That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. 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.

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.

> That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards.

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.

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

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.

As a practical matter, its not "citizens" in general who need to reference the building codes, it's builders. They're the ones charged with compliance, and they have to buy copies of the codes as part of their business. Thus, the industry profiting from construction is the one burdened with financing the development of the codes.

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

>As a practical matter, its not "citizens" in general who need to reference the building codes, it's builders. They're the ones charged with compliance, and they have to buy copies of the codes as part of their business. Thus, the industry profiting from construction is the one burdened with financing the development of the codes.

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 governments are creating a de facto obligation to buy the codes, essentially a pass-through tax.

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.