5 ms·

This has a simple explanation. A permit, as defined by Black's law dictionary (paraphrased[1]), is authorization to commit an otherwise criminal/forbidden act.

by trebor 15y ago

This has a simple explanation. A permit, as defined by Black's law dictionary (paraphrased[1]), is authorization to commit an otherwise criminal/forbidden act. Thus if you had a skulking permit that authorizes you to steal and kill, you legally could commit what was a crime. Permits, as treated/used by the US Government, are just another form of taxation. It has become "pay up, or it's illegal". According to my understanding of the Constitution this is illegal—but that's never stopped our government before. So, with the requirements in place to make it illegal to manufacture/brew/sell food (including beverages, like lemonade or even tea) without a permit, we get a crackdown on kids selling bottled drinks or lemonade made from a mix, to enforce the laws. And that's still ignoring the peddling license and the business license. Just take a look at the permits/licenses required to operate shop today, and what is illegal because of it. I can't even finish my basement off without paying for a permit. For example, a heterosexual couple can't get married in most states without a permit. This practice came from interracial marriage being illegal in the 1900s and requiring a permit; prior to this time marriage was a (primarily) religious institution and people married without governmental interference. The idea of a marriage permit has since been promulgated as a "good idea," and "common-law marriages" are considered "bad ideas". Give the government an inch and they take a mile... Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. [1]: I had to paraphrase because I don't own a copy. I had to look it up in the library a while ago, and the definition stuck with me.

noonespecial 15y ago
That which is not explicitly forbidden is by default permitted becomes that which is not explicitly permitted is by default forbidden. You tell your "public servant" what you want to do, and he decides if you will be allowed and how much it will cost you to obtain that permission.
wisty 15y ago
It's a shift from the philosophy "that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted" to "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden". It seems it's good to have health inspectors, and shut down the dodgy operators. It's also good to force restaurants to follow good practices. But the regulations always seem to grow, and don't always prevent disasters. The problem is, disasters are "black swan" events. Builders take reasonable steps to avoid hitting their fingers with hammers, because it's a high incidence / small impact kind of thing. But low incidence / high impact things (like cutting off your hand with a buzzsaw) need a bit of regulation. The problem is, regulation doesn't work. Someone will put up a sign spelling out how to use the buzzsaw, which people will follow for about 30 seconds before putting their hands in danger again. You need education (safety signs), but you also need enforcement. And one of the best methods of enforcement is encouraging whistle-blowers. Whenever a real disaster happens, there's usually a clear paper trail of people making complaints about the potential hazard. People know the risk, but aren't able to escalate it to someone who can force mitigation. Obviously this is a sort of inverted survivor bias (no-one cares about paper trails when there's no body), but the point remains - people usually knew the disaster was waiting to happen, and weren't able to figure out what to do about it. The most important regulation (I believe) is that safety complaints need to be made, and dealt with. No system is perfect, but overregulation encourages a system that looks perfect on paper while problems go unnoticed.
- Zak 15y ago
  But low incidence / high impact things (like cutting off your hand with a buzzsaw) need a bit of regulation. We used to, for the most part accept that such things would happen, and not try too hard to prevent them when the impact was mostly limited to the person making the poor decision leading to the accident. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing; regulations shift the responsibility and costs away from the person actually doing the potentially dangerous thing on to the organization as a whole. The whole process slows down as a result. I'm not against regulations or some equivalent (such as best practices plus liability) in situations where someone being stupid puts many people or the public at large at risk, but don't tell me I need certification to use a buzzsaw. I learned to use one when I was 12.
rprasad 15y ago
Your understanding of the Constitution is wrong. Permits at the federal level. Permits at the federal level involve access to federal lands or resources. These permits are voluntary, quid pro quo (i.e., pay for service/access) payments. In that regard, a permit is no different than a rental fee a private business would charge (i.e., a ticket to Disneyland). This is not illegal under the Constitution. Permits at the state level. Business permits are required by States and are part of the bloc of powers delegated to the States as purely local concerns. Again, not illegal under the Constitution. Marriage permits have been around since the 1200s. They were originally established by the Catholic Church as a way to increase Church revenues. Eventually, governments took over that power for the same purpose. For hundreds of years, in the West, marriage permits have been a recognized power of government. Anybody can get married without a marriage permit in any State in America and live like man and wife (what is classically known as a "common law marriage"). However, if you want that marriage to be recognized by the government for legal and tax purposes, and get all the government-backed rights that come with government recognition, you need to pony up. Again, it's quid-pro-quo, and it's not illegal under the Constitution. (Common law marriages are no longer recognized by the government, but they're not illegal.) Disclaimer: I am a lawyer.
- trebor 15y ago
  Thanks for setting me straight on those issues. However on Common Law marriage, I'm under the impression that existing Common Law marriages are recognized by the government because persons married outside the country fall under it (no idea where I got that from, now). Isn't the formation of a Common Law marriage no longer recognized outside a tiny list of states? Though I do have to keep my complaint against getting a permit to finish my basement. We only fall under town ordinances, but it's completely ridiculous to say that I cannot finish my own basement without paying the piper.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    A majority of states recognize common-law marriage, about 10 don't (although that includes big states like CA and NY). They will recognize a common-law marriage made elsewhere if the person moves into such a state (and later seeks divorce, for example), but there needs to be evidence like jointly-filed tax returns and so forth. it's completely ridiculous to say that I cannot finish my own basement without paying the piper. What if you screw it up, flood your own basement, and weaken your neighbor's foundation? Most often you won't, but the permit is meant to incentivize you against such carelessness. It's the price you pay for the facts that a) some people are stupid, and b) that you have chosen to live near other people, so what you do potentially affects them. Read this, and if you find it eye-opening then I strongly recommend Coase's original essay, which is short but extremely readable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
anigbrowl 15y ago
A permit, as defined by Black's law dictionary (paraphrased[1]), is authorization to commit an otherwise criminal/forbidden act. Thus if you had a skulking permit that authorizes you to steal and kill, you legally could commit what was a crime. [...] [1]: I had to paraphrase because I don't own a copy. I had to look it up in the library a while ago, and the definition stuck with me. I do own a copy and it says no such thing, or even anything like it. I find this memory highly dubious, because permits are given for administrative matters, violation of which can incur a fee or a fine or a requirement of specific performance, but which most certainly cannot land you in jail or result in criminal liability. Historically the word derives from the French per mitter le droit which means 'for passing the right' [to a piece of real estate]. The phrase 'real estate' itself derives from French meaning 'royal estate'; back when all land was legally owned by the aristocracy, long-term renewable land rents were issued, some of which specified the acceptable use of the land - hence the word 'landlord.' In many places in Europe it's still common to buy a house but have to pay a (nominal) rent to someone who owns the underlying land, although this is nowadays a private individual or land investment company rather than an aristocrat. Real estate transactions in the US typically involve both the land and the buildings on it, but not always. Even back in the early days of the US state governments often retained some rights over the land granted or sold, such as the right to 'royalties' on mineral extraction. I think you may have mis-remembered what you read, but Black's Law Dictionary has been through 9 editions. If you can remember when this was or anything else related to the research, I would be interested in looking it up at the university law library. As it is, I think you're mistaken. If one wanted to give permission for an activity that is normally criminal (possession of drugs by a medical researcher, say), one would seek immunity.
- trebor 15y ago
  Yeah, I think I'm mistaken about the definition of Permit—though I know I looked up a similar word that had the definition I gave. Maybe I mixed it with definition with that of License. I'd studied both words out of curiosity and it's been around a year since I did so. If one wanted to give permission for an activity that is normally criminal (possession of drugs by a medical researcher, say), one would seek immunity. How would you be granted such immunity? As a license, or as a permit? ;)

by trebor 15y ago

noonespecial 15y ago

That which is not explicitly forbidden is by default permitted becomes that which is not explicitly permitted is by default forbidden. You tell your "public servant" what you want to do, and he decides if you will be allowed and how much it will cost you to obtain that permission.

wisty 15y ago

It's a shift from the philosophy "that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted" to "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden". It seems it's good to have health inspectors, and shut down the dodgy operators. It's also good to force restaurants to follow good practices. But the regulations always seem to grow, and don't always prevent disasters. The problem is, disasters are "black swan" events. Builders take reasonable steps to avoid hitting their fingers with hammers, because it's a high incidence / small impact kind of thing. But low incidence / high impact things (like cutting off your hand with a buzzsaw) need a bit of regulation. The problem is, regulation doesn't work. Someone will put up a sign spelling out how to use the buzzsaw, which people will follow for about 30 seconds before putting their hands in danger again. You need education (safety signs), but you also need enforcement. And one of the best methods of enforcement is encouraging whistle-blowers. Whenever a real disaster happens, there's usually a clear paper trail of people making complaints about the potential hazard. People know the risk, but aren't able to escalate it to someone who can force mitigation. Obviously this is a sort of inverted survivor bias (no-one cares about paper trails when there's no body), but the point remains - people usually knew the disaster was waiting to happen, and weren't able to figure out what to do about it. The most important regulation (I believe) is that safety complaints need to be made, and dealt with. No system is perfect, but overregulation encourages a system that looks perfect on paper while problems go unnoticed.

Zak 15y ago
But low incidence / high impact things (like cutting off your hand with a buzzsaw) need a bit of regulation. We used to, for the most part accept that such things would happen, and not try too hard to prevent them when the impact was mostly limited to the person making the poor decision leading to the accident. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing; regulations shift the responsibility and costs away from the person actually doing the potentially dangerous thing on to the organization as a whole. The whole process slows down as a result. I'm not against regulations or some equivalent (such as best practices plus liability) in situations where someone being stupid puts many people or the public at large at risk, but don't tell me I need certification to use a buzzsaw. I learned to use one when I was 12.

rprasad 15y ago

Your understanding of the Constitution is wrong. Permits at the federal level. Permits at the federal level involve access to federal lands or resources. These permits are voluntary, quid pro quo (i.e., pay for service/access) payments. In that regard, a permit is no different than a rental fee a private business would charge (i.e., a ticket to Disneyland). This is not illegal under the Constitution. Permits at the state level. Business permits are required by States and are part of the bloc of powers delegated to the States as purely local concerns. Again, not illegal under the Constitution. Marriage permits have been around since the 1200s. They were originally established by the Catholic Church as a way to increase Church revenues. Eventually, governments took over that power for the same purpose. For hundreds of years, in the West, marriage permits have been a recognized power of government. Anybody can get married without a marriage permit in any State in America and live like man and wife (what is classically known as a "common law marriage"). However, if you want that marriage to be recognized by the government for legal and tax purposes, and get all the government-backed rights that come with government recognition, you need to pony up. Again, it's quid-pro-quo, and it's not illegal under the Constitution. (Common law marriages are no longer recognized by the government, but they're not illegal.) Disclaimer: I am a lawyer.

trebor 15y ago
Thanks for setting me straight on those issues. However on Common Law marriage, I'm under the impression that existing Common Law marriages are recognized by the government because persons married outside the country fall under it (no idea where I got that from, now). Isn't the formation of a Common Law marriage no longer recognized outside a tiny list of states? Though I do have to keep my complaint against getting a permit to finish my basement. We only fall under town ordinances, but it's completely ridiculous to say that I cannot finish my own basement without paying the piper.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  A majority of states recognize common-law marriage, about 10 don't (although that includes big states like CA and NY). They will recognize a common-law marriage made elsewhere if the person moves into such a state (and later seeks divorce, for example), but there needs to be evidence like jointly-filed tax returns and so forth. it's completely ridiculous to say that I cannot finish my own basement without paying the piper. What if you screw it up, flood your own basement, and weaken your neighbor's foundation? Most often you won't, but the permit is meant to incentivize you against such carelessness. It's the price you pay for the facts that a) some people are stupid, and b) that you have chosen to live near other people, so what you do potentially affects them. Read this, and if you find it eye-opening then I strongly recommend Coase's original essay, which is short but extremely readable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

anigbrowl 15y ago

A permit, as defined by Black's law dictionary (paraphrased[1]), is authorization to commit an otherwise criminal/forbidden act. Thus if you had a skulking permit that authorizes you to steal and kill, you legally could commit what was a crime. [...] [1]: I had to paraphrase because I don't own a copy. I had to look it up in the library a while ago, and the definition stuck with me. I do own a copy and it says no such thing, or even anything like it. I find this memory highly dubious, because permits are given for administrative matters, violation of which can incur a fee or a fine or a requirement of specific performance, but which most certainly cannot land you in jail or result in criminal liability. Historically the word derives from the French per mitter le droit which means 'for passing the right' [to a piece of real estate]. The phrase 'real estate' itself derives from French meaning 'royal estate'; back when all land was legally owned by the aristocracy, long-term renewable land rents were issued, some of which specified the acceptable use of the land - hence the word 'landlord.' In many places in Europe it's still common to buy a house but have to pay a (nominal) rent to someone who owns the underlying land, although this is nowadays a private individual or land investment company rather than an aristocrat. Real estate transactions in the US typically involve both the land and the buildings on it, but not always. Even back in the early days of the US state governments often retained some rights over the land granted or sold, such as the right to 'royalties' on mineral extraction. I think you may have mis-remembered what you read, but Black's Law Dictionary has been through 9 editions. If you can remember when this was or anything else related to the research, I would be interested in looking it up at the university law library. As it is, I think you're mistaken. If one wanted to give permission for an activity that is normally criminal (possession of drugs by a medical researcher, say), one would seek immunity.

trebor 15y ago
Yeah, I think I'm mistaken about the definition of Permit—though I know I looked up a similar word that had the definition I gave. Maybe I mixed it with definition with that of License. I'd studied both words out of curiosity and it's been around a year since I did so. If one wanted to give permission for an activity that is normally criminal (possession of drugs by a medical researcher, say), one would seek immunity. How would you be granted such immunity? As a license, or as a permit? ;)