Interesting perspective. FWIW, I've know two folks who made 'getting away from governemnt' major principles in their lives; their refusal to do things like file wills led to the government getting 100% of their meager assets when they passed on. Kind of ironic; they sure beat the system!
Though it can certainly seem like it as we prepare our year-end tax accounting, government is not a one-way street. For the contractor, playing by the rules means:
1) He can file liens, thus getting paid;
2) He can sue -and collect- , thus getting paid; and,
3) He pulls the permit, removing the customer from the decision, again helping him to get paid (no pay, no inspection, it all gets shut down).
There are advantages for the customer, as well. These include:
1) Some evidence - the license and bond - that the contractor has the minimum competence and stability;
2) An independent party - the inspector - to help ensure work is done properly; and,
3) Some additional resources should the job go bad.
I'd also like to point out that 'government' is not just some anonymous bureaucracy. In many ways, our contracts govern our work. Absent a clear contract, a job can be too easily mired in confusion and dispute.
The lack of a contract, spelling out the scope of the work and the schedule, was another of the basic errors in the situation that led to this thread being started. Have a contract. Get those change orders signed. Get it in writing.
Finally, make sure you can enforce the contract. If you do not have the required licenses and permits, the courts will not be interested in enforcing it.
As our victim also found, there also exists a certain group of people who seek out weak or illegitimate contractors for exploitation. They never have any intention of paying for the work, or plan to squeeze as much out of you as they can. Nothing is ever done well enough; no price is ever low enough.
