My show tonight tonight asks, why do so many occupations need a license? Requiring permission from the state to do everything from flower arranging to practicing law paralyzes competition and protects entrenched special interests.Posted on 03/11/2010 4:29:19 AM PST by logician2u
My show tonight tonight asks, why do so many occupations need a license? Requiring permission from the state to do everything from flower arranging to practicing law paralyzes competition and protects entrenched special interests.
Our most outrageous example of licensing madness is the plight of David Price, a man who learned the hard way that no good deed goes unpunished, especially when messing with lawyers. Price made the mistake of helping Eldon Ray, a fellow Kansan who was fined for practicing architecture without a license. Price didn’t represent Ray in court; he just helped Ray by writing a letter to respond to the fine. In states like Kansas, that practically makes Price Perry Mason. A judge (a lawyer with a robe) threw Price into jail on contempt charges, not to be released until he promised to never give legal advice again – ever.
After six months, Price relented and agreed to the court’s terms. Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, believes Price should never have spent a day in jail.
“The state has no moral or lawful authority to restrain A and B from agreeing to exchange a service for a payment, providing that the agreement is voluntary.”
Price ran afoul of Kansas’ Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) regulations. All states have them, although Arizona is one of a few that allow non-lawyers to prepare legal documents like wills. Unfortunately the non-lawyers still must pass an exam. But Arizona citizens are happy to have a lower-price option to expensive lawyers.
Judge Napolitano points out that licensing is a device that special interests use to protect special interests from competition.
“The concept of state licensing, if permitted to continue, will know no end. If the state can license physicians and lawyers, can it license broadcasters and journalists and shoemakers? A license from the state to do anything that another is willing to pay for is an interference with free choice. I would rather know from a source other than the state that Dr. Y graduated from Harvard Medical School or Attorney Z aced his exams at the University of Chicago Law School; then I could choose that physician or lawyer without seeking the permission of the state. The state steals what it owns and has no moral authority, except when it protects my freedom… the licensing mechanism is frequently a cartel of those in the profession to whom the power of the state is granted to keep like-minded persons in the cartel, and different thinkers out.”
For more on the insane expansion of states’ licensing powers watch “Stossel” tonight, on the Fox Business Network at 8PM and 11PM Eastern time. I’ll interview David Price, Judge Napolitano, and a lawyer who says Price should have been jailed.
Many cable systems that carry Fox News charge extra for (or don't even offer) Fox Business. Don't understand why, as it's far superior to CNBC (and Faux News, for that matter).
Look for it to show up on YouTube probably sometime tomorrow if you think you're interested. From your comments on this thread, I doubt you are.
Stossel ping for those who are interested. Tonight at 8 Eastern on FBN, repeating tomorrow and Saturday.
I’ll try to find it on the web. As I said, I like when Stossel goes after ridiculous over regulation. I am interested to see if he has really gone over the edge and thinks unlicensed doctors are fine.
I do think the government should provide definitions, to wit certifications. If you call something a “fish stick”, we should know that as a nation the term has been defined and a contract referencing the term need not address all conceivable variations. Likewise “heart surgeon” or “flower arranger” should be uniformly defined, and anyone taking on the term should, unless otherwise redefined in a contract, adhere to the nationally standardized definition thereof; a “heart surgeon” should be accredited as such with X Y and Z training, and a “flower arranger” should presumably be more than someone picking plants off the side of the road and shoving them in containers. The idea is that common folk can use common terms in common ways without being blindsided by uncommon absurd variations thereon; contracts are great, so long as I don’t need 30 pages of legalese to ensure my barber doesn’t decide to cut my hair with Nair.
Definitions are distinct from licensing, where you must beg other citizens for permission to use a moniker.
Stossel is a bit late on this.
We already have state, county and municipal licenses.
We already have medeval guild style limitations on businesses.
See the absurd liquor license quantity limits pushed by local governements. (only so many bars allowed)
then again, McCain Feingold is all about “licensed and approved” to provide political speech.
You really think he could have run a program like this one on ABC?
Give him a break. Look for more current controversies on his upcoming shows. He's signed to do about 40 total, and I doubt his well of material will run dry.
excellent
I want all licensing dropped completely. Anyone can do anything anytime for any reason anywhere. Anyhow.....
Has it ever occurred to you that the Medical Industry is a legally mandated monopoly?
Did you know it is a felony if you try to order a medical lab test for yourself?
Ever wonder why the health care system is collapsing?
Shouldn’t the licensing entity be responsible for the licensees actions?
a) Our health care system is NOT collapsing. That is leftist, statist propaganda. The vast majority of Americans get excellent health care. Costs continue to increase, which is a problem, but the system is not “collapsing”.
b) The problems with our healtcare system have NOTHING to do with the fact that we require medical licenses for physicians.
c) The medical industry is not a “monopoly”. There are thousands and thousands of different providers, operating independently of one another.
d) Can you please cite the law that says it is a felony to order a lab test for oneself?
If you don't believe me, run the cost projections yourself. The system will collapse in 10 to 15 years (sooner if Obamacare passes) if something major doesn't change.
The problems with our healtcare system have NOTHING to do with the fact that we require medical licenses for physicians.
It has everything to do with the fact that it is a monopoly. That is what licensing creates by definition.
The medical industry is not a “monopoly”. There are thousands and thousands of different providers, operating independently of one another.
They most definitely are not independent, they are all licensed. Licensing restricts the numbers of providers. Can you go to an unlicensed doctor and get a prescription for a drug? Licensing creates a barrier to competition, creating a monopoly.
d) Can you please cite the law that says it is a felony to order a lab test for oneself?
Texas Occupational Code 165.152. PRACTICING MEDICINE IN VIOLATION OF SUBTITLE... Every State has similar laws.
Sheesh LeGrande, the end must be near. I actually agree with you about something.
Except for disagreeing about a particular God, we don't seem to disagree much on politics : )
Like Reagan said, we don't have to agree on everything.
You should look up the definition of “monopoly”.
All industries have barriers to entry, but that does not make them “monopolies”. Do all doctors charge exactly the same fees? Do they compete for patients, or do all the doctors in the country put all their earnings in a big pool and share it equally?
Also, in professions that require a high degree of skill, and where lack of that skill will result and in great harm and death to individuals, licensing is an appropriate and necessary barrier to entry. Unqualified, dangerous individuals offering their services in a market, do not help the market, but harm it.
I suppose airline pilots are a “monopoly” as well. Anyone should be allowed to fly a commerical airliner, regardless of lack of training, right? It is to each passenger to determine if the fellows in the cockpit really know how to fly a plane, before boarding, correct?
A license (law) is the ultimate barrier to entry. Unlicensed competitors get thrown in jail. That is entirely different from market place barriers.
Also, in professions that require a high degree of skill, and where lack of that skill will result and in great harm and death to individuals, licensing is an appropriate and necessary barrier to entry.
We are making progress. So anyone other than Surgeons, Politicians, and soldiers don't need a license. I can live with that.
I notice that you didn't answer my question about holding the licensing authority accountable for the actions of the licensees? They are essentially guaranteeing the outcomes of the licensees actions aren't they?
I suppose airline pilots are a “monopoly” as well. Anyone should be allowed to fly a commerical airliner, regardless of lack of training, right? It is to each passenger to determine if the fellows in the cockpit really know how to fly a plane, before boarding, correct?
As a pilot I love this question :) There are two kinds of pilots that scare the bejeebers out of me in GA, Doctors and Airline pilots, their stats are terrible.
It so happens that the government licensing for Airline pilots is trivial compared to the requirements Airlines require for their pilots. I am 'licensed' to fly a 777, I hope you will trust me when I tell you you wouldn't want to be on my first flight if they just put me in as PIC right now : )
This is the other side of licensing. Licensing ensures nothing if the agency issuing the licenses is not accountable.
Licensing and credentialism in general is a huge impediment to economic activity. All it does is create armies of bureaucrats at state licensing boards, and make life easy for HR dweebs.
The private system *has* and *does* do a better job of licensing than the government.
Want a state and local tax expert? Go to a CPA . . . who is licensed to make sure he knows ACCOUNTING RULES and not tax laws. The only tax that is covered on the exam is federal tax, and it’s really basic stuff.
You want state and local taxes done correctly? Go to a CMI who is certified by IPT, a PRIVATE organization. Go to a licensed CPA for state and local tax issues and you may or may not get good advice. All you know is that the government has licensed him/her to say something about your financial statements.
This is true for many professions. Professional organizations do a much better job than governments of deciding who is and who is not an expert in a field.
How is this different than a sticker from a private organization which actually has to prove it’s raison detre?
I don’t think the government can do it better.
I don’t trust everything I read in Consumer Reports, but I buy it anyway. They get my money because I feel like the information I get as a consumer is worth the money that I pay.
See how that works? It’s called Capitalism and it works better than Communism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.