『Regulatory Saturation』のカバーアート

Regulatory Saturation

Regulatory Saturation

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る
The Illusion of Universal JurisdictionThere is a dangerous assumption hiding inside Regulatory Saturation.It is so common that most of us never even notice it.The assumption is simple:There is a law covering the subject, therefore government has authority over the matter.But does one necessarily prove the other?Suppose a government official approaches you and says:“You’re violating Section 14-32.”He shows you the ordinance.There it is.Black and white.And immediately, most people begin arguing about what Section 14-32 says.But stop.The official has demonstrated that a rule exists.He has not necessarily demonstrated everything required for that rule to be lawfully applied to you, your property, your conduct, and these particular circumstances.That distinction is enormously important.A legislature may possess authority to legislate concerning a subject.A local government may possess delegated authority.An agency may possess rulemaking authority.An ordinance may be valid.And yet there can still be questions concerning jurisdiction, definitions, factual predicates, exemptions, procedure, notice, enforcement authority, constitutional limitations, and application.Those are separate inquiries.Regulatory Saturation tends to collapse all of them into one assumption:There is a rule, therefore the rule applies.I call this the illusion of universal jurisdiction.Not because government has no jurisdiction.Government unquestionably possesses jurisdiction in countless circumstances.The illusion is believing that the existence of regulatory language automatically answers the jurisdictional question in every particular case.Consider how easily this happens.A city regulates property.Therefore every action involving property appears to be within city authority.A state regulates vehicles.Therefore every question involving a vehicle appears to fall within the regulatory system.An agency regulates an industry.Therefore every person or activity resembling that industry appears to fall within the agency’s authority.The subject becomes the substitute for the jurisdictional analysis.And once that happens, the citizen begins defending himself before government has fully demonstrated its own claim.That reverses the inquiry.The first question should not always be:“How do I prove that this law doesn’t apply to me?”Sometimes the better starting question is:“Would you please demonstrate the legal and factual basis upon which you determined that it does?”That is a very different conversation.And it is central to the Liberty Dialogues System.We do not begin by announcing:“You have no jurisdiction.”How would we know that before examining the evidence?Instead:What is your authority?Show me the source.What is the jurisdiction?Show me its boundaries.What brings this particular matter within those boundaries?Identify the facts.What status or conduct triggers the obligation?Identify it.What exactly am I legally required to do?Show me the provision.What enforcement authority exists if I do not?Show me that too.Now we are no longer arguing conclusions.We are tracing the chain.And this exposes one of the most important consequences of Regulatory Saturation.When enough laws exist, the web itself begins creating a presumption of authority.Government doesn’t necessarily have to demonstrate the entire chain because everyone assumes somebody already did.The official assumes the ordinance is authorized.The citizen assumes the official has jurisdiction.The enforcement officer assumes the administrative determination is correct.And sometimes a court may begin with presumptions of validity that the law itself recognizes.There may be perfectly legitimate reasons for some of those legal presumptions.But the citizen should still understand what is being presumed and what must actually be established in the particular proceeding.Because there is a profound difference between:government possesses regulatory authority over a subjectand:this particular governmental demand against this particular person is lawful.The first does not automatically establish every element of the second.Think about a simple example.Imagine a county has authority to regulate construction.That tells us something.But it doesn’t answer everything.Is this activity legally considered construction?Is this property within the county’s jurisdiction?Does this particular requirement apply to this type of structure?Is there an exemption?Was the ordinance properly enacted?Has the correct official made the determination?Was proper notice given?Is the proposed enforcement action authorized?Has the required process been followed?Those questions do not deny governmental authority.They define it.And government operating under law should have definable boundaries.That is why this subject is bigger than simply complaining about excessive regulation.Regulatory Saturation changes how we think.When virtually every activity has a regulatory category, we begin treating government ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません