3 ms·

It is good so long as the legal philosophy of the land is "unless something is explicitly forbidden, it is automatically allowed". This is not a good thing when

It is good so long as the legal philosophy of the land is "unless something is explicitly forbidden, it is automatically allowed". This is not a good thing when that philosophy is "you're not allowed to just go and do new stuff until we get a chance to consider it and pass regulations". There are plenty of examples around of "unless explicitly permitted, automatically denied" that are stifling innovation in my opinion. Pick a random county in America and try to build a residential dwelling using any sort of alternative materials or architecture for example.

richmarr 11y ago
Agree with your point in principle, but I'd nitpick with your example. Building regulations & planning approval are a matter of public safety precisely because human beings have a millenia-long track record of putting together dwellings in weird ways using whatever materials are available/convenient, and often aren't aware of the repurcussions. Should it be okay for someone to build a 3-storey domestic dwelling, in a unique way, out of unregulated materials, 4 feet from another home? Not next to my home it shouldn't. Nor should it be my responsibility to discover & research their building materials and lodge a complaint. If they want to build their house using 3d-printed ceramic blocks using plans they downloaded from douchebrick.io, and raw materials they sourced themselves, then the burden of proof should reasonably be on them that they're not putting neighbours, friends, Airbnb guests, adjacent property, kids fetching their ball from your garden, tenants, future buyers, passers-by, postal workers, and Avon ladies at risk. You could make an argument that these approval processes should move faster, but it doesn't sound like the argument you're making, and it may result in more mistakes (Asbestos anyone?).
hga 11y ago
Pick a random county in America and try to build a residential dwelling using any sort of alternative materials or architecture for example. To my knowledge, such restrictions are unusual in unincorporated parts of counties (or at least it was considered unusual in the '70s that the Colorado county including Aspen and Snowmass had a severe zoning regime). Certainly so in mine, Jasper County, Missouri (which includes most of Joplin); right now I'm living in an 3 story Amish barn with a frame that's 100% wood (no nails or other metals holding it together). The county didn't care. And for those areas that do, ignoring the issue of aesthetics, it's my understanding that the usual requirement is to get a certified engineer to sign off on the design. Conventional approaches are essentially pre-certified, and are generally sane.
Silhouette 11y ago
The thing is, in most of our legal systems, the default is that you can do something unless it is explicitly forbidden, and you can do it without prior consent from any authority unless it is explicitly regulated. Moreover, the areas that are explicitly regulated usually have those regulations for a good reason, or at least did have once upon a time. As 'richmarr points out, the regulations that many areas have governing what buildings you can and can't build are often a matter of safety and reliability as much as anything cosmetic. For essential utilities, there is often a public interest in regulating the behaviour of providers to prevent a monopoly or oligopoly exploiting a dominant market position unfairly. Regulatory capture is a real problem, and from my outsider's perspective it does appear that some places, particularly the US, suffer from this kind of regulatory abuse on a damaging scale. However, this is a baby and bathwater issue. If so-called disruptive start-ups are only really disruptive because they're circumventing regulations and by cutting those corners they can cut their prices, that's not disruption in the positive sense of the term, and I don't see why they should get a free pass.

richmarr 11y ago

Agree with your point in principle, but I'd nitpick with your example. Building regulations & planning approval are a matter of public safety precisely because human beings have a millenia-long track record of putting together dwellings in weird ways using whatever materials are available/convenient, and often aren't aware of the repurcussions. Should it be okay for someone to build a 3-storey domestic dwelling, in a unique way, out of unregulated materials, 4 feet from another home? Not next to my home it shouldn't. Nor should it be my responsibility to discover & research their building materials and lodge a complaint. If they want to build their house using 3d-printed ceramic blocks using plans they downloaded from douchebrick.io, and raw materials they sourced themselves, then the burden of proof should reasonably be on them that they're not putting neighbours, friends, Airbnb guests, adjacent property, kids fetching their ball from your garden, tenants, future buyers, passers-by, postal workers, and Avon ladies at risk. You could make an argument that these approval processes should move faster, but it doesn't sound like the argument you're making, and it may result in more mistakes (Asbestos anyone?).

hga 11y ago

Pick a random county in America and try to build a residential dwelling using any sort of alternative materials or architecture for example. To my knowledge, such restrictions are unusual in unincorporated parts of counties (or at least it was considered unusual in the '70s that the Colorado county including Aspen and Snowmass had a severe zoning regime). Certainly so in mine, Jasper County, Missouri (which includes most of Joplin); right now I'm living in an 3 story Amish barn with a frame that's 100% wood (no nails or other metals holding it together). The county didn't care. And for those areas that do, ignoring the issue of aesthetics, it's my understanding that the usual requirement is to get a certified engineer to sign off on the design. Conventional approaches are essentially pre-certified, and are generally sane.

Silhouette 11y ago

The thing is, in most of our legal systems, the default is that you can do something unless it is explicitly forbidden, and you can do it without prior consent from any authority unless it is explicitly regulated. Moreover, the areas that are explicitly regulated usually have those regulations for a good reason, or at least did have once upon a time. As 'richmarr points out, the regulations that many areas have governing what buildings you can and can't build are often a matter of safety and reliability as much as anything cosmetic. For essential utilities, there is often a public interest in regulating the behaviour of providers to prevent a monopoly or oligopoly exploiting a dominant market position unfairly. Regulatory capture is a real problem, and from my outsider's perspective it does appear that some places, particularly the US, suffer from this kind of regulatory abuse on a damaging scale. However, this is a baby and bathwater issue. If so-called disruptive start-ups are only really disruptive because they're circumventing regulations and by cutting those corners they can cut their prices, that's not disruption in the positive sense of the term, and I don't see why they should get a free pass.