31 Responses to “never mind the sprinklers, check out the shopping!”

1. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 12:26 PM Said:

   If this complex had been in the US or UK they would have been required to have had all those things.

   But it’s OK, since regulation is always bad. It’s really a small price to pay.

2. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 2:13 PM Said:

   A ministry official said that all buildings in Qatar abide by safety regulations ‘with no exceptions’

   Well done those safety regulations.

3. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 3:01 PM Said:

   Regulations without enforcement means nothing.

   In my city, all new hotels and major office buildings have sprinkler systems. The sprinkler system must be inspected once a month by a certified inspector, plus, once every thirty months in the presence of the Fire Department.

   This isn’t over regulation. It’s good policy.

4. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 3:46 PM Said:

   Wow.

   I didn’t know there aren’t any fires in New York.

5. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 4:00 PM Said:

   ?

6. Mahons, on May 29th, 2012 at 4:01 PM Said:

   Pete – Such things don’t eliminate all risk, they do however vastly reduce the risk.

7. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 4:09 PM Said:

   This extended discussion shows the complete vapidness of Ron Paul thought and the numbskull body of work that it rests on.

   It cannot withstand even five minutes’ contact with the real world.

   I’m not sure that there would be a single person in say NY, Chicago or London who wouldn’t strongly support such mandatory minimum safety standards for high rise properties. But these guys see it as a bad thing.

8. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 4:14 PM Said:

   Phantom -

   The building in this case complied with building regs. Let me say that again, because you’re being particularly thick today: the building complied with building regs.

   Knowing something about the business, I suspect that the regs provided a ceiling to standards and not a floor. Tick the boxes and the bureaucrats are happy.

   It would be preferable to ditch the make-work regs for bureaucrats and go with superior, private standards.

9. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 4:17 PM Said:

   Phantom -

   You really are thick.

   “I’m not sure that there would be a single person in say NY, Chicago or London who wouldn’t strongly support such mandatory minimum safety standards for high rise properties.”

   I support standards. Everyone supports standards. Individuals and markets create and maintain rule and regs and standards all the time.

   But you have to be as thick as a brick to think that only government can enforce standards.

   Really thick.

10. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 4:24 PM Said:

    Regulations without enforcement means nothing.. Read carefully.

    –

    You’ve said this before I suspect that the regs provided a ceiling to standards – I don’t know how it works in Qatar, or in other bullshit parts of the world, but in NY or I believe London, the regs do NOT provide any ceiling to standards. They are minimal standards. You are encouraged to exceed them. Smart hotel builders installed sprinklers before the law required it, just as smart homeowners all have smoke / carbon monoxide detectors even when not required to do so.

    Non-mandatory standards, especially in an urban setting, only get you so far. Because there will always be some who will save the money by not complying with the standard.

    If you have any specific complaints about NY building safety codes, lets hear them. Unless you’re just making stuff up.

11. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 4:28 PM Said:

    But you have to be as thick as a brick to think that only government can enforce standards.

    How can you have a universal requirement without the force of law?

    If someone doesn’t want to have sprinklers, lighted EXIT signs and a fireproof stairwell in a 50 story hotel, and does not choose to comply with any private scheme since he thinks it would be against the Constitution, are you ok with that? Should there be no compulsion to adhere to some standard?

    The Ron Paul Hotel you could call it.

12. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 4:59 PM Said:

    As always, the tidy, statist, bureaucratic mind can only understand one tidy, tidy, statist, bureaucratic standard.

    That makes no more sense than having one style of shoes or one kind of car engine. what we want are competing standards. That’s how you raise the bar and compatition.

    One national standard is guaranteed to deliver two things; less research and innovation and many millions for those deciding on what the standard will be.

13. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 5:15 PM Said:

    OK, it should be quite legal for the ” Ron Paul Hotel ” highrise to not have sprinklers, protected stairwells, alarm systems, etc.

    Wow, you boys are something else.

    The movement, such as it is, that you are part of, is intellectually bankrupt.

    I wish there was a British version of Ron Paul, who might attract fewer votes than the US version.

14. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 5:41 PM Said:

    Such a hotel wouldn’t exist you moron.

    Hotels are built with borrowed capital. How many lenders will pony up millions for a building without fire protection? None.

    I.e. self interest and market processes lead to desirable outcomes.

15. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 5:54 PM Said:

    People, and corporations, do cut corners. Ask BP. That’s why we have laws.

16. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 7:27 PM Said:

    FYI, fire safety regulations date back to at least 1774

    The concept is hardly new. It has evolved with the times- the rise of the skyscraper, new technologies, much more urbanization, etc.

    Does anyone agree with Pete that the government should not have a role in setting fire / building safety standards?

    The Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774

    The Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act placed buildings into seven classes, with the required thicknesses of the external and party walls stipulated for each of the classes. It also included provisions stating a maximum floor area for stores and warehouses. The Act also brought into being the first legislation that dealt with human life and escape, rather than just building safety. The Act stated that London boroughs were to appoint Surveyors and “every parish should provide three or more proper ladders of one, two and three storeys high, for assisting persons in houses on fire to escape therefrom”.[3]

17. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 7:51 PM Said:

    And there’s never been a fire since …

18. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 8:18 PM Said:

    Your comments are increasingly stupid.

    The laws against murder haven’t stopped murder either. I guess all criminal statutes should be repealed.

    I note that even your fellow Ron Paul supporters don’t support you on this one.

19. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 8:55 PM Said:

    Phantom -

    Drop all that Ron Paul stuff. I’m not like you. I make up my own mind. I don’t look for packaged opinions on a shelf.

    You cite BP as an example of necessary laws which did not prevent the blowout. You recommend government fire regs as necessary when they don’t stop fires. You can’t even recognise when logic defeats your own arguments.

    Yes, all criminal statutes should be repealed. Many of them merely codify common law decisions anyway, and the codification has written advantages into law for special interests with access to politics.

    The idea that something is not criminal without a prior written law is the opinion of a numbskull. It’s to suggest that no-one can go to court, announce that he has been wronged and present evidence how he has been wronged. This is the very bases of Anglo Saxon law.

    Phantom, you’re not smart enough to debate me. Give your own opinion, but stop referring to me all the time and stop coming in here merely to refute my opinion.

20. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:01 PM Said:

    You idolize a world that never was, and make preparations for a world that never will be.

    The guys on the lunatic fringe have one thing in common – they don’t know that they’re lunatics. They’re always sure that it’s everyone else..

    You are dismissed.

21. Mahons, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:09 PM Said:

    The Triangle Shirwaist Fire is a fine example of business can protect workers. Ahem.

    Certainly people can and should question whether certain regulations are helpful or not, but eliminating them all based on a theory that unchecked capitalists will protect us all is suicide.

    I must not be smart enough either. These “bases” of Anglo Saxon Law, are they like bases is baseball?

22. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:16 PM Said:

    I was thinking about that. For those unfamiliar with the incident, read this

    The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911 was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city of New York and resulted in the fourth highest loss of life from an industrial accident in U.S. history. It was also the second deadliest disaster in New York City – after the burning of the General Slocum on June 15, 1904 – until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years later. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers, who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling to their deaths. Most of the victims were recent Jewish and Italian immigrant women aged sixteen to twenty-three;[1][2][3] the oldest victim was 48, the youngest were two fourteen-year-old girls.[4]

    Because the managers had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits – a common practice at the time to prevent pilferage and unauthorized breaks[5] – many of the workers who could not escape the burning building jumped from the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors to the streets below. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers.

23. Pete Moore, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:26 PM Said:

    Dunno Mahons, I’ll ask “Higgins”.

    Yes Phantom, we should thank God for government, otherwise there would still be incidents like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. Oh hang on-

24. Mahons, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:33 PM Said:

    If his knowledge of baseball is like his knowledge of history he’ll probably tell you there are too many touchdowns in baseball.

    Once again, we have become far safer with necessary and responsible fire safety regulations than we were back one hundred years ago. They do not eliminate all loss, but they have vastly improved society.

25. Daphne, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:44 PM Said:

    A non-sequitur, but why would any parent drop their children off in mall daycare with complete strangers?

    Irresponsible and dumb.

26. Daphne, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:49 PM Said:

    My comments are being held hostage on the Woodhouse post. How much will it cost to bail them out of waiting moderation jail?

27. Daphne, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:49 PM Said:

    nevermind

28. Mahons, on May 29th, 2012 at 9:54 PM Said:

    Daphne- I had to go back to read the story. One family loses 2 year old triplets, 3 children died in another family. Sigh.

29. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 10:35 PM Said:

    Mahons

    You are thinking things through, and not all of us are capable of this feat.

    And in a dialogue of the deaf between rational thought and doctrinal noise, rationality is at a distinct disadvantage.

    Time to change the conversation, or the location.

30. Phantom, on May 29th, 2012 at 10:45 PM Said:

    For the benefit of the remaining thinking persons who may not know this case

    At the time of this fire, 1911, there were no regulations

    An oppressor government decided on evil regulations, like requiring that plant owners not lock the exit doors in crowded factories, and that they install fire alarm systems.

31. Daphne, on May 29th, 2012 at 11:58 PM Said:

    Mahons, I read the story this morning. Tragic beyond comprehension, my heart weeps for the parents.

    Still, they dropped their precious cargo off in a foreign mall daycare to go shopping. What sane, responsible person does this?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.