Now Chicago has it's entire building code online, but a lot of the code for things like electrical and plumbing are incorporated by reference. Most of the work I've done has been based on what the guys at the supply houses have told me code is. Most people probably wouldn't consider this a problem, because they hire licensed contractors, but I've also had work done by licensed contractors that doesn't meet code, and the only way I would have known is because I called somebody who had access to the actual code. Giving people access to the code allows people to know when they are being fleeced.

On a similar note, access to the building code gave me the ability to back myself up with facts in an argument with a building super who didn't want to provide any place to lock my bike. Building code in Chicago requires a certain number of places for bikes to be parked, and the only way you can avoid having a bike rack outside is if you provide an indoor space for bikes. I initially asked the building manger nicely for a place to lock or store my bike, and he basically sent out a mass email to all tenants that belittled anyone who thought that the city bike racks two blocks away were unsuitable for locking bikes. Without access to the city code, I wouldn't have been able to call him out on his bullshit. I've since used the city code several more times in arguments with him, and I've brought my fellow tenants on board. It's a really powerful tool. Before we started using the city code, the building manger would just bully anyone who dared to bring concerns to him.

After my experiences with the building super, I can really only see positive effects from open laws. There are a lot of people in positions of power who avoid following the law by bullying others into doubting whether they are in the right. Being able to use the law to back yourself up is very rewarding.

This. Real heroes seldom get the publicity they deserve. Truly amazing and (a heart rending story for me).

>>That’s something the ABA people don’t necessarily get. A couple of standards, what’s the big deal? No, no, no… this is a fundamental rock-bottom issue on democracy.”

This is what I like so much about the modern western societies (e.g. USA) with free market economy based democracies.

Would you even imagine such a free access to information in any religious based society (e.g. Islamic countries) or in any communist country?

I know, these modern western democracies are not perfect and need to be improved. It's getting improved (in this case regarding public access to public information) thanks to the heroes like Malamud, who are at work.

After reading this, I again realized to a much greater depth that "the issue of public access to public information" is an extremely important aspect of democracy.

The reason why people did not have ready access to books before the invention of the printing press was because books were expensive. The original printed bibles sold for approximately $4500 [3] ... and they were cheap by comparison to the hand-copied versions!

  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press  
  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glagolitic_alphabet - this became the basis for the Cyrillic alphabet.  
  [3]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=30+*+54+grains+Gold+in+USD

Generally, discussions/debates regarding any inconsistencies or ridiculous statements found in the scriptures is prohibited by the religions.

Consider a scenario of person like Bruno/Galileo ([1], [2]) getting dragged into religious court and getting a guilty verdict from the court and are ordered to be punished.

The religious courts would want the public to know the punishment and hence they will carry out the punishment in broad public view but the religious courts would not want the public to know exactly why the punishment was given. Because, if they allow this public information to become available to the public, then they fear that the very legitimacy of their religion can be questioned and rejected by the public.

Now consider a scenario of someone wishes to publish the court proceedings of the case of Bruno or Galileo in public at that time. Such a publication, if it contains the reason why the person was found guilty, will contain the information about the discoveries that have the potential to shake the very foundations of the religion. Now we must understand that majority of people in the religious based societies (e.g. Islamic societies) are religious (i.e. not-rational and with mostly closed minds about matters concerning their religion) and thus are very sentimental about their religion, their prophets and scriptures and they cannot stand the idea that their religion can be false/wrong/evil.

Hence the religious societies (e.g. Islamic societies) will not want the public information to be made public, if they think that it has the potential to shake the very foundations of the religion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

1. Your argument does not explain simple cases like the building code example where there seems to be little to no chance of this kind of information having a foreseeable impact on the very foundations of the religion

2. The very foundations of religion are generally about questions that we with the human condition are by design not very likely to answer conclusively. How will you ever show that there is no God if technological progress is likely to enable us the construction of artifical realities in the future? The more I think rationally about my experience of the world and the future that we are (or better could be) walking towards the less I am able to reject the very foundations of religion.

My intent with this post is not to excuse some archaic traditions and injustice done in the name of religion but to highlight that there exist some very real parallels between the foundations of religions based on intuitive insight and rational thought based on scientific evidence.

Maybe we could life in a better world if we aimed to disregarded world views from politics and focused on the pragmatic matters at hand - that is how to best live together. Or why are we reading hacker news after all? :)

I am afraid there is a confusion in the above statement about deeper philosophical considerations (like whether there is god(s) or not?) with the extremely lowly ramblings found in religious scriptures (e.g. there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe) and that these lowly ramblings are claimed to have been written by omniscient god(s).

Yes, I do agree that there may be some discussion about some deep philosophical questions to be found in the heap of ramblings present in the religious texts. But the philosophical issues are hardly of foundational nature in most mainstream religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We can easily see that their foundations are rather lowly claims like there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe.

So the very foundations I am talking about, are the almost foolish and childish claims made in religious scriptures and a foundational issue that these foolish/flimsy claims are made by god(s). A religious society will not allow any public information that it considers as having the potential to shake the foundations of their religion to be available to the public for consideration/discussion.

I have no problem with a rational discussion about whether there is god or not or a single god or multiple gods etc.

>>Maybe we could life in a better world if we aimed to disregarded world views from politics ...

Yes, I do agree.

The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. However, people have different experiences and might even have good reasons for their seemingly crazy beliefs. The world could even end from one day to the next (not even that crazy if you believe in something like the matrix or a simulated world). We simply cannot know... anything could be possible. I guess that's nothing new but we often seem to forget the consequences this situation has.

If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy...

So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing.

To connect that to your prior comment, I simply felt that your way to frame religious states as somewhat inherently less not really meaningful for the problem at hand and more a distraction from the underlying problem.

I hope that makes more sense. What do you think? Hope to back that perspective up with some more convincing evidence in the future :)

P.S. Edited a few times to make my rambling more clear :D

Fine, I don't want them to change; they may continue to believe in whatever (e.g. fairy-tales in Qurans/Bibles, like muhammad flew to heaven on a horse and met allah and came back to tell them his travel story) they choose to believe in. I don't have much problem with what anyone wishes to believe. But the issue doesn't stop there.

>>The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right.

What would you say about the believers in Nazism?

Most religions (including Islam) are like Nazism when it comes to their treatment of non-believers/apostates. The real troublesome are those parts in their scriptures where the believers are commanded (ordered) to wage war against the unbelievers (and non-followers). It is here the societies which follow the notion of "separation of religion and state" (modern western democracies) and those which don't follow that notion (religious nations) differ in a crucial manner.

>>So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand.

What kind of level playing field can we even expect to have if we are forced to tolerate the intolerant religious elements making violent reactions to any thoughts expressed? (e.g. killing the Charlie Hebdo staff just they expressed some thoughts that the religious people found offending) What kind of level playing field would you have offered to Nazis?

>>Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing.

Yes, it is very important and I do agree. Unfortunately, the rigid religious nature of these socities make it much harder to even communicate your thoughts. Just imagine trying to convince humanist and rationalist values with the help of verbal discussions to Nazi people.

I think the modern western world with democratic systems is far superior from a humanistic view-point as compared to the barbaric Islamic nations. And with immegration and otherwise, if these people are coming to modern western world, it becomes our duty to tell them unequivocally "what is negotiable and what is not and that some aspects of their religious beliefs can be accommodated but some barbaric aspects cannot be tolerated in our society because in our society we do not allow religions to play any significant role at societal/interpersonal level, that religion can only be a personal matter to them".

So, we must try to have a dialogue with Islamists and other religious people. But if the modern free societies in the western world wish to continue enjoying the freedom they have hard earned by fighting against some of the religions (the Christianity, Judaism), then they must make it clear that these values are NOT negotiable with some new religions (including Islam), just to accommodate their (barbaric) manners/scriptures in our societies.

>>If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity.

Yes, I understand that they may perceive such opinions as an attack against their reality/identity but I want you to note that it is a verbal and thought attack and not physical attack.

So, if they cannot tolerate difference of opinions, then we must tell them unequivocally "that they have to learn and abide by these modern, humanistic, democratic values if they wish to live here, that they have to learn that we value the freedom to offend their (or anyone's) sentiments/feelings, that everyone here has the freedom to criticize, ridicule, their religion, their prophet(s), their ways."

You seem to have at least some kind of issue with that otherwise why would you feel the need to ridicule some world views in the way you did right now? To me it seems like you are 'fine' with it on a rational level (System 2) but your subconscious (System 1) seems to betray you at least some of the time. I would argue that this is a crucial aspect that makes conflict solving more difficult than it needs to be.

>> What would you say about the believers in Nazism?

Thank you for bringing this up. I think those dark times actually provide a good example for the argument I am trying to make. How many of the people in Germany were 'believers' and how many were just playing along? To be honest, I can't know but neither can you. However, looking at the behavior of the German people after WWII it seems like not too many believers were actually left. Humans are not inherently fanatics nor idealists, most of us are pragmatists who are trying to live a meaningful life and cling to that which provides us some meaning. Hitler was good with that. He told a story that was easy or nice to believe for the Germans. It padded their self-esteem and provided some meaning for everyone (if you were German of course). So I really do believe that Germans were not bad people per se but lead astray by an enticing story that promised something more than what had been there. That doesn't JUSTIFY anything but I think it explains the dynamics that we have observed.

I agree with your sentiment that this story (let's call it: fanatism) was shown to not be aligned with the reality of 'nature'. There is simply too much variety and change in the world for one world view to dominate. Sometimes it takes longer (Roman empire), sometimes shorter (Third Reich) for nature to find a way to tip the scales again. Nothing is forever but change. So I do think we share some ground here.

>> What kind of level playing field can we even expect to have if we are forced to tolerate the intolerant religious elements making violent reactions to any thoughts expressed? (e.g. killing the Charlie Hebdo staff just they expressed some thoughts that the religious people found offending) What kind of level playing field would you have offered to Nazis?

So it seems like you try to view this situation through the lens of game theory and approximate the situation to common prisoners dilemma game. You are choosing the strategy of don't cooperate because you simply can't see that the other side will cooperate. This is all very rational if you accept that it's a single shot game or that there is no way the other side would change. However, you also destroy the potential pay offs of cooperating because the other side is in the similar situation as you, having very similar thoughts. You pre-deterime the outcome.

So what I am suggesting is that - even when it is sometimes very difficult - if we want change to happen we need to stop pre-dertmining the outcome and start to acknowledge that life is not simple, not black or white, and that there is a long history of bullshit on all sides. To make progress we need to focus on highlighting the benefits of cooperating until the non-cooperators understand. Tit-for-tat has been shown to be a very good strategy in general. A first and very important step towards that direction would be the acknowledgement that not all religious states are inherently bad or that religion is the problem that we face. I think it's pretty obvious by now that we mainly face the problem of an unfair distribution of wealth and power. Look at the US and what is happening there right now. Or are you there suggesting a connection with religion as well?

>> Yes, it is very important and I do agree. Unfortunately, the rigid religious nature of these socities make it much harder to even communicate your thoughts. Just imagine trying to convince humanist and rationalist values with the help of verbal discussions to Nazi people.

Why do you limit this hypothetical to verbal discussion? We have the ability to demonstrate the consequences of actions in more convincing ways than verbal arguments can. I think a key ingredient to learning is by experiencing and doing something. Design and execution of simulations is a way better way to explore the consequence of ones own actions.

>> I think the modern western world with democratic systems is far superior from a humanistic view-point as compared to the barbaric Islamic nations. And with immegration and otherwise, if these people are coming to modern western world, it becomes our duty to tell them unequivocally "what is negotiable and what is not and that some aspects of their religious beliefs can be accommodated but some barbaric aspects cannot be tolerated in our society because in our society we do not allow religions to play any significant role at societal/interpersonal level, that religion can only be a personal matter to them".

Why should I believe you? You made up your mind before I came. I never had a chance to convince you of my ideas or demonstrate how I could be a productive member of society - even with religion.

Of course there need to be some rules but there are many things we should not restrict simply because we feel uncomfortable with some ideas. For example, in Germany there is a discussion about forbidding the nikab by law because it is a symbol of the oppression of the woman and offense against the western way of living. This is madness if you actually want people to change because it's an highly symbolic act of aggression and supremacism. The nikab is only a piece of clothing that some women wear because they feel they need it. It's true that some women might be forced to wear it but that problem is not going to be solved by forbidding the nikab. Wouldn't those women would then simply be staying at home - they are forced and oppressed after all? There are even some women who only started to wear the nikab after this discussion started simply to rebel against the symbolism. If we are so superior why do we feel the need to exert this kind of show? It's hypocracy at it's finest.

>> So, we must try to have a dialogue with Islamists and other religious people. But if the modern free societies in the western world wish to continue enjoying the freedom they have hard earned by fighting against some of the religions (the Christianity, Judaism), then they must make it clear that these values are NOT negotiable with some new religions (including Islam), just to accommodate their (barbaric) manners/scriptures in our societies.

As I hope to have made it evident by now that you will not be perceived to be wanting to start a dialog but be part of a wicked, hypocratic and unjust world that has materially favored a few over the many, a world where nobody can honestly say: I deserve to be where I am. You are not perceived to be open for change but a person from a long line of supremacists who have waged war against my country on an idealogical, economic and physical level. You are not seeing me as a person with insights and values to contribute maybe even capable of greatness but as one from millions of irrational believers that are threatening your very way of living and existence that is nothing but build on decades of subjugation and misery of others.

>> Yes, I understand that they may perceive such opinions as an attack against their reality/identity but I want you to note that it is a verbal and thought attack and not physical attack.

Yes, you personally may have not physically attacked anyone but realizing that individuals are not like a stereotype is difficult, isn't it?

>> So, if they cannot tolerate difference of opinions, then we must tell them unequivocally "that they have to learn and abide by these modern, humanistic, democratic values if they wish to live here, that they have to learn that we value the freedom to offend their (or anyone's) sentiments/feelings, that everyone here has the freedom to criticize, ridicule, their religion, their prophet(s), their ways."

For 'they' to learn you have to be willing to appreciate, understand and engage with him or her.

On that note... I really want to thank you for this great discussion, it is always interesting to see and engage with problems from different view points. I am looking forward to your reply :)

No, I am not predetermining the outcome. Also I have not made up my mind about you. Yes, a person (including you) could be a productive member of society - even with his/her belief in his/her religion - but the person has to be content with just believing things said in his/her religion and must be content with following only those commands that are not illegal in this country and that means such a person should not start acting on the evil commands given in his/her religion. So as long as a Muslim person agrees and adheres to this humane code of conduct, I don't have any problem with him/her believing anything he/she likes and I don't have much problem with him/her following harmless commands (like, uttering the words 'insha allah' sometimes while speaking, or praying to their allah or on certain day slaughtering those animals that this country legally allows to be slaughtered to please their allah because they believe that their prophet muhammad, who claimed that he is the last prophet of their god allah, said that their god allah said that allah will be pleased and will send them to jannaht and will give them 72 virgin girls to enjoy sex-orgy forever in the heaven after their death if Muslims slaughter animals on some festival day and will be displeased and will send them to hell and burn them forever if they don't). See [1] for why this clarification.

I don't have problem with you or anyone believing such things and following such commands if it pleases you.

But if the person's "even with religion" qualification brings some evil elements of his/her religious beliefs like "waging jihad against the non-believers/apostates and killing them because their prophet said that their allah said to him on some hotline that 'hey muhammad my last messenger, tell your follower Muslims that non-believers/apostates are enemies of Islam/allah and hence it is a duty of every muslim to first try to convert them by trying to verbally convince them about the greatness of islam and then if they don't seem to get convinced wage war (jihad) against them in order to kill them and that if they fulfil this duty I (allah) will give them 72 virgin girls to play with forever in the heaven after their death and if they don't then I will rot them in the hell forever" and then if such a religious person acts according to such evil beliefs/commands then I have an objection to it. For the simple reason that this means my own life will be in danger because I am non-believer in Islam and I know I will not get convinced by the 'davaah'(invitation) a believer Muslim will first try with me.

The point is as long as you or any person does not physically attack and harm other people just because they don't take your/his/her religion seriously enough for you/him/her or make fun/ridicule of your/his/her religion or your/his/her prophet or your/his/her gods/allahs then I don't have any problem in accepting your proposition that you can be productive member of society - even with belief in religion.

>>Yes, you personally may have not physically attacked anyone but realizing that individuals are not like a stereotype is difficult, isn't it?

How my ridiculing a scripture turns someone into a stereotype? People in the Europe,US have been ridiculing Bible, prophet jesus and trinity/god for quite a lot of time, has this caused any stereotyping of the Christians here? Hardly.

Similarly, ridiculing Quran, Hadiths, prophet muhammad and allah does not turn someone into a stereotype.

Yet one may ask, but still why ridicule? Because ridicule is a good way to bring out fallacies, inconsistencies and injustices in a system/situation/ideology to the notice of general public. Ridicule and satire have played an important role in engaging meaningful and educative discussions in the world. e.g. George Orwell's Animal Farm, 1984

>>You seem to have at least some kind of issue with that otherwise why would you feel the need to ridicule some world views in the way you did right now?

I believe to the core of my heart (as you have also pointed out) that most Muslim people are good and humanists but many of them are blinded by their faith and by their leaders' incessant efforts to keep them blinded and use them to wage wars.

Will a Islamic society ever allow people to openly claim they are homosexuals and then to live peacefully and to work/travel at public places?

I want the Muslims to take a notice of the fallacies, the inconsistencies and ultimately the evil found in Islam's core. I wish to bring out the evil aspects of Islam, so that Muslims can get rid of those aspects from their religion and reform it.

>>A first and very important step towards that direction would be the acknowledgement that not all religious states are inherently bad or that religion is the problem that we face. I think it's pretty obvious by now that we mainly face the problem of an unfair distribution of wealth and power. Look at the US and what is happening there right now. Or are you there suggesting a connection with religion as well?

I disagree with few points here. I take issue with religions. Religions have known to cause a lot of human suffering essentially because they harbour/encourage a lot of hatred towards the unbelievers/apostates. Another issue I have with religions is that they encourage/coerce people to believe in various superstitions and evil things. Beliefs in themselves are not so much of a problem for a society. The real problems caused by religions are when they encourage/coerce believers to act according to those evil beliefs to force the non-believers to toe the line or to get rid of the non-believers/apostates.

Distribution of wealth and power is an important issue too but not the only issue. Also many religions finally boil down to political-power-games, and hence can be exploitative in this respect too. Christianity was very adept at this game, and was very exploitative and it was only after Christianity was rendered toothless the western world became more just and humane. Islam is also very adept at this power game and unfortunately even today is not rendered as toothless as it should have been.

No doubt the current situation in US bad for some people from a financial viewpoint, but still life in US is much better than that in religious societies. Again I wish you to consider the case of homosexuals.

But I am seeing that the Islamists are making more and ever more demands to accommodate their barbaric/ridiculous Islamic law (sharia) in the western democracies. This is scary. I hope the people realize this and stop succumbing to the demands of Islamists and instead engage in dialogue with those Muslims which are open to dialogues.

[1] http://cheznews.com/2016/09/13/isis-slaughter-prisoners-upsi...

I am facing a conundrum though. I have really thought long and hard about how we can actually move forward from this current state of affairs and I simply could not come up with a better perspective than the one I am proposing. I think it is hard to refute on a logical level if you are willing to distance yourself from emotion and really allow yourself to view the situation from both sides. As a recent article on hacker news shows a main theme of it, seems also to be validated empirically [1]. Still, I actually do understand your point and reasoning. It is perfectly reasonable and logical. So in a sense I think we are both right. But before we stop without reaching a conclusion - I have one more question: What would you need me to say or do for you to believe that my approach is actually worth trying out?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12483952

>>But before we stop without reaching a conclusion - I have one more question: What would you need me to say or do for you to believe that my approach is actually worth trying out?

I'd like you to give some details of your approach, as I am not yet very clear about it.

In essence, I hope to have argued the point that one can reasonably conceive of any person as living in their own reality. A reality that is shaped by the need to survive in a given environment. To reach someone in there, you have to speak in a language they understand - not only verbally - but also on a (let's call it) knowing level. For example, concepts can mean different things in different cultures (e.g., family, country/state). If there are strong differences in understanding a productive conversation is going to be almost impossible. So there are a few options here (list not necessarily exhaustive):

1. Force someone to 'change' by action and either don't care about the other or hope that they come to realize the benefit of your actions, but that will likely be an edge case.

2. Ignore the lack in understanding and expect the other side to figure it out on their own (maybe guided by some actions, norms, etc.). I guess this is what has happened for a long time. It can work, but it seems a little bit like gambling.

3. If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow. We realize that we don't yet know everything. That we even can't know everything because everything can change. So we engage with each other in a quest to discover how we can overcome the problems we face. One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding. But I also think that we can facilitate this with technology. A (global) translation network if you so will. I have the feeling a lot of people are already working on this... they maybe just don't know it yet :) We live in interesting times!

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine

I think the quicker and more unpredictable change is going to be, the more we'll realize the benefits of option 3. If you don't know where you will end up in life, you gain a different perspective of what should and should not be. I guess the obligatory reference on this topic would be [1]. But I am also very intrigued by [2]. Sadly, I did not have time to read the book yet but I have had the time to read a summary paper he published in another textbook. If you are interested in the topic, it might be worth checking out :)

[1]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/ [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Justice-Ken-Binmore/dp/019979...

I have a small doubt about it. On its face, your proposition seems quite attractive (in fact, as a liberal I always try to live by it) but in some circumstances it is outright dangerous.

To elaborate: Yes, we don't know everything, yes, we may not even know everything but still we have to manage our existence and our survival. So we cannot just indefinitely and naively apply the above mentioned principle of "If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow". To some extent we may allow the opposition to expand and we (as liberals) will accommodate some of their demands. But there has to be a recoprocating response of accommodation from the other side. We can wait for "certain amount of time" for the opposition to respond to our calls, but if our very survival and our very values are at stake, we cannot keep on waiting and accommodating the opposition indefinitely.

So, I suggest the following, to continue with your suggestion:

>>One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding.

I agree that causing unnecessary conflicts is bad. But raising points regarding doubts about something is not only not bad it is required.

So we must raise at least the following points, w.r.t. Islam, for public discussion: Who is considered as innocent in Islam? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? [1] What is Islam's view on homosexuals?

  We can begin by asking these questions, and let us see if the other side at least allow these issues to be discussed publicly?

Yes, reciprocity is certainly required. I would argue it is actually what our existence is about. And yes, you have every right to fight for survival... I am just saying the other person has as well. I think what makes it difficult for you to understand me is that you still view yourself on the 'right' side and then only see a big large group of people demanding you to 'lower' yourself. You are fighting tooth and nail to stop that. As I said before it is understandable, it is your right and it is the same thing everyone on 'the other side' is doing. Stalemate again.

>> So we must raise at least the following points, w.r.t. Islam, for public discussion: Who is considered as innocent in Islam? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? [1] What is Islam's view on homosexuals?

I get that you are freaked out by some passages in the Quran and believe that it is making believers less tolerant, less worthy, less whatever you wanna have it. But if you look at it without any values the Quran is 'just' a book. A very revered and at the same time hated book with the power to move people. How we behave or what we do does not depend on the book but what we make of it, how it fits to our lives and experiences. It is not the book or the religion that leads to the outcomes that we observe today but our interactions over generations. Of course we need to discuss things. But why not try it this way:

Who is considered as innocent in Islam? => who is considered innocent? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? => How much do we need to respect the other persons world view? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? => How should we deal with conflict? What is Islam's view on homosexuals? => What is our view on people with different orientations? What is even our view of women in the society?

If you were really open to discuss those issues you would see that there is arguably much wickedness going on both sides... I could give you lengthy examples relating to non-religious examples in the West where the answers to these questions seem - let's call it - inconsistent.

Anyway, that is just my view and it is necessarily incomplete. You have already enriched it with me being more aware of some of the wickedness in the literal interpretation of the Quran and the feelings that this might cause on both sides. I don't think that this a showstopper, though, it makes things more difficult - as a first step we would still need to demonstrate that 'infidels' are not a threat anymore. That we respect the religion and acknowledge and appreciate the insights in the Quran and also that allah does exist (in their reality)... As I write it like this I know it must read to you that I have lost my mind or that I am very naive. But then again, isn't also naive to think that things will magically get better if we keep on doing what we have been doing? Why not give it a chance? The result might surprise you. :)

Mein Kampf is also "just" a book.

A full set of all applicable building codes for any given structure can easily cost in excess of $1000. These are codes that have been adopted into law by the jurisdiction, but they are not made publicly available as all laws should be.

Many people have noticed this and complained. The NFPA (National Fire Protection Association which maintains, among many others codes, the National Electrical Code) did somewhat acquiesce by release a "free" version of their codes through a crippled Java application intended to disallow any copying. It sort of worked a little, but at some point something changed (Java updated, probably) and I could never get the security settings right to allow it to run again.

The amount of time that could be saved by having an HTML, hyperlinked (practically every section of any code references another section, or a word with a very specific, non-intuitive definition) edition of every building code publicly available would be enormous.

Bike parking requirements are generally part of zoning, not building codes, and generally apply only to new construction, not existing buildings. That appears to be true in Chicago: https://chicagocode.org/17-10-0300/

It's good that it was helpful in convincing the building superintendent to support bicycles, but probably not so great if that's not actually what the law requires. (Perhaps your building was recently constructed and the Chicago Building department or Zoning Administrator failed to enforce the zoning code?)

The building has a parking lot that was constructed to meet the current code, but bicycle parking was not added. Furthermore, the rack the building manager purchased to comply with the law was not a type allowed by the Chicago Department of Transportation, the entity responsible for determining which racks comply with the zoning law. Finally, the guy dropped the rack in the striped area of the ADA parking zone and didn't secure it to anything, which is also illegal.

For an example of a time he clearly violated the law, he replaced our windows with ones that couldn't open, but insisted that he could only run the mechanical ventilation from 9 AM to 5 PM despite the building being occupied well outside of these hours. When he was called out on this fact, he tried to hide behind the noise ordinance, which has a specific exception for mechanical ventilation. He also tried to claim that we "chose" to be in the building while the ventilation was off, so ventilation didn't need to be provided, which is also false. No matter which year was chosen for the code, the building would not be allowed to be occupied without ventilation under any building code.

Being able to look up the relevant ordinance on the internet and send him the link was extremely helpful. Furthermore, it made it a lot easier to find who was responsible for enforcing a particular area of the code, and then explain what law was being broken to them. Without the code online, I'm rather sure I'd have to hire a lawyer to get anything done. The city tends to respond to problems based on the length of time they will take to solve, and being able to contact the right department with the exact issue at hand speed up the process immensely. I can't even imagine how either the bike rack issue or the ventilation issue would have taken if I had to call 311 and try to get the phone number to the correct department. I once got a call back for some illegal dumping I reported two years after I had moved out of the apartment I was reporting the issue from.

People like that will do anything. I lived in a building where due to some bizarre dispute with the city, the landlord removed the front door.

He had a section 8 tenant, and section 8 requires that anything in the home be in good order. The door locks didn't work correctly, and that tenant reported him. He believed that removing the door would solve his problem, as a door that is missing is not broken.

I ultimately escaped paying a few months rent when he was arrested for trying to set another building on fire.

The latter doesn't seem like a horrible model to me. It's not unlike how road construction is largely funded by a gas tax.

Government likes model laws and codes because it's easy and they can just reference them -- that doesn't mean that the law should be limited in availability. The trade associations can still require payment for services, just like Red Hat can sell subscriptions to Linux.

Public access to law is about more than building codes. In many cases, government has sold the rights to the law to companies like Thompson. I worked for a government agency that actually had to pay for a subscription to both the law and regulations that the agency actually produced.

One way to support his work is by donating here:

https://public.resource.org/

And to better understand his passion for this space, see his memorial speech at Aaron Swartz's memorial at the Internet Archive:

https://youtu.be/VllJDnMcTzM

It's almost like writing a college paper and having to pad out the word count.

Anyway, I support the straightforward principle that the law isn't the law if it's not accessible to the public.

The only question left is how do you fund standards development if you abolish the model (that predates the Internet) of selling copies. I suspect the answer is going to be different on a case by case basis.

For example, general contractors and tradesmen depending on jurisdiction need to be licensed. A mix of license fees and government funding could pay for building or fire codes.

Why shouldn't congress pay for the development of the law if they are going to enact the law? I've often thought that is part of the problem. It is too easy for congress to pass laws quickly and without restriction. That is why we have so many laws, it is so easy to pass laws in a reactionary way, and to respond to private interests instead of public interests.

I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't the development be publicly funded?

This is very much like public funded research, it's funded by taxpayers but not available to them without movements like SciHub liberating the products of said research.

It's a bit of a joke that it's allowed to continue this way for so long in the first place.

Source?

The post I responded to stated:

> Congress already funds the development of the standards, these bodies just continue to profit from them until they are superseded, entirely due to these practices.

Basically, the original poster accused standards organizations of double dipping. I asked for proof, and all I got was a link to an NIST article stating that standards organizations used some of its research in formulating standards. My point is that everybody relies on government research--that doesn't mean the standards were "funded by Congress" in the first place.

I'm being pedantic here, but I think it's important to call out. It's very common in HN for posters to insert random snipes like this without any factual backing, and for people to take such assertions at face value.

The people involved have already spent massive sums on lobbying, and to me this feels like an extension of that lobbying.

It's like if a law stated that certain government contractors must use ADA or C. They'd refer to the ISO standards for those languages, but nobody could reasonably come along after the fact and say they did so because of lobbying by ISO!

ASTM Washington Office Jeff Grove, Vice-President, Global Policy and Industry Affairs 202-xxx-xxxx

Anthony Quinn, Director, Public Policy and International Trade 202-xxx-xxxx

http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm

Even if ASTM itself doesn't directly lobby, it's ... delightfully or frighteningly charming, take your pick, that the naive view of an industry organisation not being utilised by its members for their direct benefit through rules-setting wouldn't find itself used to do so. Directly, indirectly, overtly, or otherwise.

Congressional Record lists 188 results for ASTM in Congressional testimony and documents: https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"...

Note that ASTM is principally active at city, county, and state levels, for which comparable archives are much less available.

http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international

Sep 2010 - Nov 2010 APCO WORLDWIDE provided UK public affairs consultancy services to ASTM International. [2]

Because building codes are a local issue and local governments have no money?

Think of how corrupt the system could be if a bunch of building material suppliers could write the law. "Buildings must be constructed from brand X materials" Then brand X has a monopoly for the materials. This is similar, only brand X is the only company that can provide you with a copy of the law, a law that you are required to comply with.

Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise.

> If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law.

These are non-profit organizations. And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. It's often very important for things to be done according to accept standards, but the government can recognize that without having the expertise to develop the standards itself.

Ok, but why can't the government pay them to develop the standards. Why must the business model be for them do fund the development of the standards after the fact.

I believe it is because the lawmakers do not have to pay for the laws with unpopular taxes, so they defer the fundraising to pay for the laws until after they have enacted the laws. That way they skirt the issue of taxes.

> And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma.

I guess it's just my opinion then. If the lawmakers can't stand by and realize the cost of forming the law while they are passing it, I don't think it is important enough to impose a cost to the citizens to read what the law is.

It's not the model that maximizes transparency, but it has a sensible logic of its own.

That's exactly the model I have a problem with. In my area, it is perfectly legal for me to remodel my house without hiring a 'builder'. But I have to comply with the building codes due to the law. But in order to know what those codes are, I have to pay a third party to access the law. And access isn't cheap. If access to the 'law' is more expensive than the remodel I want to do then I have a problem with the system.

I for one believe that I should have the right to embark on things like building a house without the need to pay a third party for access to access to what amounts to the law.

> It's not the model that maximizes transparency, but it has a sensible logic of its own.

I suppose it comes down to the matter of what you value. I value liberty and government transparency above all special interests. The system as it stands may have some logic, but I believe it is wrong.

The funds are present within the community, or they aren't. The mode of allocation presently used is highly inefficient. It's remarkably similar to the shake-down style of government revealed in places such as Ferguson, MO. And many other locations.

> The only question left is how do you fund standards development

I think there's an existing model of both government contracting private companies to do things and government allocating grants for private companies to do research, etc. - so either of those can be used for developing standards too, not? The government can also have a continuous financing of certain groups that are tasked with ongoing work on creating/updating standards.

Also, can be financed by involved industry - many industry players are as interested in having good standards as the government is, and are probably very interested in participating in developing those. Isn't that how IETF works?

Each state also makes a handful of their own amendments to the code, to account for local conditions and historic practices. An example of a local allowance (although probably informal city jurisdiction rather than statewide) is say allowing a two-family house to have only two electrical meters, rather than requiring an additional one for the "common areas", if it is owner occupied.

I guess technically the NFPA could revise what they publish as the "2014 NEC", creating some legal ambiguity. But in practice they just don't.

It would be a similar situation if, for instance, the Nevada legislature decided they were going to put on showings of Star Wars each night in front of the capitol, or erect a copy of a copyrighted sculpture.

"Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook."

Note that 'substantial' here doesn't mean it needs to be novella length. A simple description of the steps involved would be enough.

[0] - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

“[The] recipes’ directions for preparing the assorted dishes fall squarely within the class of subject matter specifically excluded from copyright protection by 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).”

IANAL etc. Just curious if you have heard otherwise?

[0] - http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/publications_v_meredith.htm

Salute!

It's a very different situation form the public availability of laws and judicial opinions generally, which are within the core expertise of public bodies and are entirely publicly funded to begin with.

If, however, you believe it is acceptable for home owners to repair their own homes or understand the laws that govern the buildings in which they live or lease to others, then you start leaning towards the notion that those governed by laws should be allowed to read them without private actors extracting a rent.

There is a big difference between transparency of operations (the right to know what your government is up to) and transparency of law. Both are important, but confusing the two doesn't do anyone any good.

I do think a "minimum viable democracy" needs the laws to be publicly reviewable without precondition. There can't be equal protection before the law when the law is only accessible for payment. That only a subset of humans are involved in the trades doesn't change the fact that the laws effect me, even if I'm not building my own house.

A law must be public. To do otherwise is to erode the very concept of the rule of law.

If a state adopting a code puts it in the public domain, then the code bodies should be suing the state for copyright infringement (unauthorized derivative work), and demanding that states pay to license the code for such use.

If a state adopting a code does not put the code into the public domain, then it should lack all legal force. This isn't a fantastic outcome with regards to building codes, so the state will need to fix the situation.

But instead of forcing a decision one way or another, both the code bodies and slimeballs in government have been content to just let it slide. They both benefit in their own way by corrupting the rule of law, while only the citizens suffer.

But, for example, if I didn't have access to the electrical code, I would have been unable to definitively follow the law when running some new power circuits. I would have had to rely on folk guidelines and general engineering knowledge, and could have possibly done something that would cause legal problems down the line.

Furthermore, I may have decided that such a thing wasn't worth getting into, and been pushed into hiring an expensive contractor instead.

(Also, this excellent comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12480626)

i'm sure that the majority of the times i've been told that, there was a good basis written down someplace.

but not having access to the code further skews an already asymmetric relationship between domain expert/contractor and customer.

Based on your wording, I don't know if you know this. But presently the issue of practical accessibility is actually moot thanks to the work of Malamud. The NEC, along with many others, is available right here: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ibr/

As a practical matter, the folks charged with following the laws in question are builders. Builders are also members of the standards bodies that create these standards. And they're the ones who pay for the standardization process by purchasing copies of the standards.

I actually agree with you that these standards should be publicly available, by the way.

> a doctor may be liable to a patient for not conforming to accepted standards of medical practice. But no writing exists that completely defines what those standards are!

It seems like an "accepted standard of medical practice" is therefore a matter of opinion, meaning you could find two professional witnesses who reasonably disagreed.

But much of the building codes are hard requirements - you're never going to be able to find a professional opinion that running a 20A residential circuit on 14AWG Romex is acceptable, even if say it's only in an uninsulated wall and is therefore likely safe.

So the two are completely different. Likely in the medical field, ambiguously policing those who stray too far from the herd is the best that can be done. But in disciplines with hard engineering rules, we can do better.

> As a practical matter, the folks charged with following the laws in question are builders

Erm, what? That's somewhat like saying the only people tasked with following traffic laws are drivers. Well sure, but in that sense we're basically all drivers.

Or if you mean that imply that only professional commercial builders are bound by those laws, that is definitively incorrect. People doing their own work are still bound by the law, even in the ridiculous nanny states that attempt to criminalize people working on their own home.

The law is a pragmatic tool to solve problems. Building codes solve a concrete problem with the market for construction: there is an immense information asymmetry between the original builder and subsequent buyers. Moreover, there are externalities because, e.g., inferior construction of one person's property can cause fire to spread to other peoples' property.

The existing model solves the problem and shoves most of the costs of doing so on builders--the parties best equipped to deal with the problem. That makes it a reasonable solution.

Your driving analogy fails because almost nobody builds their own house. Imagine instead that almost everyone rides in self-driving cars. Under those circumstances, would it really be unreasonable for the law to incorporate traffic regulations developed by the industry and optimized for automated cars?

But as I said elsewhere, it only functions if people believe in it ideologically. If a store relied solely on punishment for shoplifting as deterrent, they would need to hire many more security guards to watch every single customer. What they actually rely on is the average person's belief that stealing is "wrong", because said average person does not want to be stolen from themselves.

> Your driving analogy fails because almost nobody builds their own house

It's not only the initial building of a house, it's about any maintenance, repair, or upgrades. Knowing how to keep up your dwelling is a basic life skill. You may find it economically beneficial to pay someone else to do the actual work, but that doesn't alleviate your ultimate responsibility for managing it.

If you want an illustration of how many people DIY versus pay a tradesperson, take a look at the popularity and selection of consumer-facing stores like Home Depot versus professional-only "counter service". Granted, most of these people would be happier reading a distilled "code complete" book rather than the dense NEC. And many more of them will proceed to, for example, swap a lamp on their own without reading anything at all! But they should still be given that choice openly and have access to the actual law nonetheless.

The ideological justification for the rule of law is not necessarily opposed to it also being a pragmatic tool for the powerful.

One of the best ways to understand the legal system is as a tool for elites to secure their privileges and avoid violent confrontations over who gets those privileges.

The common person needs to believe that they too are protected through the legal system, and so it is worth following the rules and forcing others to follow the rules. This is what makes it a Schelling point.

As an aside, the "drug war" has helped destroy this belief, especially harshest for minority communities. This has resulted in social breakdown and creation of movements like "stop snitching" and Black Lives Matter.

There's a very cogent argument about the development of laws as a way for elites to pragmatically secure their prerogatives, historically, by North, Wallis, and Weingast. Their book is "Violence and Social Orders" and there's a good paper on it here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12795

So what? Being public is not the same as being in writing; you could have doctors responsible for answering questions from the citizenry, for example.

And they're the ones who pay for the standardization process by purchasing copies of the standards.

And why couldn't it just be an extra fee added to the license required to do construction work?

But if you re-do you own home wiring, you effectively become a "builder". And you probably aren't a member of that industry organization.

The real problem is here is that two things are being commingled that should not be. Something that is inherently "public" - the law, and something inherently private - codes developed by industry standards. The real solution is to stop doing this "incorporation by reference" altogether. But if we are going to incorporate, it makes no sense to treat this chunk of law as different from the rest.

But what fraction of people do that? That's my point--ideologically I agree with you. But I don't think you can take what is basically a corner case in the legal regime and point to that and say it's an unreasonable tool for the elite to use the law to oppress the weak.

I don't buy your "public/private" dichotomy at all. The government should defer to the expertise of private industry when necessary. The small potential for abuse (and there is no evidence that the standards bodies here are abusing their position), does not justify imposing laws on everybody designed by government bureaucrats acting outside their area of expertise.

I guess we don't disagree too much then. FWIW, I'm not saying anything about "the elite oppressing the weak" - at least not in this context. To me this really is just a matter of principle.

The government should defer to the expertise of private industry when necessary. The small potential for abuse (and there is no evidence that the standards bodies here are abusing their position), does not justify imposing laws on everybody designed by government bureaucrats acting outside their area of expertise.

This is why I'd prefer to get the government out of this altogether. But, then again, I'm a Libertarian, so I want the government out of pretty much everything altogether. :-)

I understand the system works currently, but I can't help but feel that my rights have been curtailed be hiding information from me that is required to exercise those rights in some cases. If SDOs provide an essential service, then I think we need to find a way to fund them that is not based on hiding knowledge of the law. Maybe that's a percentage of inspection fees, or some something else.

Building codes are laws, but they may reference external standards which are not laws. Say Congress passed a law requiring all medical device software to meet certain requirements, with one of those requirements being that it is written in conforming C99. You can't follow the law without following the standard, but the standard is not itself a law.

I actually agree with you that we should find a way to fund development of building codes that allows for them to be freely-accessible. I think the ABA proposal, which requires a readable copy of the standard to be posted publicly, is not a bad approach. My point is that the existing system isn't some "sad" subversion of democracy. It's not the solution you'd pick if you value transparency above all else, but it's also not the product of some shady cabal.

Also, the trade organizations, not the builders write the standards. They have a vested interest to protect the craft, which isn't in-line with the builders interest. Look at PEX pipe and shark bite fittings, which are still illegal in California for an example.

In my city, the government has basically criminalized many classes of home improvements to provide artificial scarcity to prop up Union tradesmen and a small number of locally licenses tradesmen. You need a $75 permit, and a licensed plumber working for a master plumber to seat a toilet. So a legal toilet requires about $500 in labor. Outside of the city limits, that job is 40-60% less.

Yes it is, unless you believe you can "have your cake and eat it" at the same time. Laws should be public; I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that. And if codes are "incorporated by law" then they simply must be public as well.

It's reasonable for governments to rely on them. And under the current model, it's the entities (builders) that directly profit from construction that pay for the development of building codes.

Those two things may be true in isolation, but it's not the case that "It's reasonable for governments to rely on them" if they can't be made public when incorporated as part of the law.

(Disclaimer: I have a personal interest in that startup)

I don't know if the last sentence is true. Here is a list of ABA propositions from last year: http://www.americanbar.org/news/reporter_resources/midyear-m.... Lots of feel-good stuff Congress totally ignores (e.g. urges Congress to adopt laws to protect wild animals).

I remember this book as being quite good.

So many of those "old" Sun ideas are still around today, in one form or another.

https://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-Sun-networks-Carl-Malamud/d...

Anyone know where I can find more on this?

Glad to see him getting some press!