 years.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago
@Mauhadeeb28 ... and we can all live in dilapidated shacks.
mba2ceo 7 months ago
@mba2ceo If that is where you wanted to live, or that is all you could afford, why not? Why should those who can not afford insurance, inspections, and all the standard highly regulated materials be relegated to renting their whole lives? That is damning the poor for simply being poor.
Mauhadeeb28 7 months ago