If 'permission' can be granted for any act, then that act must be, fundamentally, LAWFUL. (Otherwise 'permission' could never be granted).
If an act is fundamentally LAWFUL, then a SOVEREIGN individual (not a child) has no need to ask (i.e. 'beg') for permission.
After all, if all are equal, what right does Person "A" have to grant or refuse 'permission' to Person "B"?
Are certain individuals going to claim that they are "more responsible" than others - in order to give them the right to make such assessments? How do they define "more responsible"? In 1215 it was realised that only a Jury of 12 could make judgments upon others, and that those judgments had to be collective ... because no single individual can lay any single-handed claim to that Right.
If any individual claims this Assessment Right for themselves, then the correct description of that individual is: "arrogant hypocrite". Anyone who makes a claim to grant or refuse 'permission' must have a Personality Disorder. The only exception is in the case of children. A parent must be able to grant or deny requests from their children.
PLEASE FEEL ENTIRELY FREE TO RUN THIS EXPLANATION PAST ANYONE IN THE “LEGAL” PROFESSION.