3 ms·

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 t

by 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
- mindcrime 15y ago
  What if you screw it up, flood your own basement, and weaken your neighbor's foundation? That can still happen, regardless of what statutory b.s. the State concocts. Most often you won't, but the permit is meant to incentivize you against such carelessness. There's already an incentive against that: liability for the consequences of your actions. 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. None of that in any way justifies the need for inane government regulations that do nothing but inhibit your freedom because of hypothetical scenarios.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    The funny thing is that if there's a permit requirement in place, you don't bother to get one, and later somebody sues you, your failure to obtain the required permit is often sufficient to establish negligence without having to prove any other facts. It's economically efficient to impose strict liability on you if you don't have one rather than placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff. Since most of your home improvement projects won't create any danger or result in any liability, nobody's going to hunt you down for your failure to obtain a permit. But if it does involve risk, having a permit shields you from frivolous claims. None of that in any way justifies the need for inane government regulations that do nothing but inhibit your freedom because of hypothetical scenarios. You realize that these regulations are usually put in place as the result of litigation, yes? You know, dreadful injury happens, litigation ensues, party at fault demurs, plaintiffs campaign for better regulation to prevent similar injuries to others. All other things being equal, the cost of regulation or litigation ends up being the same, but it's a lot more predictable if you cover that cost up front.
    - trebor 15y ago
      That's because most people today don't believe in making restitution. They think that if they just pretend they're innocent in front of a court that they'll be acquitted. It's simpler and cheaper to take responsibility by paying for your mistake. Regulations assume the individual will take no responsibility. Admittedly, as I said above, there are people who do not do so. But if the judges threw the book at the people who did so, so that it cost more than just making restitution... maybe people would change. Rather than just regulating ourselves into a straightjacket made of permits, I'd like (even a little) more responsibility over my mistakes and less permits to file/pay for.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        The idea of a golden age when litigation was rare and fair dealing was the order of the day is a myth, as far as I can tell. My torts casebook quotes cases going back to the 14th century, and perjury and frameups were enough of a problem in ancient Babylon to be subject to legal proscription. People have always tried to get off the hook for their liabilities. It's not a new phenomenon. People are not going to change; this is why neither libertarianism nor communism scales well. What you call restitution is known in law as economic damages. When you mention throwing the book at people who try to evade their responsibilities, that's called punitive damages. The tort reform movement is always saying that damages are abusive and that people should be protected from punitive damages, and tend to be opposed to excessive regulation as well. The plaintiff bar argues that without the threat of unlimited liability injured parties will have no legal remedy. Consider the alternative, where your neighbor turns out to be an obnoxious ass and brings suit against you without a good reason. It happens, and if your neighbor is wealthy or just very persistent then fighting off his suit will be an expensive inconvenience at best. By obtaining and complying with a permit, you are insulated from his abusive litigation. This does not happen so often with homeowners, but such conflicts between businesses are not at all uncommon - think patent litigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman is a famous example; in a nutshell, your private rights are subordinate to society's overall interest, since the latter is nothing more than the aggregated interests of other private individuals. The object of fees and permits is not to maximize revenue but to minimize litigation, which usually ends up costing more than bureaucracy.

by trebor 15y ago

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

mindcrime 15y ago
What if you screw it up, flood your own basement, and weaken your neighbor's foundation? That can still happen, regardless of what statutory b.s. the State concocts. Most often you won't, but the permit is meant to incentivize you against such carelessness. There's already an incentive against that: liability for the consequences of your actions. 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. None of that in any way justifies the need for inane government regulations that do nothing but inhibit your freedom because of hypothetical scenarios.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  The funny thing is that if there's a permit requirement in place, you don't bother to get one, and later somebody sues you, your failure to obtain the required permit is often sufficient to establish negligence without having to prove any other facts. It's economically efficient to impose strict liability on you if you don't have one rather than placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff. Since most of your home improvement projects won't create any danger or result in any liability, nobody's going to hunt you down for your failure to obtain a permit. But if it does involve risk, having a permit shields you from frivolous claims. None of that in any way justifies the need for inane government regulations that do nothing but inhibit your freedom because of hypothetical scenarios. You realize that these regulations are usually put in place as the result of litigation, yes? You know, dreadful injury happens, litigation ensues, party at fault demurs, plaintiffs campaign for better regulation to prevent similar injuries to others. All other things being equal, the cost of regulation or litigation ends up being the same, but it's a lot more predictable if you cover that cost up front.
  - trebor 15y ago
    That's because most people today don't believe in making restitution. They think that if they just pretend they're innocent in front of a court that they'll be acquitted. It's simpler and cheaper to take responsibility by paying for your mistake. Regulations assume the individual will take no responsibility. Admittedly, as I said above, there are people who do not do so. But if the judges threw the book at the people who did so, so that it cost more than just making restitution... maybe people would change. Rather than just regulating ourselves into a straightjacket made of permits, I'd like (even a little) more responsibility over my mistakes and less permits to file/pay for.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      The idea of a golden age when litigation was rare and fair dealing was the order of the day is a myth, as far as I can tell. My torts casebook quotes cases going back to the 14th century, and perjury and frameups were enough of a problem in ancient Babylon to be subject to legal proscription. People have always tried to get off the hook for their liabilities. It's not a new phenomenon. People are not going to change; this is why neither libertarianism nor communism scales well. What you call restitution is known in law as economic damages. When you mention throwing the book at people who try to evade their responsibilities, that's called punitive damages. The tort reform movement is always saying that damages are abusive and that people should be protected from punitive damages, and tend to be opposed to excessive regulation as well. The plaintiff bar argues that without the threat of unlimited liability injured parties will have no legal remedy. Consider the alternative, where your neighbor turns out to be an obnoxious ass and brings suit against you without a good reason. It happens, and if your neighbor is wealthy or just very persistent then fighting off his suit will be an expensive inconvenience at best. By obtaining and complying with a permit, you are insulated from his abusive litigation. This does not happen so often with homeowners, but such conflicts between businesses are not at all uncommon - think patent litigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman is a famous example; in a nutshell, your private rights are subordinate to society's overall interest, since the latter is nothing more than the aggregated interests of other private individuals. The object of fees and permits is not to maximize revenue but to minimize litigation, which usually ends up costing more than bureaucracy.