An Illegal Arrangement

[Michael]

An Illegal Arrangement

THE FOLLOWING QUESTION appears on the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Retail Floristry Exam:

21. If you have problems or suspect someone of illegally selling cut flowers, you should:
a. call the police
b. call the Louisiana Department of Agriculture
c. investigate to the fullest extent possible
d. none of the above

The correct answer is (b). Black market flowers are not worth bothering the police over, but they're serious enough to merit the state's official attention. It's easier to sell a gun than a bouquet in Louisiana, whose largest city, New Orleans, has the nation's highest per-capita murder rate. To sell bouquets, florists must pass a rigorous exam that costs $150 and is administered quarterly in the state capital, Baton Rouge. The exam includes a one-hour written test (based on the Louisiana Horticulture Commission booklet, Flower Arranging) and a four-hour design phase that requires applicants to compose bouquets in four different styles: wedding, corsage, funeral, and occasional.

Flunk the exam, as more than half of all test takers have done in the 65 years since the law was imposed, and you have several options. You can embark on a life of crime selling arrangements illegally and risk being fined up to $250 for each violation, or you can retake the written test for $50 or any portion of the practical exam for $100. You may retake the test as often as necessary until you obtain a passing grade.

It's hard to say whom Louisiana thought it was protecting when it enacted the florist licensing law in 1939. The state now maintains that regulation is necessary because consumers often phone in orders for third parties and never get to see what they've paid for. C. James Gelpi, the attorney whom Louisiana has hired to defend the law, called the law a "reasonable exercise of the state's authority" because "consumers frequently do not see the product sold and are totally reliant on the seller's integrity."

Land of the "Free".
Home of the "Brave".

You know who is powerless to arrest you for selling flowers? Bill Gates, the Walmart Clan, The Koch Brothers. If any of these people, even with their billions and billions, attempted to violate your private property (your body) by having their goons arrest you and put in a private prison they own - their money wouldn't help them one bit. They'd be arrested and jailed. Not so some idiotic no-body who was elected to office in Louisiana. This is the power of the State. It's the reason why the State was limited by the US Constitution. You aren't called Citizens of the United States for nothing. That 'of' is quite important. You could think of it as a reflection of ownership. Your owner.

The reason this so-called "Law" (in direct violation of the US Constitution) came to my attention was about a woman who recently died thanks to the State protecting us from her flower arrangements. You see, she was an old, poor (State-educated) near-illiterate woman who's only income was arranging flowers. Being illiterate she couldn't pass the State's 5 hour "Flower Arranging" exam. With no income, she eventually died of exposure. You know for "The Good of the Nation". And hey, "You use the roads". While this article didn't tell her story (which itself was an interesting read), this is about how the author experience taking the State's test.

I bet you didn't know the State of Louisiana has a "State Florist" of the Louisiana State Department of Agriculture and Forestry?
How utterly pathetic. Yes, you need your betters to run your life for you. You're too weak, pathetic, small - best to leave the thinking to us. Your betters. Isn't this what you want? Yes, I do believe it is.

Welcome to life in the USSA.
Land of the Ignorant and Home of the Coward.

 

[paddoboy]

Land of the Ignorant.
Home of the Coward.

At least your free to utter those sorts of remarks.
It's the law of the land...LIVE WITH IT OR LEAVE!

 

[Michael]

At least your free to utter those sorts of remarks.
It's the law of the land...LIVE WITH IT OR LEAVE!

Live with it or leave?
LOL
Nice one. Now back into your paddock with you.

Oh, that's nice. OK, how about this - you take your own advice. Leave your better's to do the thinking for you. Isn't that right? This is what you're saying. I will do the thinking, you do the listening.
If you ever don't like this arrangment, please go back and reread your post and take your own advice and leave. But, you're not going to do that now are you? Where would you go? Where would you waddle off to? Another farm somewhere? No, you're going to stay right where you're at and you're going to live with it. You're going to live with people, people like me, making the decisions for people like you.

I'm curious? Do you enjoy licking your farmer's hand for a little pat you on the head? That's a good Citizen *pat pat pat* Pay your labor tax like a good boy. *pat pat pat*
I'm just curious as to what it's like from the cattle's perspective.

 

[spidergoat]

It's a common sense regulation. Hairstylists and car mechanics also need to be licensed. In Germany, it's even better, even waiters need to go to waiter school. The result is that the service industry is very well run and good service is much more common.

 

[Bells]

An Illegal Arrangement



Land of the "Free".
Home of the "Brave".

You know who is powerless to arrest you for selling flowers? Bill Gates, the Walmart Clan, The Koch Brothers. If any of these people, even with their billions and billions, attempted to violate your private property (your body) by having their goons arrest you and put in a private prison they own - their money wouldn't help them one bit. They'd be arrested and jailed. Not so some idiotic no-body who was elected to office in Louisiana. This is the power of the State. It's the reason why the State was limited by the US Constitution. You aren't called Citizens of the United States for nothing. That 'of' is quite important. You could think of it as a reflection of ownership. Your owner.

The reason this so-called "Law" (in direct violation of the US Constitution) came to my attention was about a woman who recently died thanks to the State protecting us from her flower arrangements. You see, she was an old, poor (State-educated) near-illiterate woman who's only income was arranging flowers. Being illiterate she couldn't pass the State's 5 hour "Flower Arranging" exam. With no income, she eventually died of exposure. You know for "The Good of the Nation". And hey, "You use the roads". While this article didn't tell her story (which itself was an interesting read), this is about how the author experience taking the State's test.

I bet you didn't know the State of Louisiana has a "State Florist" of the Louisiana State Department of Agriculture and Forestry?
How utterly pathetic. Yes, you need your betters to run your life for you. You're too weak, pathetic, small - best to leave the thinking to us. Your betters. Isn't this what you want? Yes, I do believe it is.

Welcome to life in the USSA.
Land of the Ignorant and Home of the Coward.

Wow, so a person died from not being able to sell flower arrangements... Do you have a link to this? When did this happen?

So, an article form 2004, about having to get a license to be a florist because people are paying money for flowers and sometimes either weren't receiving said flowers or when they arrived, looked like a dog's breakfast. Oh noes, people had to actually learn to do something properly and pass a test! The horror.

By the way, the law you speak of, is now defunct and has been for a few years now. Instead, if florists in Louisiana wish to become professionally certified, then they have to take a course and sit an exam for certification through the American Institute of Floral Designers.

 

[Michael]

Wow, so a person died from not being able to sell flower arrangements... Do you have a link to this? When did this happen?

So, an article form 2004, about having to get a license to be a florist because people are paying money for flowers and sometimes either weren't receiving said flowers or when they arrived, looked like a dog's breakfast. Oh noes, people had to actually learn to do something properly and pass a test! The horror.

By the way, the law you speak of, is now defunct and has been for a few years now. Instead, if florists in Louisiana wish to become professionally certified, then they have to take a course and sit an exam for certification through the American Institute of Floral Designers.

Chauvin v. Strain
Freeing Louisiana Florists: Licensing Law is Blooming Nonsense
Client and owner of Mitch's Flowers, Monique Chauvin.

Until four Louisiana florists teamed with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit, Louisiana was the only state in the nation that required would-be entrepreneurs to pass a licensing exam before they could create and sell floral arrangements. Only a few months after filing a civil rights lawsuit, Chauvin v. Strain, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Louisiana Horticulture Commission to have Louisiana’s anti-entrepreneur, anti-competitive, and anti-consumer florist licensing scheme declared unconstitutional, the Louisiana Legislature passed a law that pruned back the most arbitrary and subjective aspects of the licensing scheme.

The new law ensures that petty bureaucrats no longer have the power to arbitrarily choose who may or may not become a florist. Among our sacred rights as American citizens is the ability to earn a living in the occupation of our choice free from arbitrary or unreasonable government interference. By presuming to determine who is good enough to work in a harmless occupation like floristry, Louisiana was violating that right. Thanks to IJ’s litigation and media efforts, aspiring florists are now free to pursue their chosen occupation without government interference. Let freedom bloom

You know, the US Government sterilized over 60,000 of Its Citizens until it was challenged? Yeah, until someone actually took a stand, it was 'legal' to sterilize 'undesirables' (mainly minority women) in America. Oh, Noooooes. The horror. Does that sound like an appropriate response? How many 10s of MILLIONS of 'Citizens' of the USA are in prison for selling or smoking a weed? Oh, Noooooes. The horror. Is this the correct way to think? You don't like our drug laws against your civil liberty - there's the door. How about laws that discriminate against gay marriage? Oh noes. The horror. Is it OK to violate a person's civil liberties - so long as the violator is a public servant? Anyone who takes a stand for basic human rights must be put down or leave for daring to challenge the State?

As for the woman I mentioned, her name was Sandy Meadows.

Meadows v. Odom, 360 F. Supp. 2d 811, 824 (M.D. La. 2005) vacated as moot 198 Fed. App’x 348 (5th Cir. 2006).
The lead client in that case, Sandy Meadows, was a widow with no vocational skills other than the ability to create simple—but perfectly attractive and serviceable—floral arrangements. She tried five times to pass the licensing exam, but it was just too subjective and (I can say this with a reasonable measure of confidence, not only because public choice theory has won several Nobel Prizes, but because I personally conducted exhaustive discovery in the case) deliberately rigged to exclude newcomers. When the Louisiana Horticulture Commission discovered that Sandy was managing the floral department of an Albertsons grocery store without a license, it threatened to shut it down unless the store hired a state-licensed florist instead. They had no choice but to let Sandy go. Unemployed and lacking any other vocational skills, Sandy Meadows died five months later, alone, unemployed, and in poverty because the state of Louisiana cared nothing for her constitutional right to earn a living and I couldn’t persuade a federal judge to protect that right in a properly engaged manner. That, for me, will always be the slap and the sting of judicial abdication.

Yup, all those paddoboy's out there - Live with Injustice or Leave. What kind of nonsense is that?


Let's see if we can build a nation out of children on Adderall. Given, their mother's are to busy working to pay for all those 'free' roads - no time for parenting. Let the State take care of that.

 

[Bells]

You do understand the US Government sterilized over 60,000 of Its Citizens until it was challenged? Yeah, until challenged it was 'legal' to sterilize minorities in America. Oh, Noooooes. The horror. Is that what you think?! How many the 10s of MILLIONS of 'Citizens' of the USA who are in prison for selling or smoking a weed? Oh, Noooooes. The horror. This is what you think correct? It's OK to violate a person's civil liberties - so long as the violator is a public servant?

You are comparing getting a license to arrange flowers professionally to sterilising people?

Perspective.. lacking..

The previous law in Louisiana fit perfectly into your views. The tests and its support stemmed from florists who were intent on eliminating all competition, which is why the tests were so hard and why so few could actually complete it. Capitalism and trade, grand isn't it? The very florists who supported and graded the tests were florists intent on ensuring they had little competition in their respective fields. So you can understand why I find your complaint about Government in this area to be somewhat hypocritical, especially when you openly advocate the actions of competitors to eliminate fellow competitors. The people who failed Sandy Meadow's were the very florists she would have been competing against:

Meadows failed to get a license, which required a written test and the making of four flower arrangements in four hours, arrangements judged by licensed florists functioning as gatekeepers to their own profession, restricting the entry of competitors.​

Yup, all those paddoboy's out there - Live with Injustice or Leave. What kind of nonsense is that?

Isn't that what you always advocated? Those who don't like the service can simply go elsewhere?

The now defunct laws in Louisiana merely show that florists had found a way to ensure they restricted their competition. Which is why I am surprised you are complaining about it?

 

[Michael]

The previous law in Louisiana fit perfectly into your views. The tests and its support stemmed from florists who were intent on eliminating all competition, which is why the tests were so hard and why so few could actually complete it. Capitalism and trade, grand isn't it? The very florists who supported and graded the tests were florists intent on ensuring they had little competition in their respective fields.

This most certainly is NOT an example of 'Capitalism and Trade". DO explain how the previous law in Louisiana fit perfectly into 'my' views. What do you think 'my' views are exactly? Because, no. No, they don't. This law was an example of Progressive Socialism. And the proper Economic term is NOT free-market Capitalism but is referred to as State regulation and Rent-Seeking. Free-Markets are about being FREE to voluntarily trade with one another. Licencing requirements is the opposite of "Free-Markets".

(note: I've updated my earlier post with the name of the woman who died: Sandy Meadows).



As for forced sterilization, it IS the same moral violation - violation of your private property (your body - which you used to own). If those florists were to continue to sell flowers and did not pay their State fines - they'd eventually be taken away and put in State jail. If go out and they kept selling flowers they'd eventually be put away permanently. Spending your life in jail is probably worse than being sterilized. Does this seem like a "Free" society to you? Does it seem moral to you? The fact that the State could legally sterilize Citizens should tell you something about the kind of thing the State actually is.

Following 9/11: Does the State have a "Let's reflect on our actions and make peace committee" or is it "WAR on Terror" (which is lost due to incompetency).
When the State wanted to help children to read does it have a "Let's sit down and work with children and their mothers to learn" or is it "War on illiteracy". (which it lost and now functionally illiterates graduate from high schools with diplomas).

This IS the State.

WAR on Terror, WAR on Drugs, WAR on illiteracy, WAR on cancer, WAR on Communism, WAR on our Privacy, WAR WAR WAR WAR.... War defines the State. That's what this thread was about. How the State violates our Civil Liberties - even to the absurdity of forcing flower sellers to comply with State licencing, pay the State or go to jail.

 

[Michael]

It's a common sense regulation. Hairstylists and car mechanics also need to be licensed. In Germany, it's even better, even waiters need to go to waiter school. The result is that the service industry is very well run and good service is much more common.

Forcing people to pay unnecessary licencing fees damages the economy and makes everyone poorer. It restricts competition. It's rent-seeking. It lowers quality. It's idiotic to need to pay for 'school' to become a waiter.

The service industry is well run in the USA too. The service industry is fantastic in Japan (no school at all needed - and I'd say it's probably the best service in the world). It's pretty mediocre in much of Australia. It was really shit in a Communist State I visited (Belarus). It was hit or miss in China. It was indeed pretty OK in Germany. Microsoft trains their techs (in-house schooling one could say) and they're the absolute worst service anywhere in the Universe. Literally - ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE.


Germany has decent service because of Germans. Not because of some waste of time going to school to become a waiter.


Another way to look at it is like this.
Society A
Has Law that protects your private property (beginning with your body - which you own) and protects against fraud; uses sound money (that gains in value as society becomes more productive); and is based around the individual's Civil Liberties. Thus people are free to associate with one another (free-markets). Such a society gains in prosperity (gains free-time and maintains civil liberties). Such a society is heterogeneous, multicultural, has a variety of goods and services.

Society B (our society)
Has Law, but this law actually violates your private property (beginning with your body, which you do not own [ex: drug laws]) and uses regulation to protect companies from being sued in cases of fraud (limited liability - see Gulf Oil Spill); uses fiat currency (that loses value as society goes deeper into debt, and allows for one generation to take on even more debt, sticking the next 5 with the bill; see T-bills, municipal bonds, and the bailout the top 0.01%), in this society - the worker has to pay a transaction tax to the State (at the point of a gun) on the sale of his/her labor-hours (to give the "fiat" currency it's "fiat" value). Such a society is not based around Civil Liberties and actually works hard passing various acts to violate personal freedoms and personal privacy (see: Patriot Act). People are not 'people' they are "Citizens" of that State and they are only given limited ability to associate with other "Citizens" (regulated markets, see Florist licence and a million others). Such a society becomes bland and homogeneous where the chain-stores (that understand and often game the system) litter the landscape reducing the variety of goods and services to a bland sludge smear. Such a society loses prosperity (has less free-time and has reduced civil liberties).

Because said society is so poor (loss of prosperity) both the mother's and the father's must work to pay for all the monstrous bureaucracies used by the Political Ruling Elite to control and rule over their "Citizens" lives - kind of like parents ruling over their children. Speaking of which, the children of "The Citizen" are often placed into Long-Term 6am-7pm State licensed Daily 'Care' facilities where Empirical data shows these Citizen-children do not properly develop somatosensory cortices, develop anxiety disorders, have decreased emotion IQ's and do not develop the ability to recognize or reproduce emotional facial expressions in the people around them (due to the lack of interact with parental figures and lack of experiencing genuine emotional interaction). These children often bond with child-Supervisors who repeatedly leave for different careers paths (average of 8 months) thus breaking even this low-level pseudo-parental bond. Then these children are shoveled into public schools and spit out 12 years later compliant, weak-willed, nervous wrecks. Functionally illiterate and doped up on numerous SSRI's.




I'll take my chances with the poor-service. Because, if I don't like the service of my waiter, I won't leave a tip and won't come back to that restaurant. Done and dusted - and not a wisp of State in between. That restaurant goes bust, a new one goes in it's place with someone who WILL work hard to serve his/her community. Done and Done. And as for flowers - come on. I think I can negotiate the purchase of a bouquet without a State nanny holding my hand.

 

[Bells]

This most certainly is NOT an example of 'Capitalism and Trade". DO explain how the previous law in Louisiana fit perfectly into 'my' views. What do you think 'my' views are exactly? Because, no. No, they don't. This law was an example of Progressive Socialism. And the proper Economic term is NOT free-market Capitalism but is referred to as State regulation and Rent-Seeking. Free-Markets are about being FREE to voluntarily trade with one another. Licencing requirements is the opposite of "Free-Markets".

(note: I've updated my earlier post with the name of the woman who died: Sandy Meadows).

The law was used specifically by florists to ensure only they remained in the trade. Had it been customers who forced Sandy Meadows out of business and she died as a direct result of no income, you would not be batting a single eyelid. For example:

I'll take my chances with the poor-service. Because, if I don't like the service of my waiter, I won't leave a tip and won't come back to that restaurant. Done and dusted - and not a wisp of State in between. That restaurant goes bust, a new one goes in it's place with someone who WILL work hard to serve his/her community. Done and Done. And as for flowers - come on. I think I can negotiate the purchase of a bouquet without a State nanny holding my hand.

You are perfectly fine with people going bust so long as it is driven by the public, you just don't like the idea of people going bust if it is driven by others in the same trade, which is essentially what happened with Sandy Meadows. If the restaurant owners or its staff die due to lack of income in this scenario, you would not care.

You clearly missed what the actual problem with the law was in the first place. The issue isn't that people had to get a license, the biggest issue is that the people who had taken over testing and who wrote the exam had a vested interest in more people failing, so they made sure just about everyone failed.

As for forced sterilization, it IS the same moral violation - violation of your private property (your body - which you used to own).

A few florists maintaining a monopoly is the same as forced sterilization?

Right....

If those florists were to continue to sell flowers and did not pay their State fines - they'd eventually be taken away and put in State jail. If go out and they kept selling flowers they'd eventually be put away permanently.

It was not illegal for them to sell flowers. You clearly did not read up on the articles linked or anything about the law itself. They are free to sell flowers in bunches, just not mixed flowers or 'arranged' flowers. So no, they would not go to jail for selling flowers.

Spending your life in jail is probably worse than being sterilized. Does this seem like a "Free" society to you? Does it seem moral to you? The fact that the State could legally sterilize Citizens should tell you something about the kind of thing the State actually is.

Where the hell do you come up with this crap? Where does it state failure to pay the fine or the cease and desist orders even Sandy Meadows was given would result in life imprisonment? Far out you ramble and delve into the land of fantasies..

Following 9/11: Does the State have a "Let's reflect on our actions and make peace committee" or is it "WAR on Terror" (which is lost due to incompetency).
When the State wanted to help children to read does it have a "Let's sit down and work with children and their mothers to learn" or is it "War on illiteracy". (which it lost and now functionally illiterates graduate from high schools with diplomas).

This IS the State.

WAR on Terror, WAR on Drugs, WAR on illiteracy, WAR on cancer, WAR on Communism, WAR on our Privacy, WAR WAR WAR WAR.... War defines the State. That's what this thread was about. How the State violates our Civil Liberties - even to the absurdity of forcing flower sellers to comply with State licencing, pay the State or go to jail.

And there we go..

Yet another Glenn Beck style of monologue. This thread was just an excuse for you to ramble about how the State is coming for your women and children. You need to find a new hobby.

 

[spidergoat]

There is no such thing as a free market, there is no such thing as money that isn't debt and can't lose value. There is no civilization at all without law. And, by the way, it's not illegal to have any drug you want in your body.

 

[madanthonywayne]

It's a common sense regulation. Hairstylists and car mechanics also need to be licensed. In Germany, it's even better, even waiters need to go to waiter school. The result is that the service industry is very well run and good service is much more common.

It's not common sense. It's crony capitalism and protectionism. The established businesses use useless laws like this to increase the barrier for anyone else to enter the market.

It hurts consumers by decreasing competition, it hurts entrepreneurs by increasing the cost of doing business (which hits the little guy just starting out the most), and hurts society in general by creating a needless drag on the economy.

The previous law in Louisiana fit perfectly into your views. The tests and its support stemmed from florists who were intent on eliminating all competition, which is why the tests were so hard and why so few could actually complete it. Capitalism and trade, grand isn't it? ....

The now defunct laws in Louisiana merely show that florists had found a way to ensure they restricted their competition. Which is why I am surprised you are complaining about it?

You are suffering from a serious misunderstanding. Capitalism benefits society because it forces businesses to compete for customers who are free to choose among the various providers of any particular good or service. However, when we allow businesses to collude with government to block competition, the benefits to society in general are lost.

No real advocate of the free market would support the previous Louisiana law. At least not in principle. Certainly there are plenty of businessmen who would be happy to take advantage of such a situation given the chance.

You clearly missed what the actual problem with the law was in the first place. The issue isn't that people had to get a license, the biggest issue is that the people who had taken over testing and who wrote the exam had a vested interest in more people failing, so they made sure just about everyone failed.

It sounds like the old law was even worse than the new one, but in a business such as selling flowers, any licensing requirements amount to little more than protectionism and restriction of trade with essentially no benefit to society in general.

 

[iceaura]

Michael is using a defunct State law passed in a Jim Crow State during the Jim Crow era as evidence against the US government - the primary foe of Jim Crow laws (or did nobody notice what the actual intent of the original law, similar to many laws of the era restricting business and work, was?).

We notice that the people who finally got rid of the law did so by filing a civil rights suit in US District Court - is that more evidence of US Government tyranny?

It sounds like the old law was even worse than the new one, but in a business such as selling flowers, any licensing requirements amount to little more than protectionism and restriction of trade with essentially no benefit to society in general.

1) Not so. "Shall issue" licenses or certifications (especially voluntary ones, like the new law) with reasonable fees etc are very often the most economically efficient way to curb fraud and abuse of the public, and protect a functioning market in a service business. Bad service, like bad money (a form of bad service), destroys free markets - drives out good. A free market within a capitalistic economy is not a default state of nature, remember.

2) The new law is not a licensing requirement, but a certification option. It's a government service, available to the florist and customer alike.

No real advocate of the free market would support the previous Louisiana law. At least not in principle.

Unfortunately we are beset on all sides by fake advocates of the free market (Ayn Rand fans, advocates of private sidewalks, pizza magnates trying to avoid minimum wage laws, etc) - finding the true Scotsman among all the kilts turns out to be a slippery and fumbling endeavor. One rule of thumb? They are never rightwing corporate executives or their favored politicians. Never.

 

[spidergoat]

I agree the test seems much more rigorous than it has to be, but some minimum standards should apply. It would, after all, help prevent lawsuits.

 

[brucep]

Michael is using a defunct State law passed in a Jim Crow State during the Jim Crow era as evidence against the US government - the primary foe of Jim Crow laws (or did nobody notice what the actual intent of the original law, similar to many laws of the era restricting business and work, was?).

We notice that the people who finally got rid of the law did so by filing a civil rights suit in US District Court - is that more evidence of US Government tyranny?

1) Not so. "Shall issue" licenses or certifications (especially voluntary ones, like the new law) with reasonable fees etc are very often the most economically efficient way to curb fraud and abuse of the public, and protect a functioning market in a service business. Bad service, like bad money (a form of bad service), destroys free markets - drives out good. A free market within a capitalistic economy is not a default state of nature, remember.

2) The new law is not a licensing requirement, but a certification option. It's a government service, available to the florist and customer alike.

Unfortunately we are beset on all sides by fake advocates of the free market (Ayn Rand fans, advocates of private sidewalks, pizza magnates trying to avoid minimum wage laws, etc) - finding the true Scotsman among all the kilts turns out to be a slippery and fumbling endeavor. One rule of thumb? They are never rightwing corporate executives or their favored politicians. Never.

Great post especially the last paragraph. Free market purists are a bunch of sociopaths waiting to prey on the constituents of main street.

 

[spidergoat]

Hell, you can't even start a business without getting a business license, I went through all that when I started selling concrete garden sculptures, even though I never made more than a couple hundred dollars.

 

[Kittamaru]

It amazes me this is even a discussion... in Pennsylvania, you are required to have a license to practice Massage Therapy, and you must pass a set of tests and have continuing education credits for said license.

I should know... my wife is a Massage Therapist.

This is a GOOD THING - it means that people actually wanting to do this "for real" are protected from undercutting by those looking to earn a quick buck by simply rubbing their hands around a persons body... true massage is an art and, if done wrong, can seriously screw someone up, especially prenatal and deep tissue massage.

I agree that licensing a profession is a good idea... admittedly though, it shouldn't be "illegal" to do said profession unlicensed, it should be considered simply a "proceed at your own risk" kind of thing. The licensing simply means the person is actually CAPABLE of doing what they say they are.

 

[Michael]

It amazes me this is even a discussion... in Pennsylvania, you are required to have a license to practice Massage Therapy, and you must pass a set of tests and have continuing education credits for said license.

I should know... my wife is a Massage Therapist.

This is a GOOD THING - it means that people actually wanting to do this "for real" are protected from undercutting by those looking to earn a quick buck by simply rubbing their hands around a persons body... true massage is an art and, if done wrong, can seriously screw someone up, especially prenatal and deep tissue massage.

I agree that licensing a profession is a good idea... admittedly though, it shouldn't be "illegal" to do said profession unlicensed, it should be considered simply a "proceed at your own risk" kind of thing. The licensing simply means the person is actually CAPABLE of doing what they say they are.

There's nothing wrong with creating a PRIVATE organization and certifying people PRIVATELY. Thus, if people really do want a certified 'Professional' they'll go to the places that have been certified. The AMA started out for this very reason. You know how you can tell if people don't really want to go to certified "Professional"? It's when the State has to be called upon to force all people to be State "Certified" in order to sell the service to the public. Well, this is wrong. It's actually insane. The only reason people feel comfortable using the State as a Force against other adults in society is because it's not them personally doing the dragging and putting the competition in a cage. It's a police officer of the State. I'm 99.99% if your wife had to kick down your neighbors door, gun in hand, push past the children, hand cuff and drag the neighbor off to a jail in your basement - all just to stop them from practicing massage; she wouldn't do it. And if she did, you'd freak out. But, this is what happens if a person freely provides a service and refuses to be State certified (for this example we'll say, not due to incompetence, but purely on principles).

Not only is it immoral to stop two adults from voluntarily associating with one another - but it is rent-seeking and over the long-run ends up producing the exact opposite of the stated goal of maintaining a high quality good or service. No one needed to regulate Zune. It went off the market because people didn't like it; even die-hard MS fan-boys went over to Apple for their MP3 players. Imagine if Microsoft used the State prevent Apple from making an iPod? You know, because if music is played to loudly it can seriously screw up someone's hearing. We'd probably never had a iPhone and the entire smart-phone market wouldn't have happened as it did.



Imagine if all cooks had to pass a 8 year French cuisine course to make food - you know, because some people are wanting to cook 'for real' and need to prevent from being 'undercut' (read: rent-seeking to stop competition) and my Gods, food is an art! If done wrong, food can kill - especially a pregnant fetus! Do you think this is a 'good thing' for society? Well, it's not. Not at all. It's a bad thing for society. We all become poorer for it. We by definition become poorer as a society with each and every one of these regulations. We also become a more violent-based society. A society that regresses back towards the jungle (use of the stick) instead of progressing forward towards cooperation (voluntarism). AND just look at the pathetic flag-waving state of society?! Two more wars lost in the middle east. $8.5 trillion unaccounted for that must be paid back but our children with interest in a highly regulated market they can hardly find a job in, except at chain-stores. IMO we're lose a LOT more than people realize when we base our society on force and not voluntarism. Sadly, people look right past the violence, as if they can't even see it. Just like slave masters 180 years ago. They'd walk right past violence and were so normalized to it, they didn't even see what was occurring as immoral.



Again if people really do want a Certified Professional *insert service* then this is great because it means PRIVATE organizations of people can come together and set/test/assess and certify their private members. Different groups can compete. And if this is what the market wants - great. But if not, then that has to be accepted. It's all part of living in this thing called a "Free" society - one where members of said society have their civil rights 'protected' - not stolen.


Prosperity is equal to free-time + civil liberty. Reducing civil liberty, reduces prosperity. Lose enough prosperity and you turn into a 3rd world shit hole, which, is what some US cities have become. We are hemorrhaging civil liberties. The USA has the largest per person prison population of any country. Most of whom are in prison for non-violently selling and trading with one other (so-called) "Free" Citizens of the State. It should be self-evident that using FORCE against people, means this is something people do NOT want. If they wanted it, you wouldn't have to use force against them.

 

[iceaura]

You know how you can tell if people don't really want to go to certified "Professional"? It's when the State has to be called upon to force all people to be State "Certified" in order to sell the service to the public.

In this case you gave us an example of the US government stepping in on the side of petitioning citizens to prevent a State from doing exactly that, and you bitching about the US government, comparing the Jim Crow era State law recently repealed with Germany and the like (entire foreign countries), blaming the US government for the death of someone who happened to die several months after running foul of this now defunct Louisiana law the US government was stepping in to get rid of, overlooking the fact that the new law is a voluntary certification program that restricts no one's "association" or civil liberties, and so forth.

Your thesis is that we are bleeding civil liberties and sliding into tyranny, and your example is one of a recent Federally mediated increase in civil liberties and the removal of a restrictive law dating back to Jim Crow times.

You simply have no grasp of physical, historical, or political reality. You always get it wrong.

 

[Michael]

iceaura,

The Government, at the local, state and federal level, should not have ANY role in licencing. None. Zero. Zilch. If a licence is something most people want, then it should be a private organization that provides it AND up to the market (free people) to determine if this is something they value in that service - all of this should be voluntary interactions.

Is there something we disagree to here?

That so many "Free" Citizens of the State who were born as such into our so-called Civil Society now accept and expect government to play a large role in our lives - this suggests that the experiment in 'free democracy' has ended - well and truly ended. It started to unravel in 1913 with the loss of sound money and the amendment to allow the State to tax work (or I should say, taxing the 'transaction' when labor hours are sold) and continued to unravel through the 1930s and WWII. We are now living with the consequences of those people who choose to use force over voluntarism. Our entire society is permeated with State violence. And not unsurprisingly we've never been poorer.

Let's see if a nation can be made out of children put on combinations of adderall, celexa, lexapro, paxil, seroxat, prozac, luvox, zoloft, prondol, lomont, melixeran, insidon, ...... because their parents have to work 3 jobs just to pay out the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars vacuumed out of the private economy by the millions of public 'servants' needed to run and maintain our lives for us - because we can't figure out how to arrange flowers, or prepare food, or take a dump without someone, somewhere, telling us how to do it for our own good. Geee, food is dangerous. Maybe you should get a licence to prepare it at home. Wouldn't want you to accidentally kill yourself with a sandwich and I heard that happened to someone who knew someone, somewhere, once, maybe.... How about a $50 BILLION dollar a year Government Department of Education that 30 years later graduates functionally illiterate children from Publicly funded "High" Schools. Maybe we need another War on Illiteracy? How's $250 BILLION a year sound? That'll fix it.

The State knows which side of the bread is buttered. If you think selling off 5 generations of American children to bail out the top 1% was something, my guess is, we haven't seen anything yet.