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.