Apparently someone does.
I don't remember reading set aside, it is, reportedly, possible to change dumb laws. I ran into the same idiotic regulations when I built. He and I both wanted to do the best thing environmentally, but the regulators insisted on an expensive failing technology.
What he would lose, wasn't his. I understand some people need to keep undesirables away (trailer park is code for poor rural white) but reducing housing choice damages people's financial well-being.

Aren't there some good reasons for most of these regulations? If we became unregulated, like China, wouldn't we end up with the same type of unsafe products that we get from China?

Sure. There are good reasons to do this stuff. I would suggest however that in an information heavy society like ours, it is just as effective to expose Mattel for ineffective quality control. They cannot afford to lose their positive brand recognition.

As far as zoning regs go, if someone is engaged in activities that poison the air or water of their neighbor, they should be prosecuted for that trespass. If someone lives in a leaky yurt or a small house that is noones business but their own.

Prosecuting after the fact might be too late, if the water table is contaminated, for instance. Better to be pro-active.

IMHO, there's a lot of gray area between obviously reasonable laws and obviously unreasonable laws. In fact, there's a lot of difference of opinion about what is reasonable and unreasonable. Most people probably feel that there should be no restrictions on themselves, because they will make "the right" decisions. Yet these same people probably want restrictions that protect them from other folks making "the wrong" decision. Where the line is drawn is the debate.

You're right, of course, but what about the gray area in between your two extremes? Do you have any problem with regs that cover safety? Like wiring regs or baluster spacing? How about standards of building, like ceiling height or space around a toilet?

I think if someone wants to build a house with a roof that falls on their head, they've got every right in the world. Of course it would be a cumbersome system, but the regulations this fellow is talking about were created with others in mind... he should be able to get special consideration from a judge. Laws are important and all, but they shouldn't be unbending, because of cases just like this one.

What if the house catches on fire, and a firefighter responds, but the roof kills him because it was built poorly? Or a girl scout knocks on the door to sell cookies, but the porch roof kills her?

It gets to the point where you can't create a law everytime someone's in the slightest bit of danger. Why don't we just mandate that everyone wears a helmet at all times? How about a national required Battle Buddy (for non-recent army types, the poor bastards in the army have to have someone with them at all times while in training)? I think we've gone too far with protecting people from accidents, because no matter what we do, they happen.

I'm not saying that employers shouldn't have safety measures for their employees, or that schools should hand out text books with razor blades on them, but in this guy's case? Have him put a friggin sign in front of his house saying "If you come onto my porch, there's a good chance it will kill you." I'm just tired of being babied.

Ah, the warning label. So you're a fan of warning labels on ladders and hot coffee?

I missed the part where anyone said he did.

I read your trailer park crack as implying that he would control his neighbors, but was too short-sighted to do so. I've seen nothing in his prior writings to show such a lack of foresight.

I'm sure he wouldn't, as Mr. Libertarian, have any argument against it, but I doubt that he'd welcome it.

And "trailer park" is code for "ugly development with lots of houses smaller than 900 square feet".

...containing crackers.

I'll take your word for it. Not that that would be particularly relevant to the issue. Unless you are saying he's racist against whites.

I don't know if he's a political libertarian.

ugly development with lots of houses smaller than 900 square feet = affordable housing