The Right to Work

· Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The people of Louisiana must sleep soundly knowing that their state protects them from ... unlicensed florists.

That's right. In Louisiana, you can't sell flower arrangements unless you have permission from the government. How do you get permission? You must pass a test that is graded by a board of florists who already have licenses. To prepare for the test, you might have to spend $2,000 on a special course.

The test requires knowledge of techniques that florists rarely use anymore. One question asks the name of the state's agriculture commissioner -- as though you can't be a good florist without knowing that piece of vital information.

The licensing board defends its test, claiming it protects consumers from florists who might sell them unhealthy flowers. I understand the established florists' wish to protect their profession's reputation, but in practice such licensing laws mainly serve to limit competition. Making it harder for newcomers to open florist shops lets established florists hog the business.

Other states are considering adopting Louisiana's licensing law, but before any do, I hope that the law will be stricken. The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, has challenged the licensing in court, saying it violates liberty and equal protection, and so is unconstitutional.

"One of the most fundamental tenets of the American dream is the right to earn an honest living without arbitrary government interference. What could be more arbitrary than saying who can and who cannot sell flowers?" IJ President Chip Mellor says.

Others states have their own sets of ridiculous licensing rules. In Virginia, you need a license to be a yoga instructor. Florida threatened an interior designer with a $25,000 fine if she didn't do a six-year apprenticeship and pass a test, at a cost of several thousand dollars. Fortunately, the Institute for Justice got that law overturned.

I'm rooting for IJ because licensing interferes with the freedom to make a living, harms consumers by limiting competition and protects established firms. It's an old story. Established businesses have always used government to handcuff competition. Years ago, small grocers tried to ban supermarkets. A&P was going to "destroy Main Street," the grocers cried. Minnesota legislators responded to their lobbying by passing a law that forbade supermarkets to hold sales. Consumers were hurt.

OK, while licensing of florists, interior designers and yoga teachers is ridiculous, what about more important professions, like law? Surely people need protection from people who would practice law without a license. Again, I say no. Lawyers' monopoly on helping people with wills, bankruptcies and divorces is just another expensive restraint of trade.

David Price recently spent six months in a Kansas jail because he wrote a letter on behalf of a man who was wrongly accused of practicing architecture without a license. When Price refused to promise never to "practice law" again, a judge sent him to jail.

All he did was write a letter. Price didn't misrepresent his credentials. However, he did save a man from paying $3,000 to a lawyer. Perhaps that was his real offense.

Some of the most famous lawyers in American history, including Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, had no license from the state. Their customers decided whether they were worthy of being hired.

Competition is better than government at protecting consumers from shoddy work. Furthermore, licensing creates a false sense of security. Consider this: When you move to a new community, do you ask neighbors or colleagues to recommend doctors, dentists and mechanics even though those jobs are licensed? Of course. Because you know that even with licensing laws, there is a wide range of quality and outright quackery in every occupation. You know that licensing doesn't really protect you.

A free competitive market for reputation protects consumers much more effectively than government can. Today, online services like Angie's List (www.angieslist.com) make it even easier for consumers to get better information about businesses than government licensing boards will ever provide. We do need protection from shoddy businesses. But it's freedom and competition that produce the best protection.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

MichaelSSEC

That's the point we can never get through the skulls of protectionists. Even when we have licensing, we still have to rely on reputation to protect us from the bad apples because licensing does not accomplish its only real purpose -- protecting consumers from bad actors. Of course, while it cannot perform that function, it can provide the state with the means of restricting competition, a collecting hidden taxes in the form of licensing fees.

Since we wind up relying on reputation (free markets) anyway, why not dispense with the licensing? That way, competition goes up and the reputation system we rely on anyway will drive out the bad actors -- which is what already happens. Gee, what a concept!

Posted March 10, 2010 at 2:20:46 PM


Brian

The rallying cry of protectionists is "The government must protect the people from shoddy merchandise!" I say bull-butter. If you have a crappy product, sooner or later, people will quit buying it. However, if you have a crappy product, but are the only one licensed by the state to sell that particular product, why, then you have a state-supported monopoly. There is a local tax agency running radio ads that say, "we believe competition, not the government, protects you, the taxpayer." At least somebody gets it. People just can't get it through their heads that it's *their* responisiblity to ensure that their doctor, lawyer, mechanic, florist, etc. is up to snuff. Besides, licensing does not prove competence. You have to have a license to run a daycare, yet there are numerous instances of child mistreatment in the daycare industry. It's not the government's job to pick your florist. Besides, how much danger could there really be in buying flowers from an unlicensed florist?

Posted March 10, 2010 at 4:03:29 PM


Duke of Earl

John, John, John;

You poor misguided soul. Don't you know that all of the associations that you mentioned, the ABA, the AMA, dentist, etc. all have oversight committees to route out the back practitioners and scammers from harming the general public. And, if the oversight committees don't get the bums out, we have the House and the Senate, nationally and in our own states, to protect those of us who may be harmed.

You seem to be under the misguided impression that the ordinary citizen can fend for himself/herself with out our benevolent government's assistance.

You forgot to mention Clarence Darrow and Andrew Jackson as practitioners of the legal arts who never had the J.D.

Duke

Posted March 10, 2010 at 4:09:13 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund