"If you want to go..."
Ahh, the old 'love it or leave it' canard. You've got it exactly backwards.
It WAS without ....until some (usually) well-meaning noobs figured a way to add their pet rules. What's important to note is that it was the regulatory advocates who wanted to change things- not the free men.
Cancel "was." It still IS. Every three years we're presented with a new NEC - and the book isn't getting any smaller. What is a new edition but more changes?
If you want to play the 'love it or leave it" game, might I submit the ones desiring change leave. There are plenty of places where one can join his comrades in regulating everything.
A more constructive approach might be to adopt what works, and discard what doesn't.
It's also necessary to remind folks who live in the heart of the bureaucracy that their view isn't the norm.
Good heavens, this very thread has a reply where the poster seems to think it's normal for a government inspector to sign off on a house sale- something that was unheard of, even in New Jersey, at the beginning of this millennium. Yet our Jersey poster still struts forth, like a missionary to the savages, blithely unable to see that the rest of us do just fine without his gospel- or that he might do better himself.
How many examples do we need, to prove the irrelevancy of these intrusive governments? A few examples:
- The country does fine with Romex and PVC, a detail Chicago can't admit;
- The country does fine with readily accessible black pipe, no matter that the D.C. area forbids its' sale to the unlicensed;
- "Gun control" is another area where the heavily regulated suffer, yet are unable to admit the successes in the less regulated areas;
- I fail to see anything positive from fragmented trade licensing. While California might assert that their licensing is somehow 'better' than Chicago's, I just can't find any differences in the work performed.
