3 ms·
Yet supposedly "ignorance of the law excuses not"
by tokenizerrr 10y ago
Yet supposedly "ignorance of the law excuses not"
- chillydawg 10y agoWell it's not supposedly, that IS the law. Ignorance is not a defence.
- mikeash 10y agoIf you're going to build something, pay for access to the relevant building codes. I don't think you should have to, but it's not absurd on its face.
- enraged_camel 10y agoI don't get it. So if I want to construct a building, I have to pay the city money just to be able to find out what codes I need to follow, on top of a billion other fees like permits and inspections?
- mikeash 10y agoYes. What's not to get?
- enraged_camel 10y agoDo you seriously not understand what the problem is with a public entity (i.e. a city government) making private laws and then charging fees to access those laws? Extrapolate it to the federal government. How would you feel if you were trying to look up tax laws and the IRS told you that you needed to pay them $250 before they could send you the information?
- mikeash 10y agoI already said I don't think you should have to pay for it. It just doesn't look completely absurd to me. You already have to pay for a bazillion other things, paying a little bit for access to the codes you have to follow is not an unreasonable burden. Edit: to put it concretely, there's no practical difference between paying $X for a permit you're legally required to have before you build something, and paying $X for a copy of building codes you're legally required to have before you build something.
- jaredklewis 10y agoYou seem to understand it perfectly.
- bluGill 10y agoThat is what the code writers want. The court system currently holds differently though, so today you can legally copy the cities version for cost, and make further copies.