In a #minarchist, #Iibertarian or #anarchocapitalist society (not what #London has, atm), it would not have occurred. Why not? Because: when, in spite of continuous writings by inhabitants, the building isn’t fireproofed to their satisfaction, that may be considered a form of #aggression (risking fatal consequences). This would have been much more costly than using proper fire-proof materials, in the first place, or replacing the dodgy materials with proper ones.
Also, the people would have had much more choice in housing than the #government lets them have, so if one (very expensive!) housing structure remains unused, the owners wil go #bankrupt. Becsuse the owners couldn’t simply raise raxes to cover the cost of their mistake. Meaning all the housing space will be used at capacity, and no more than that will be built; this way #capitalism / the market reduces waste: because whatever’s left of Grenfell tower will now not be reused: all the materials & energy that went into it, have gone up in smoke; so #statism, is an ideology of (violent) waste.
The people could have moved out, without contractual consequences, because the building is (and remains) unsafe to live in. Thus costing the owners money.
Additions (20 august 2017):
But asit stands now, so-called “responsible politicians” have to be careful with the taxpayer’s money, which is why they didn’t just throw away the non-fireproof materials and replace them with new ones, because that may lead to cost overruns. So now, not just did a bunch of taxpayers die a horrible death, a whole building got condemned (don’t tell me they’re gonna keep the buiding with all this fire damage! It’s a danger to the punblic now: it’s crumbling down), meaning the whole building (not just the non-fireproof materials), is to be written off: so,that’s a building costing how many millions, to be written off, just to save a few hundred quid, (fair enough, it may have been a total of a few thousand).
If yu think about it: those politicians deliberately murdered the inhabitants of that building, by purposely refusing to make it safe.
You can listen to more in the subject of British housing, in episode 975 of the Tom Woods show, titled Radical Libertarian Architect: Privatize Public Spaces, Housing, Everything featuring the British Libertarian architect Patrick Schumacher. FYI though they don’t refer to the Grenfell disaster, I think it’s explicitly useful to listen to it, to understand how the British authorities meddle with housing, down to the smallest details, thus keeping price up and choice down. If the people would be allolwed to build where they deemed acceptable / desirable
Really, it’s time to dump “public housing” on the same scrapheap as (Soviet) communism, before more suffering and death occurs.
I just thought of something (valid question): in a fully privatized situation, such as I propose, isn’t there a threat of towers being built in front of other people’s homes? Or would that be considered aggression to people living in the other houses?
One way it may be handled, is by having the owner of the original housing, include in the contract that such a situation may not occur, so the people who bought such housing would be able to hold the owner/builder of the houses there to the promises of keeping the situation as it is. Perhaps a solution would be, for the projevt developer to buy the area around the housing project and thus keep it out o the hands of other projectdevelopers: turning it into a big garden, common to all houss in the project. Put a fence around it, to drsignate the area as part of your property. (Since land is not “owned by a government” this would be cheap, unless already owned by someone else), adifferent project developer might succesfully sue to acquire part of the land, because it would be extravagant to have a garden of hundreds of square miles: the new project may be built so low, that it wiuod not cast a shadow over existing buildings, and if it did, the people living in those buildings might accept financial compensation.
Added to that: there may not be much need for extra housing, unlike now, with the artificially stimulated migration (bombing people out of their homes, luring them alk the way to the west whence with free housing, health care, etc.). That’s only slightly offset by the disappearance of the artificial limits to migration, posed by national borders, but since people are unlikely to move house lightly, just for the fun of moving house, instead, they’re more likely to enjoy homeostasis, enduring or handling any adverse situations, that arise at home, before going so far as moving house, migration would be a trickle.
Also keep in mind hat adverse situations are met more effectively when granted the freedom to do so: enterprise and ingenuity would be let free to come up with ideas for solutions to problems, so more likely to stay and not uproot to move to another place, entirely.