Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Some Businesses Are Inherently Public, Says Washington State Supreme Court
Some bad news from the Institute for Justice, in a press release
that does not yet seem to be on their
website that you can
read here in its entirety:
The Washington Supreme Court today dealt a blow to civil liberties. In Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle, a divided Court decided that the city of Seattle could violate local entrepreneur Joe Ventenbergs' constitutional right to earn an honest living by creating construction waste-hauling monopolies for two multi-national corporations, making it illegal for Joe to practice his profession.
“The Court got the law wrong today and Washingtonians will suffer as a result,” said William Maurer, executive director for the Institute for Justice Washington Chapter (IJ-WA), which represents Joe Ventenbergs. “The Court ruled that our constitutional rights are less important than protecting two enormous, out-of-state corporations from competition. The sole good news from this decision, however, is that it is so narrow that it affects only hard-working entrepreneurs in the waste-hauling business and not other entrepreneurs throughout the state, who will be able to continue to rely on the protections of our state constitution to combat the creation of government monopolies.”
In a decision released this morning, the Court stated that hauling construction waste is not a private enterprise and “is in the realm belonging to the State and delegated to local governments.” The court found specifically that the provision of waste hauling service is a “government service” and constitutional protections do not apply to government-provided services.
Justice Richard Sanders, joined by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Jim Johnson, dissented, arguing that today’s decision “presents a textbook example of governmental corporate favoritism to advance the profits of the privileged few at the expense, and the extinction, of any potential competitors. It flies in the face of the state’s privileges and immunities clause which was adopted to combat this exact sort of unholy alliance between government and big business, which ultimately not only disserves the excluded businesses but also the public in general.”
IJ's page dedicated to the Ventenbergs case. with a timeline and many links.
|2.21.08 @ 1:20PM|#
This isn't a surprise. WA is probably the least business-friendly state on the left coast. And, of course, there's this.
Typical Dumbass American|2.21.08 @ 1:25PM|#
sage,
I tried to read the article in your link, but got too distracted by
the American Idol ad. Isn't Jordan Sparks just peachy?
|2.21.08 @ 1:26PM|#
The court found specifically that the provision of waste
hauling service is a "government service" and constitutional
protections do not apply to government-provided
services.
Just think, if I went to college for 7 years and got a Law degree
I'd be able to see how a private corporation hauling away waste
from commercial construction sites is a "government service".
I feel so ignorant at times like this.
Bingo|2.21.08 @ 1:27PM|#
This is kind of the same as the monopolies that are granted to cable companies. Government declares the company to be the service provider for the area, and no one else is allowed to compete.
|2.21.08 @ 1:31PM|#
So, constitutional protections don't apply to education, package delivery, or defending yourself against crime since the government has all that covered? It always amazes me that people never recognize all the logical baggage to restrict freedom that follows any government benefit or service.
troll-keeper|2.21.08 @ 1:31PM|#
I thought you "free marketeers" liked
"privatization".
I see we have a challenger for the lamest troll attempt award...
But then again, that one is so pathetically bad that it might not
even rise to the level of trolling.
Ok, back in your cage; feeding time is over.
Abdul|2.21.08 @ 1:46PM|#
constitutional right to earn an honest living
Which penumbra of the Constitution is that in? Or was it one of the
emanations?
robc|2.21.08 @ 2:00PM|#
abdul,
No emanations or penumbras needed. That is specifically stated in
the 9th amendment.
robc|2.21.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Then again, this is state court, so maybe the Washington Constitution uses the phrase "right to earn and honest living"?
Paul|2.21.08 @ 2:06PM|#
I do know that Washington State has provisions where it is
illegal to compete (read: start a business) in anything
with which the state government has a monopoly. Ferry service is
one of those areas. Basically, once the state determines that an
"area of business" is in its "realm", the nature of that business
is no longer private and therefore you can be quite simply shut
down.
Basically, all any business person can hope for is that the state
doesn't get into the 'X' business, because if it does, you're
done.
LarryA|2.21.08 @ 2:06PM|#
This is kind of the same as the monopolies that are granted
to cable companies.
It's closer to the mass transit systems where the city (like NYC)
won't allow unlicensed private jitneys or cabs.
Paul|2.21.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Socialism:
You don't know us libertarians very well, do you? We libertarians
hate...haaaate privatization in the form of the
"public/private" partnership. Anything where a private corporation
or industry is given a monopoly status by the state runs counter to
libertarian philosophy.
And actually, the public/private partnership is really "Fascism",
Socialism's meaner twin brother.
|2.21.08 @ 2:25PM|#
If hauling construction waste is a government service, why not delivering construction materials? Somehow, it seems only logical that Big Waste and government are in cahoots.
Fluffy|2.21.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Which penumbra of the Constitution is that in? Or was it one
of the emanations?
Well, in Barbier v. Connally the SCOTUS held that the 14th
Amendment required that any legislation concerning business
licensing or operation be held to the following standard:
"All persons engaged in the same business within it are treated
alike[,] are subject to the same restrictions, and are entitled to
the same privileges under similar conditions."
This would seem to indicate that if Washington State has granted
private companies a license to operate in a given business, all
other potential operators who meet the same standards must be
offered the same opportunity.
Brandybuck|2.21.08 @ 2:49PM|#
The right to earn an honest living is indeed a right in a
fullest libertarian sense. The operative word is "earn". If you sit
back on your ass waiting for a government handout, you aren't
earning anything. And if you do work your ass off but the market
passes you by, you still haven't earned anything.
It's like the pursuit of happiness. The right to pursue
happiness and earn a living are much different things from
getting happiness and a living wage from the gub'ment at the
expense of others.
KipEsquire|2.21.08 @ 3:12PM|#
@Bingo:
Cable television is (so the rationalization goes) a natural
monopoly and therefore suitable for government chartering --
coupled with rate regulation.
I dare the State of Washington to suggest that hauling construction
waste is a natural monopoly.
|2.21.08 @ 3:12PM|#
I dunno, Brandybuck. I'd be pretty happy to mooch off the public tit and ride motorcycles for the rest of my life.
|2.21.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Once again, I am wondering why this isn't a taking by Washington State that they have to give reasonable compensation for.
Robert|2.21.08 @ 3:15PM|#
If hauling construction waste is a government service, why not delivering construction materials?
Because the Mafia already has that sewn up.
|2.21.08 @ 4:27PM|#
the Court stated that hauling construction waste is not a
private enterprise and "is in the realm belonging to the State and
delegated to local governments."
So, does this mean its illegal to run or work for a private
security firm in Washington?
Socialism|2.21.08 @ 4:29PM|#
We libertarians hate...haaaate privatization in the form of
the "public/private" partnership. Anything where a private
corporation or industry is given a monopoly status by the state
runs counter to libertarian philosophy.
REASON head honcho
Robert Poole would disagree
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Paul,
Great summary of what fascism is. Whenever I hear "public-private"
partnership, I say "Aw, shit!"
alan|2.21.08 @ 4:57PM|#
for that link, Socialism, you get a respectable, touché
.
Poole certainly qualifies as a libertarian, though I'm not familiar
enough with his work to offer a rebuttal of why that doesn't fit
the libertarian framework, or why it would count as a justifiable
exception.
Fluffy|2.21.08 @ 5:12PM|#
The problem with Socialism's post, cite or no cite, is that this
isn't a privatization issue.
That makes his initial post a complete non sequitur.
|2.21.08 @ 5:40PM|#
I see we have a challenger for the lamest troll attempt
award...
Would that not technically be a clown and not a troll?
|2.21.08 @ 5:42PM|#
This is the same Supreme Court that regularly strikes down
ballot initiatives that change Washington's constitution by
removing the state's right to take your property, on the basis that
they're unconstitutional, or that they impermissibly restrain the
government. Never mind that the initiatives were put on the ballot
exactly because they would restrain the government. It's an
ultra-liberal, results-oriented court that doesn't care about the
rule of law.
Don't forget they also basically suborned vote fraud in Christine
Gregoire's election victory.
|2.21.08 @ 5:47PM|#
He who pays the piper...
You mean a bunch of democrats in a democrat state in a heavy left
city is practicing cronyism and it is the fault of
libertarians?
Delusion I think is the word for you joe.
By the way there is a candidate running for governor in the state
in Washington who is running on giving small businesses equal legal
footing with huge corporations.
His name is Dino Rossi
|2.21.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Never mind that the initiatives were put on the ballot exactly
because they would restrain the government. It's an ultra-liberal,
results-oriented court that doesn't care about the rule of
law.
They have also constrained the power of the DOE and other state
agencies and given more local control with GMA issues.
The court as a whole is a divided one the one side being ultra left
and the other believe it or not being libertarian. With a swing
vote that is unpredictable. I would not go as far as you to condemn
the whole court...but i would agree with you that there are some
pieces of shit on that court
Paul|2.21.08 @ 6:23PM|#
for that link, Socialism, you get a respectable,
touché.
Mmno.
My guess is that Socialism wants me to defend (or ignore) the
thesis of Robert Poole. I won't do either.
I believe that while some instances of Poole's theories of
privatization might work (and might have worked) they still lead to
the same dreary result: A corporation that trades a real
free-market competitive field in exchange for heavy regulation,
monopoly status coupled with hefty government protections,
guarantees, and the elimination of their competitors. I believe the
left calls this "corporatization".
Most libertarians (that I know) may have liked the idea of
privatization years ago (when first reading Poole's work) because
on the surface, it made sense: get our services out of government
hands and into the 'efficient' private sector. What most
libertarians have since discovered is that what you end up with is
cronyism driven by hefty campaign donations and political
connections, and a complete elimination of the competitive market
surrounding said industry, leading one right back into the jaws of
inefficiency. Then the "democratization" of property rights came
about, a re-writing of phrases in the Constitution from "public
use" to "public purpose", and privatization has a deservedly odious
air about it.
"Privatization" as a concept is not invalid altogether. But only in
very specific terms and instances. Privatization should be
absolute. For instance, here in Washington State, liquor stores are
run by the state. If the state "privatized" it's liquor business,
it would fall back into the hands of a wide open, competitive
business where Safeway, Albertsons, or any smaller individual
liquor stores would fill that market need. Basically, the market
would grow organically.
But when the government has a monopoly on a said thing, like say
schools, and then decides to transfer said monopoly to one (1)
corporation, this is hardly privatization. According to Poole's
original concept it might be that, but in practice, it's not.
Real privatization would be for the government to abandon
the monopoly in schools, and then let market forces take over and
fill the void.
|2.21.08 @ 6:57PM|#
You mean a bunch of democrats in a democrat state in a heavy
left city is practicing cronyism and it is the fault of
libertarians?
No, dimwit, the government. What do libertarians have to do with
anything?
Reed guder, jawshoouh.
SIV|2.21.08 @ 7:39PM|#
The problem with Socialism's post, cite or no cite, is that
this isn't a privatization issue.
Fluffy,
I didn't RTFA but assumed the case was that the city privatized
construction waste-hauling but then exerted sovereignty as a
REASON to forbid private sector competition for the
service. That sounds a lot like Poole's approach to road
"privatization".
I'm no fan of socialism but that is what both sound like.
I believe the left calls this "corporatization".
We call it "rent seeking" don't we?
|2.21.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Just think, if I went to college for 7 years and got a Law
degree I'd be able to see how a private corporation hauling away
waste from commercial construction sites is a "government
service".
Just stuff your head up your ass. It's quicker.
|2.21.08 @ 11:38PM|#
Would that not technically be a clown and not a
troll?
Since he didn't actually speak he could be construed to be a mime.
I hate mimes.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245