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.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.
What makes you so sure "I"
would not be batting a single eyelid?
1. If no one finds value in Sandy's flower-arrangements, and refuses to voluntarily buy her flowers, that may mean she's charging too much (she could lower her price) or she doesn't arrange the flowers nicely (she could look for better training) or she's simply not good at arranging flowers. OK, then she loses her business. Yes, that's exactly what
should happen. (of course, if you're a bank, then the State bails you out, but, I digress).
2. In a free-market, without rent-seeking licences, Sandy was able to try her hand at starting a flower business. It didn't work, lucky for her, free-market capitalistic societies are prosperous and so she can work as a laborer as she saves up capital for another go at a business idea. Because in a 'free' society, public schools don't exist (they'd be out-competed by private schools all day long - and are) she's actually been able to put her 12 years of primary education to use and developed the skills needed to get out there and compete with a different business idea. She's not been turned into the weak-willed tax-cattle "Citizen" trapped in hyper-regulated State that we have today. In a Free society it's only be a matter of a year before she was out there trying her hand at something new (supposing she's the type who wanted to start businesses).
I actually
WANT to see the Sandy's of the world succeed. I believe in the Sandy's of the World. I care about their civil liberties. I don't think they should pay a tax just to work. I want the State out of their lives. I DO care. Unlike the "
I pay me taxes", if you don't like it there's the door, let's sweep the Sandy's all under the rug crap-attitude.
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.
Yes, it's called rent-seeking. The very fact there IS a State Licence is the problem. Only the market knows what is a good arrangement of flowers - not some bureaucrat rotting out the inside of the State.
A few florists maintaining a monopoly is the same as forced sterilization?
I did not say that. I said IF Sandy refused to pay her $250 fine, and also refused to be cowed by some bully-bureaucrat leaching off the State licencing scam as a "Public Servant", that eventually someone in a blue monkey suite would pay her a visit. And do so with a gun in hand. And if Sandy refused to comply with the militant arm of the State, she's either be shot dead or dragged away and put in a cage. Right along with the tens of millions of other non-violent offenders.
The "Land of the Free" has more people in prison than any other State in existence.
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.
And?
