The Right to Work
The people of Louisiana must sleep soundly knowing that their state protects them from . . . unlicensed florists.
That’s right. In Louisiana, you can’t sell flower arrangements unless you have permission from the government. How do you get permission? You must pass a test graded by a board of florists who already have licenses. To prepare for the test, you might have to spend $2,000 on a special course.
The test requires knowledge of techniques that florists rarely use anymore. One question asks the name of the state’s agriculture commissioner—as though you can’t be a good florist without knowing that piece of vital information.
The licensing board defends its test, claiming it protects consumers from florists who might sell them unhealthy flowers. I understand the established florists’ wish to protect their profession’s reputation, but in practice such licensing laws mainly serve to limit competition. Making it harder for newcomers to open florist shops lets established florists hog the business.
Other states are considering adopting Louisiana’s licensing law, but before any do, I hope that the law will be stricken. The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, has challenged the licensing in court, saying it violates liberty and equal protection, and so is unconstitutional.
“One of the most fundamental tenets of the American dream is the right to earn an honest living without arbitrary government interference. What could be more arbitrary than saying who can and who cannot sell flowers?” IJ President Chip Mellor says.
Other states have their own sets of ridiculous licensing rules. In Virginia, you need a license to be a yoga instructor. Florida threatened an interior designer with a $25,000 fine if she didn’t do a six-year apprenticeship and pass a test, at a cost of several thousand dollars. Fortunately, the Institute for Justice got that law overturned.
I’m rooting for IJ because licensing interferes with the freedom to make a living, harms consumers by limiting competition, and protects established firms. It’s an old story. Established businesses have always used government to handcuff competition. Years ago, small grocers tried to ban supermarkets. A&P was going to “destroy Main Street,” the grocers cried. Minnesota legislators responded to their lobbying by passing a law that forbade supermarkets to hold sales. Consumers were hurt.
What about Doctors and Lawyers?
Okay, while licensing of florists, interior designers, and yoga teachers is ridiculous, what about more important professions, like law? Surely people need protection from people who would practice law without a license. Again, I say no. The lawyers’ monopoly on helping people with wills, bankruptcies, and divorces is just another expensive restraint of trade.
David Price recently spent six months in a Kansas jail because he wrote a letter on behalf of a man who was wrongly accused of practicing architecture without a license. When Price refused to promise never to “practice law” again, a judge sent him to jail.
All he did was write a letter. Price didn’t misrepresent his credentials. However, he did save a man from paying $3,000 to a lawyer. Perhaps that was his real offense.
Competition is better than government at protecting consumers from shoddy work. Furthermore, licensing creates a false sense of security. Consider this: When you move to a new community, do you ask neighbors or colleagues to recommend doctors, dentists, and mechanics even though those jobs are licensed? Of course. Because you know that even with licensing laws, there is a wide range of quality and outright quackery in every occupation. You know that licensing doesn’t really protect you.
A free competitive market for reputation protects consumers much more effectively than government can. Today, online services like Angie’s List make it even easier for consumers to get better information about businesses than government licensing boards will ever provide. We do need protection from shoddy businesses. But it’s freedom and competition that produce the best protection.
Comment by R. White on 20 May 2010:
I’m with you 100%. Bad timing though for promoting Angie’s List website. The most read article on the site right now is entitled “How unlicensed contractors can cost you”.
It does give one story of an unlicensed LA contractor but I think the article is biased toward requiring a license for work. Below is the link to the article.
http://magazine.angieslist.com/Articles/2009/September/NATIONAL/contractor-licensing.aspx
Comment by Sean Ambroise on 20 May 2010:
Thank you. This is a fantastic article, one of the best I have ever read in this publication.
Comment by roger o. on 23 May 2010:
i know of electrical contractors who i would not work on my house, period. they may have their licenses, but they are idiots. And i am a electrical contractor. i know of people who do electrical wiring who do not have their electrical contractors license but still know more than some of those who do.
Comment by J. D. Checkon on 13 June 2010:
I understand what Stossel is saying, and though I am against governmental interference w/just about every aspect of an individual’s life (i.e. health care). Regulating florists, yoga instructors, and interior designers is just plain and simple governmental greed and ridiculousness.
I believe there is a need for some form of state governmental control over certain professions. I would be hesitant to visit a physician who hasn’t taken & passed the USMLE exams and state licensing exams. I would also be hesitant to utilize the services of an attorney who hasn’t been admitted to the State Bar. Would you trust an accountant that is not a CPA to handle your personal finances, though w/taxes some of us may choose to use Tax Preparers in lieu of CPAs.
Granted, there are some with these required credentials that have questionable practices and in some cases have caused more harm than good. But, at the same time, we can’t hide behind the axiom “There’s a bad apple in every bushel.” A balance is needed.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 14 June 2010:
John starts off well enough but then he falls over the edge of the cliff and lands in a large and flagrant pile of ridiculous. Florists and doctors are exactly the same thing? Interior decorating and brain surgery are pretty much identical? Lawyers and yoga instructors are interchangeable? Brilliant examination that.
He forgets that aside from testing lawyers the Bar also keep records so check Donald D. Quack Esq. credentials before you end up on Death Row. The same is true for checking into the background of Dr. Quack before you let him dig around in your head with an ice cream scoop. His argument against this is there are no guarantees and sometimes the incompetent fall through the cracks. Using this same “logic” any form of quality control should be discontinued unless it is proven to be 100% effective, 99% or some other fraction is entirely unacceptable.
Do I really care if my florist can’t make bouquets? That will be fairly obvious when I walk into the shop and I see a bunch of wilted things tossed about in some nasty looking vase. Will that land me in jail? Will it cost me thousands of dollars? Will it leave me crippled in a wheel chair? Will I die from it? As long as they look good and smell nice I know all I need to know about flowers. It doesn’t work that way with a doctor or a lawyer because the incompetence can be hidden and the consequence devastating.
While we’re at it lets get rid of degrees. BA, BS, Ph.D. and all that rubbish gives a monopoly to those that can afford college.
False and over inflated resumes are a huge problem for companies and trying to verify them is costly. John’s solution for reporting is the internet. He’s obviously forgotten anyone can post anything on the net. Some of the best reviews restaurants get online are from the people that own them and some of the worst are from their competition.
So he’s right when he offers that government has tripped over the inane when it comes to licensing florists. Unfortunately he is every bit as clumsy.
Comment by mwilson on 15 June 2010:
Sorry, Madison Fan. There is a difference between qualification and licensing. Lumping them together to support your argument is disingenious at best. Credentials provided by degrees and certifications may be useful for finding someone with appropriate skills and are, therefore, a reasonable means for a professional to distinguish themselves in the marketplace. Licensing is, as originally posted, simply a means to produce revenue and restrain trade.
Degrees, certifications and licenses don’t prevent incompetence, fraud, or unethical behavior. Check the headlines for degreed, certified and licensed professionals caught in various forms of malpractice and ethical lapses. At the end of the day it still boils down to caveat emptor.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 15 June 2010:
Wilson,
My intent was irony rather than obfuscation but it would appear I still have a long way to go before I’m on a par with Swift.
Mr. Stossel is attempting to redefine the word monopoly to be anything that inhibits participation due to fiscal requirements. If you want disingenuous how about we start with that?
I agree there is a difference but qualifications, certifications, and degrees don’t mean much without enforcement. According to theory licensing fees should be going towards the infrastructure that supports the enforcement of the certification.
My point in offering that we should eliminate degrees along with licensing is that the “monopoly” Mr. Stossel offers does not exist because anyone that is qualified can get a license. A far larger obstruction to becoming a doctor, lawyer, etc. is the education required rather than the cost of maintaining a license. You can pay the licensing fees nearly into infinity for the cost of a year of med school so his premise that “license = monopoly” when it comes to this echelon doesn’t work. I could be the best doctor on the planet but if I can’t afford to go to college then I can’t get a degree which means I can’t practice regardless of if I can afford the license or not therefore, using Mr. Stossel’s proposed criteria, degree = monopoly.
He also fails to note that enforcement protects the consumer as well as the practitioner. He’s a consumer reporter so why this eludes him is beyond me. If there is a complaint it is registered which is in the best interest of the emptor doing the caveating and the claim is investigated and either upheld or rejected which in the best interest of the accused. Mr. Stossel wants to leave this process up to the net rather than other qualified professionals that can examine what was done and make an objective assessment. The layman can already leave comments on the net about bedside manner and quackery so eliminating the AMA, BAR, etc. makes it harder for the emptor to caveat.
I agree with Mr. Stossel that licensing a florist is absurd especially when he indicates it costs as much as $2000 for the qualifying classes. Aside from the fact you need to sell a heck of a lot of tulips to make back that kind of investment the beauty of floral arrangements is entirely subjective and the success or failure is easily determined with a glance. If the success or failure of a medical or legal procedure were as easily determined prior to purchase and the results equally subjective and trivial in failure then I’d agree with his extension but the fact is there is a heck of a lot of difference between bouquets and brain surgery.
Comment by Battista on 17 June 2010:
Response to “James Madison Fan”. Still missing the point, I believe.
Your point that gov’t mandated licenses for skilled professions are not barriers for the practice, underscores their futility. On the other hand, woluntary qualifications, degrees, etc (raised by mwilson) have done the work of separating the good from the bad centuries before gov’t schemes or angieslist got into the act.
While it is true that voluntary systems have varying/evolving degrees of success, it is precisely BECAUSE of their flexibility in the marketplace of ideas that we must regard them as superior filters.
You may find useful a federal license exam for physicians that gives a pass to those who know that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was born “Kathleen Gilligan,” but I’ll choose my doctor based on a variety of other sources appropriate to my particular needs.
[Bad joke alert] If there were a licensing exam required to be a fan of Madison, are you certain you would pass?
Comment by James Madison Fan on 17 June 2010:
Battista,
You make a good point but it is only part of the point Mr. Stossel made. He didn’t limit his commentary to licensing = monopoly to government control of florists, yoga instructors, etc. If he had I wouldn’t have taken him to task. As I said in my first post, he starts off well but falls over the cliff.
Mr. Stossel specifically addresses the monopoly lawyers and doctors supposedly have on legal advice and medicine. This is a false extension of his initial premise. He is offering that since excessive licensing fees on trivia creates a virtual monopoly ergo licensing fees for doctors and lawyers does as well. That’s like offering that since you do not fear a cat ergo you should not fear a tiger which is specious even though they are essentially identical except for scale.
The purpose of licensing is as much to ensure compliance and reduce fraud as it is to ensure competence. Does this always work? No but a system does not have to be perfect to be useful. Even if it keeps 1 in 10 quacks from screwing up cases and patients that’s 10% fewer ducks waddling around. Wilson rightly mentions caveat emptor and the first place a consumer should check before he hires a lawyer is the BAR to determine if his shingle is valid rather than fresh from his laser printer or bought from the University of Diploma Mill and you can find out if he is in good standing or if he’s had so many complaints that they’ve pulled his license. That’s quality control not a monopoly.
As to my standing as a fan of Madison it depends on which of the Supremes administered the test and which Amendments they covered. Stevens would reject me because he seems to think the Constitution is an ancient document that needs his “wisdom” to be relevant. His type calls the Constitution a “living document” but what they really mean is it is dead as Latin and they need to rewrite it through precedent because they know better. My chances with Kennedy would be 50/50 unless he asked about 5A in which case he’d reject me because I can guarantee his majority opinion on eminent domain would have sent the Founders running to the armory. I think Thomas would let me join unless he asked about 1A, Gay Marriage, or Row V Wade. His political and religious views seem to be more important than Constitutional intent when it comes to those and a few other topics.
Comment by Battista on 18 June 2010:
Madison Fan. For what it’s worth, I believe Madison would be proud that you’re a fan. On the licensing matter, though, it seems we’re still not speaking the same language. (Although I agree that Stossel’s use of the term “monopoly” is misplaced.)
No one should doubt the value of qualifying exams, degrees, etc. But neither the ABA (for lawyers) nor the FSMB or NBME (for physicians) are gov’t institutions. Government’s role, then, is ‘only’ to require that certain professionals receive the accreditation of their peers. The voluntary accreditation came first.
Engineers also provide critical services with little margin for error. But they need only become licensed Professional Engineers should they want to provide services directly to the public. (If that’s not right, then someone set me straight.) Again, the NCEES is a non-profit.
Thus, this business of licensing professionals is, at its core, a private or voluntary business. Government’s sole role is to punish those who elect to operate outside the system – whether there is benefit to consumers or not! The aim of government appears to be to protect the little guy from making foolish mistakes. But you and I know that that is a fatal conceit.
Compliance and fraud are indeed serious matters. But that seriousness underscores the requirement of the rule of law ala Hayek. A “do what I say because I know what’s best” approach is sure to backfire.
For sure, the results will not be perfect. However, we will be better off without government’s unnecessary coercion.
Have you ever wondered why there is no licensing exam for politicians?
Comment by James Madison Fan on 21 June 2010:
Battista,
I wish there were licensing for politicians and more so for Supreme Court Judges. If a Supreme cannot freely quote Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. while spouting a litany of judicial precedent as relevant sans Founder context he doesn’t belong anywhere near the bench. Kelo left me stunned and it still annoys me 5 years later. Kennedy’s majority opinion drained my respect or him as if he had removed the stopper from a tub. Thomas’ minority opinion was spot on. If the Founders had known Em Dom was going to be abused like that Madison would have had to race Jefferson to line it out. My litmus test for supporting any law is: “If Jefferson was here and you proposed this law, would he be tempted to reach for his musket?” I think they should put that over the gallery so they can look up and read it every time they sit down. .
I’m not really about his use of monopoly. Oligopoly would be more accurate but even that isn’t really correct because it isn’t excessive to the point of exclusivity. When the only thing someone can find wrong with an argument is the accuracy of a particular term rather than the global concept it usually means they are looking for a small victory before leaving the field. His assessment of the absurdity in regard to florists etc. is a given regardless of how he describes it and I’m happy to yield that point when it comes to certain services listed but I am less amiable when it comes to others. I am not a fan of a “tossing the baby out with the bathwater” mentality.
I went back and looked at what Mr. Stossel offered and it does not appear to me that he is differentiating between private and government licensing. So I do not think your point and his are consistent.
I would offer that neither the government nor a private entity has exclusive claim to being trustworthy. In fact the opposite is true. In the case of private accreditation there is a conflict of interest inherent in the licensing body. It is like the Police investigating the Police. Unless there is significant evidence and public pressure such as in the case of Rodney King and others the odds of a cop being held accountable by other cops is at or near zero. Having multiple review boards assessing a case makes it more likely the other review boards will be honest in their findings.
The thing I’ve noticed in reading and debating on the Freeman a little over a year now is the inexplicable desire to trust businessmen over the government when both are tyrannical, oppressive, and prone to greed, fraud, and every vice under the sun. I think Capitalism is the superior economic machine because it caters to the vices we all share rather than appealing to a utopian vision that is unrealistic as unicorns and ghosts, not because I think businessmen are cut from a superior moral cloth. Where these people get the idea that free market = ethical behavior is beyond me.
Comment by Merrill on 28 June 2010:
6/28/10 FYI – In the session of the Louisiana legislature that just concluded, the law florist licensing requirement that Stossel cites in this article was struck. The next step is for the governor to sign it, which he will gladly do.
During this session, even the legislature realized it was ridiculous. During the sessions, it was openly admitted the original law was pushed largely as a protectionist measure against startup florists.
Comment by Frank James Davis on 19 July 2010:
Freedom has risks and, sometimes, heavy responsibilities.
Slavery, in all its various forms, has even more risks, but only one overriding responsibility–OBEY!
Comment by JohnL~ on 21 July 2010:
Comment on Madison Fan
Your argument seems to be that licensing/credentialing/certification requirements enforced by violence or threat of violence (cease and desist or go to jail)is justified by the greater public good is some cases, and that in those cases government interference with the voluntary contractual agreement between individuals equals quality control.
“Even if it keeps 1 in 10 quacks from screwing up cases and patients that’s 10% fewer ducks waddling around.” Yes, and how many fewer competent practitioners do licensing laws keep from practicing?
Voluntary licensing/certification is a viable option (such as Underwriters Laboratory). Many practices would stay the same. For example, if all licenses were voluntary, in the case of physicians hospitals would probably still only hire/give privileges to licensed physicians, but that is a choice they can make. Board certification (in medical specialties) is voluntary, but some hospital only hire board certified physicians.
Let individuals decide if they want a licensed practitioner or unlicensed one, and let competing licensing boards compete.
Where between florist and physician there is a line that on on side those must be licensed, and on the other side not? Who gets to decide?
I hold two compulsary professional licenses, and one voluntary certification so I have nothing against professional standards and licensing. The consumer protection provided by licensing laws is far outweighed by the protection provided to the licensed practitioners at the expense of the consumer.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 29 July 2010:
John L.,
The enforcement of any liberty and law requires the threat of violence, hence the American Revolution and the Second Amendment. The Declaration of Independence is nothing but prose if not backed by force of arms. Liberty is nothing but a word unless protected by this same threat.
As Madison said, “If men were angels then government would not be necessary.” The concept that Man will respect the Natural Rights of other men without a lattice of societal rules and punishment for violating said rules is as unrealistic as Marx’s Socialist / Communist utopia where we all work as selflessly as bees in a hive. Marx’s vision of a truly selfless and altruistic society is a lovely philosophical construct but it fails utterly when exposed to the harsh reality that civilization is a thin veneer that only barely restrains us. By contrast Capitalism embraces these instincts with vigor and thrives because of it.
Man is a social animal so economic Darwinism is no more acceptable to us than literal Darwinism is. Not only do we reject the concept that a thug has the right to rob or enslave you because he is physically stronger, we embrace the concept that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. Once we accept this as axiomatic in regard to physical power then it is logical to extend it to other kinds of power as well. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Just as I have a societal responsibility and will be held criminally responsible if I punch you in the head and steal your wallet a professional has a societal responsibility not to endanger me and should he fail in this he should be as responsible for his actions as a thief. Just as taxes support the penal system and the records that follow a criminal so I can determine if he is an acceptable employee, licensing fees support the infrastructure that certifies and documents the failure of professionals so I can determine if they are legitimate sources for a particular service.
Who gets to decide? The same people that decide how long I go to jail when I punch you in the head and steal your wallet – We The People of the United States of America.
Trackback by stop spam plugin on 7 February 2012:
Usefull website…
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t like spam links? Check this wordpress plugin.[...]……