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.
Stossel - tonight on FBN - 8 PM Eastern, 7 Central, 6 Mountain, 5 Pacific
Be there or beware.
Another example of the folly resulting from state licensing is in the appraisal profession. After the S&L debacle of the mid-80s, the government imposed state licenses, but the appraisers, who had achieved professional accreditation, found the public now believes the low-bar established by the state is the seal of quality. Wrong conclusion, IMHO.
How about the University of Haiti?
I like Stossel, and I agree that licensing requirements exist for many professions where they are not needed. But he is going way too far if he thinks lawyers and especially physicians should not be licensed.
Once again, this points out one of the the differences between Libertarians and Conservatives.
Licensing of lawyers and doctors is not overly burdensome on those professionals, and greatly increases the chances of their clients receiving competent service. It saves lives and keeps innocent people from going to prison or losing their property.
If anyone, with little or no training could simply hang a shingle and call themselves a doctor or lawyer, the result would be chaos, not more freedom.
I can appreciate the example but in the absence of licensing it would require citizens to do a lot of homework on every trademan or professional they employ. It would also make them “more” vulnerable to being scammed.
I am in a state licensed profession and although it is not a perfect system it allows individuals a means to easy authenticate their credentials and holds them accountable for malpractice.
I was in the profession who granted them to relatives and those who were “connected”. They used their vetting of education and experience requirements to restrain competition. They also did a poor job in disciplining members.
When state licensing came in it required testing, education and internship and was merit based. Discipline however has been inconsistent but no worse than it was before licensing.
I like Stossel but I hope he provides a balanced picture on this one.
It is all about money. The government has invented ways to milk us for cash in every way to fund their never ending appetite.
How do you determine which fields of service are “too critical” to allow people to practice without government approval?
And couldn’t those professions establish their own seal of approval, and let people decide for themselves if they care?
My favorite example is Kosher law, where Kosher is determined not by the state, but by the religious leaders. But the state provides trademark protection so others can’t falsely claim to be Kosher.
I contrast that with “Organic” foods, where it used to be private, but someone got Government to pass a federal regulation defining Organic. Now multi-national corporations lobby congress to fix the “Organic” definition to their liking, and the little folks who were the heart of the organic movement are priced out, and organic organizations spend all their time fighting against the changes in the definitions that they dislike.
***It is all about money. The government has invented ways to milk us for cash in every way to fund their never ending appetite.***
Exactly.
We are all required to have drivers’ licenses - money to the State - but that does not prevent licensed maniacs from killing us on the highways.
Licenses do not weed out bad lawyers, physicians, dentists, builders, hairdressers, etc., They are only exposed after the damage has occurred.
I like the guy and he is right on so many economic issues that I write this in sorrow, not anger. Stupid move....and I predict he's not going to last long as a Fox regular if he's going bonkers and far afield from his economic analysis with bizarre commentaries on issues most folks consider amoral and detrimental to society.
Leni
“How do you determine which fields of service are “too critical†to allow people to practice without government approval?”
By exercising judgment, most of it common sense. I realize these concepts are offensive and frightening to many Libertarians, but they are not so bad when you give them a try.
For example:
Brain surgeons - Yes
Shoe shine boys - No
Lawyers - Yes
Walmart cashiers - No
You see, that wasn’t so hard. It didn’t hurt you a bit.
So what if anyone hangs out a shingle? People can look at the past performance and make their own decision.
The license means that someone passed a test and has done work for x number of years, not that they are good or competent.
Costs for licensure are more than you think; initial cost plus ongoing education costs add up.
If you have work done on your house and need a permit from the government, do you really think that the government does anything to insure that the work is good. No they really do not; they have no culpability in it. You pay the fee, they inspect but if it is not right they are held blameless. It is a cash stream for the government that is all it is.
Sure, that's the rational, but it doesn't work like that. Incompetent and lawyers, and those who regularly overcharge and cheat their clients, enjoy long and prosperous careers if they are in large firms, or have the right political connection. Not to believe that is like believing in the tooth fairy.
Unlicensed doctors and lawyers and pharmacists and home remodelers have the potential to kill maybe a dozen people if they are totally incompetent and perhaps damage for life hundreds more, either physically or financially, before the long arm of the law drags them before a judge.
They should expect to go to prison for their crimes, in addition to paying restitution to their victims, if they knowingly misrepresented themselves and violated the law.
But you know what? Unethical journalists -- reporters, editors, commentators, TV anchors -- have been known to defame patriotic Americans, smear conservatives, and even start wars in which thousands of Americans and others have died.
Isn't it about time these people start getting licensed?
After all, their idea of competition is whoever can make up the most outrageous stories and get away with it, to get market share and Emmy awards.
So if libertarian concepts don't cut the mustard in other professions, why not license news people to protect the public from abuse? Isn't that equally important?
My show tonight tonight asks, why do so many occupations need a license?
1) to limit competition in order to force higher charges.
2) to give government a cut of the resulting higher costs.
I can appreciate the example but in the absence of licensing it would require citizens to do a lot of homework on every trademan or professional they employ.
Do you realize how easy it would be to do this with the web?
“Brain surgeons - Yes
Shoe shine boys - No”
So you want some bureaucrat deciding who can and cannot do your brain surgery.
Brilliant!
Hank
Way to go, Stossel! I hope that the government partnership monopolists don’t cut Fox sponsorship fees for that.
My daughter is having her wedding dress made for her, and the lady making it is a licensed seamstress. I had no idea there was such a thing- I am not sure if she was required to have a license or if she has one to be more professional. Just boggles my mind.
What is a “legal service”. Writing a will? Filling out your taxes? Is writing down who you want to have your money harder than determining the correct amount of tax to pay?
If we can make tax paperwork so that ordinary people can follow the tax code, one of the more complicated laws around, why can’t ordinary people do other simple paperwork without a lawyer?
People defend themselves in traffic court — why can’t people hire another non-lawyer who might have learned a thing or to do represent them in traffic court?
The issue isn’t whether you can name two professions for which you could think of cases that you would like licensing.
How about doctoring. Parents treat all sorts of illnesses for their own family at home, without ever calling a doctor. Doctors offices include physician’s assistants and nurses who increasingly provide medical care and consulting.
Why can’t a clinic be opened that could see people who think they are sick, but don’t want to pay huge sums of money to find out? There are people who do a lot of self-treatment because they are smart and can read the internet. Why not let others who aren’t so smart benefit from that resource?
And then, why do we need a state government license for the heart surgeon? Just require a medical degree, and have the hospital implement it’s own policy for making sure it’s workers are competent. If the hospital hires bad doctors, they will get a bad reputation.
Do we license sushi chefs? They could kill you. We license plumbers, even though most people can do their own plumbing.
In a lot of cases, we allow people to do their OWN lawyering, or plumbing, or electrical, or cut their own hair, but we won’t allow them to get another person to do it for them for money unless that other person is licenced. Since we let people do their own work, it obviously isn’t that we require competence. So it must be that the professions want to limit competition.
People can’t drive cars without government licenses. But people crash all the time — why would we ever think that government is competent to hand out licenses only to people who are worthy of them?
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.