BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

licensing laws Archive

Tuesday

8

February 2011

1

COMMENTS

Government Orders Barber with 50 Years Experience Back to School

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

I’ve written about the problems with government licensing schemes, and the Institute for Justice brings us yet another egregious example of this particular tool of government infringement on basic rights:

An 80-year-old barber cutting hair for 50 years now is told he has to go back to school.

He says the state never warned him his license was about to expire.

Americans have a constitutional right to earn a living in the occupation of their choice, free from unreasonable government interference.

What happened to this man is the very definition of unreasonable.

A properly engaged judiciary, is one that takes rights seriously, including the right to earn a living.

And it says to government officials you have to treat people reasonably, you have to respect their constitutional right to earn a living. The Institute for Justice created the Center for Judicial Engagement to educate the public about the importance of an engaged judiciary that will protect our constitutional rights including the right to earn a living.

And when we succeed, what you saw in this case the State of Oregon putting a man out of business who’s been cutting hair for 50 years,

That will never happen again.

Hat-tip: Hot Air

Tuesday

26

October 2010

0

COMMENTS

Thursday

16

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

Another IJ Challenge To Licensing Laws

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The Institute for Justice does a great job challenging licensing laws, which are an illegal interference on the part of the government on a person’s right to earn a living in the profession of their choice, and the right of citizens to utilize the services of anyone they judge to be competent.

Their latest work involves a couple in D.C. who are prohibited by law from giving tours of the city because they do not have a license.

As I probably made clear already, I support the elimination of all such laws. But I do have one slight quibble with this case.  The video gives the impression that IJ is arguing this case on first amendment grounds (I haven’t looked into it to confirm).  On the one hand, I understand perfectly this choice from a legal point of view.  It likely gives them the strongest chance of success.  But I can’t shake my concern at the impression it gives to viewers.  Specifically, that it’s ok for government to protect business cartels through licensing, just so long as the practice of that business does not involve expression or first amendment issues.

In the video, for instance, the narrator says that “In America, you’re not supposed to need the government’s permission to speak.”  This is true, but it’s needlessly particular. In America, you’re not supposed to need the government’s permission to engage in any trade. Too many people have forgotten this (particularly in the political classes), so I wish this video did a little bit more to emphasis that, even as I understand perfectly well why the legal strategy might focus on the first amendment angle.

Monday

23

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Philly Harassing Bloggers With $300 Licensing Fees

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

This is a story any blogger should find outrageous:

For the past three years, Marilyn Bess has operated MS Philly Organic, a small, low-traffic blog that features occasional posts about green living, out of her Manayunk home. Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.

In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.

“The real kick in the pants is that I don’t even have a full-time job, so for the city to tell me to pony up $300 for a business privilege license, pay wage tax, business privilege tax, net profits tax on a handful of money is outrageous,” Bess says.

This story doesn’t include the angle of politicians using these tools to silence opponents, but that potential is clearly there, as well.  What we have here is simply government greed.

I’ve  never been a fan of licensing laws, and will continue to proudly flaunt my status as an unlicensed blogger. This issue goes beyond just blogging, however. Licensing laws of all kinds are antithetical to the American spirit.  Owning a business is not a privilege granted by government, and should never be treated as such.  If I found myself living in the jurisdiction of any local government that so aggressive claimed otherwise, I’d pack up and move.  Flee these tyrannical jurisdictions as soon as possible, and then we’ll see what happens to their tax revenues.

Friday

13

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Saturday

7

August 2010

1

COMMENTS

This Blog Is Proudly Unlicensed

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling, Liberty & Limited Government

Last time I was in Time Square, I passed a couple people selling humorous Barack Obama condoms on a street corner.  I was amused and proud of everything represented by  this simple act of commerce: freedom, expression, and capitalism.  I am sad to learn now that those same individuals might be the ones in this case, who have just been harassed by the government because they don’t have proper vendor licenses.

The defendants argued that their product was a form of speech, and therefore should be protected by the first amendment.  This should have been a compelling argument, as I find it doubtful that most of their tourist customers purchased the condoms for actual use.  The judge felt differently, “holding that the novelty prophylactics constituted commercial speech, not constitutionally protected persuasive speech.”

While hardly the most outrageous instance of license enforcement, this case is just another in a long line of examples showing how such laws are antithetical to a free society.  They prevent people the right to pursue the occupation of their choice, place undue burdens on many entrepreneurs, and even serve as a basis to limit free speech.

Licensing laws are one of the many ways in which the nanny state purports to protect us from ourselves.  What usually happens, however, is that such laws are used as a means to protect a cartel and drive up the price of labor (doctors, lawyers, etc.), or as an abusive revenue source for the government, like in the case of little Julie Murphy, the 7-year-old girl who was recently harassed because she didn’t have a license for her lemonade stand.

What’s worse is the number of completely harmless occupations which the government licenses, removing any doubt that their aim is not really to protect.  The Institute for Justice, for instance, recently forced the Louisiana government to reconsider it’s outrageously arbitrary licensing regime for florists.

One man was thrown in jail simply for helping someone draft a letter in response to being fined.  The cartel of lawyers doesn’t want people moving in on their turf who don’t charge $500 an hour.

Fully 30% of occupations require government licenses.  Most of these professions provide no real risk to the consumer that due diligence could not protect them from.  The U.S. Constitution protects the right of all to earn an honest living in the occupation of their choice, but these laws stand in the way of that fundamental right.  It’s time for the government to get out of the business of licensing business.

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives