"I never asked for a bailout or even monetary damages, just the freedom to earn an honest living in the occupation I love."

In his book Licensing Occupations: Ensuring Quality or Restricting Competition?, University of Minnesota economist Morris Kleiner reports [pdf] the startling fact that over the past 50 years the percentage of American workers covered by occupational licensing laws has skyrocketed from roughly 4.5 percent of the workforce to approximately 20 percent. And we're not just talking doctors and electricians. In Maryland, fortune tellers need a license. Earlier this year, Seattle authorities went after a comedy-cabaret troop for spoofing pro-wrestling without a license.

So it's wonderful to hear about a major victory over occupational licensing malfeasance last week in Maryland, where Montgomery County Circuit Judge David Boynton ruled that the Maryland Board of Chiropractic Examiners has no business forbidding entrepreneur Mercedes Clemens from massaging horses. Clemens, a licensed massage therapist (for humans) with three decades of experience as a horse owner and rider, offered animal and human massage services, prompting a cease-and-desist letter from state authorities over the animal half of the business. As she declared after Judge Boynton ruled in her favor: "I love that I can finally get back to business. All I've ever wanted is the right to work. I never asked for a bailout or even monetary damages, just the freedom to earn an honest living in the occupation I love."

Not surprisingly, Clemens was represented by the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm that routinely leads the fight for economic liberty. In fact, July 2009 turned out to be quite a month of successful fighting. First, IJ scored a big win on behalf of three Connecticut women who dared to practice interior design without a license. Then, in Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition v. City of Minneapolis, IJ defeated that city's entrenched taxi cartel, which had sought to exclude new competitors from a recently deregulated market. And now we have the economic liberty victory in Maryland. Each one of these cases means that hardworking individuals finally get to exercise their constitutional right to earn an honest living free from arbitrary and unnecessary government interference. Here's hoping the winning streak keeps up.

Comments

[Fluffy]

One interesting thing to note about occupational licensing:

Consider the much-reviled occupation of mortgage broker. There is no need for us to review how much bad press this occupation has gotten in the last couple of years.

The interesting thing is that in the 1980's, virtually no states required a license to be a mortgage broker. The few states that did were basically just collecting application fees to issue licenses - there were virtually no education requirements, bond requirements, or net worth requirements.

Even as late as the late 90's, nearly half the states had either no licensing or extraordinarily minimal licensing. Companies approved as HUD originators could operate without a license or oversight in many additional states.

Widespread state level licensing and regulation of mortgage brokers was a phenomenon of the last few years of the 90's and the beginning of this century.

And the period of greatest corruption began at the moment of greatest regulation. The field was less corrupt and less fraudulent when there was little regulation than at its peak moment of regulation.

It's funny how that worked out.

[libertymike]

IJ now needs to target the licensing of medical doctors, chiropractors, plumbers, electricians, nurses, nurse asistants, real estate brokers and lawyers.

[Citizen Nothing]

I was a city-licensed astrologer. I had to take a test and cast a natal chart for one of the license-bureau employees and everything.

(I like to think that it was my account that finally shamed them into dropping the astrologer's license requirement.)

[libertymike]

FLuffy-

That's how it always works out. Less licensure means less corruption and less incompetence.

[Tomcat1066]

"I love that I can finally get back to business. All I've ever wanted is the right to work. I never asked for a bailout or even monetary damages, just the freedom to earn an honest living in the occupation I love."

And how much better would we be if the government encouraged this type of behavior, rather than punish it?

[Nick]

"I love that I can finally get back to business. All I've ever wanted is the right to work. I never asked for a bailout or even monetary damages, just the freedom to earn an honest living in the occupation I love."

Someone send this to NORML. It could be the message that puts them over the top.

[skr]

@LibertyMike

Your list is missing architects and landscape architects.

Now I know some of you will say, "I don't want my building falling down on me." But what most don't realize is that building departments (at least in CA) stopped trusting architects decades ago. Everything that we submit that isn't a pre-approved (and engineered) design requires a structural engineer to produce structural drawings and calculations. Landscape architecture shouldn't need any explanation. Who needs a license to say, "I think you should plant this here?"

[JB]

"All I've ever wanted is the right to work."

You've always had it and never lost it no matter how many bozos like Obama say otherwise. Fuck them.

[mark]

Quick question. Is it possible for the Supreme Court to one day say that zoning laws and all licencing violate rights to property and free association? Not that I would not like that outcome, but where does it end?

Personally I think they have already done great damage incorporating the First Amendment. Now the ACLU can tell any local municipality to take down their Nativity display.

[Tomcat1066]

Is it possible for the Supreme Court to one day say that zoning laws and all licencing violate rights to property and free association? Not that I would not like that outcome, but where does it end?

Where does it end? Personally, I hope it doesn't. If it's my property, I have a right to what I want with it. And frankly, I think this nation was better off when people could train to be doctors and lawyers directly, rather than being required to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a license that still doesn't mean you're worth a shit in that profession.

[Warty]

Yeah, mark. And ACORN is free to beat up old ladies on the way to vote.

[ClubMedSux]

I have a friend who's brother graduated from law school and, while going through the state bar's "character and fitness" investigation, was called out for having cheated on a test in high school without disclosing it to his law school (or something like that). Bottom line was he was never asked about it by his law school, when informed his law school said they didn't care, and the employer for whom he was a summer associate didn't care. Nonetheless, they made him go through a ridiculous hearing during which he was informed by some old coot that he didn't seem sorry enough. They told him to complete a shit-load of community service (and most of his free time, at that point, was spent taking care of his father who was dying of ALS) and come back in a year, at which point they MIGHT consider allowing him to sit for the bar. The guy basically said fuck it, and now he's out over $100,000 in tuition (I'm assuming) with nothing to show for it. As a lawyer myself I've never felt much pride for my profession, but I definitely felt like tearing up my ARDC card that day. I'm sure others in fields that require licensing have similar stories.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

Personally I think [the SCOTUS has] already done great damage incorporating the First Amendment. Now the ACLU can tell any local municipality to take down their Nativity display.

Nah.

The ACLU can tell any municipality that they either have to take down the nativity display or let the satanists put up their...whatever it is satanists want to put up.

You can't let the bible study group meet in a public classroom, but send those neo-druid freaks packing.

Take your choice.

It's just that all too many religious extremists will do anything to maintain an illusion that they are the only group that counts and they have a monopoly on the truth.

[The Angry Optimist]

er, count me as a skeptic about the extended rationale behind the First Amendment in regard to Nativity displays. Really, a nativity scene is so far down the list of oppression that I never understood what all the hubbub was about, anyway.

[The Angry Optimist]

Is it possible for the Supreme Court to one day say that zoning laws and all licencing violate rights to property and free association?

One can only hope. Although, that stretches even my unfailing optimism.

[JB]

This is hilarious and very plausible:
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/002099.html#more

[libertarian all the way baby]

Personally I think [the SCOTUS has] already done great damage incorporating the First Amendment. Now the ACLU can tell any local municipality to take down their Nativity display.

Duh, just get rid of public spaces ;-}

[Troy]

As a lawyer myself I've never felt much pride for my profession, but I definitely felt like tearing up my ARDC card that day. I'm sure others in fields that require licensing have similar stories.

I am currently dealing with a bar complaint because I had a consenting relationship with my ex-wife. It was a monumentally terrible error in my judgment which caused me to lose everything and now I am living off the good will of friends. But that wasn't good enough for the State bar. Meanwhile I get to watch some of the most incompetent and/or dishonest attorneys continue to rake in the dough. I have joked with many of them about their youthful indiscretions that, had they got caught, could have jeopardized their chances at practicing law.

[Fluffy]

Really, a nativity scene is so far down the list of oppression that I never understood what all the hubbub was about, anyway.

Well, that cuts both ways. If it's so trivial that no one should care about it, then you have no reason to care if you can't have one.

[Chicken Bones of Justice]

"Really, a nativity scene is so far down the list of oppression that I never understood what all the hubbub was about, anyway."

Lonely Jew:

It's hard to be a Jew on Christmas.
My friends won't let me join in any games.
And I can't sing Christmas songs or decorate a Christmas tree.
Or leave water out for Rudolph cuz there's something wrong with me.
My people don't believe in Jesus Christ divinity.

I'm a Jew, a lonely Jew, on Christmas...
Hannukah is nice, but why is it...
That Santa passes over my house every year?
And instead of eating ham, I have to eat Kosher latkes.
Instead of Silent Night, I'm singing Hoohach Goda Veed.
And what the f**k is up with lighting all these f**king candles, tell me please?

I'm a Jew, a lonely Jew... I'd be merry, but I'm Hebrew...
On Chriiiistmaaaaaaaas...
-Kyle

[MSG]

But, without licensing how will consumers know which horse masseur to choose from? Surely such extensive reserch is beyond the ken of the average person.

[The Angry Optimist]

If it's so trivial that no one should care about it, then you have no reason to care if you can't have one.

Well, no - it's trivial to me, to the point that I do not care, and I do not see how any reasonable person honestly feels "oppressed" by it.

It is a silly little spiff in the culture war, is all.

[Hazel Meade]

Well, no - it's trivial to me, to the point that I do not care, and I do not see how any reasonable person honestly feels "oppressed" by it.

I imagine if you are the lone outspoken atheist in a town full of uber-Christians, than you might suppose the nativity display was put there deliberately to annoy you.

[The Angry Optimist]

not that "love it or leave it" has any appeal with me, but if you are that lone atheist, maybe you should move.

There are certain variances from locale to locale on policy - that is supposed to be the beauty of federalism. Is a one-size-fits-all solution on something so trivial the libertarian way?

Maybe. I dunno.

[libertymike]

Troy and ClubMedSux-

Ever read In Re Anastaplo, 366 US 82? If you want to get real pissed off and sad, read it. Justice Black's splendid dissent makes it a little easier to take.

[kinnath]

I can assure you that growing up as the lone Catholic in a school full of Southern Baptists is an awkward experience. I cannot imagine what it would have been like for to have been a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or an Atheist.

[libertymike]

MSG-

How does licensing, in and of itself, help the consumer? What information is thereby imparted? If anything, licensing ensures poorer quality, not better quality.

[libertymike]

mark-

Connection? Nexus?

[kilroy]

I'm gonna guess MSG was a snark on the MNG arugment in (one of) the food thread(s) last week

[KyleG]

If I lived in a town full of uber-christians, I would suppose the nativity scene was set up because the town is full of uber-christians and would still be there whether I, the atheist, was present or not.

[Mercedes Clemens]

"the percentage of American workers covered by occupational licensing laws has skyrocketed from roughly 4.5 percent of the workforce to approximately 20 percent."

As of 2006, Kleiner revised that from 20% to 29% percent of the workforce being required to hold a license. It's probably even higher now.

Kleiner, M. M. & Krueger, A. B. (August 2008). Working Paper #531: The Prevalence and Effects of Occupational Licensing. Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section. http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/531.pdf

[Fluffy]

Well, no - it's trivial to me, to the point that I do not care, and I do not see how any reasonable person honestly feels "oppressed" by it.

That wasn't my point.

You're arguing that no one could honestly feel oppressed by it because it's so insignificant.

But if it's that insignificant, then no one should be able to honestly feel oppressed if they're told they can't have one.

[The Angry Optimist]

yikes - I guess we are getting to the point where you are going to have government permission to do any job.

Fuck. Well, where are you guys going to flee to?

[The Angry Optimist]

But if it's that insignificant, then no one should be able to honestly feel oppressed if they're told they can't have one.

Really? In the emotional balance of things, you really think that?

And being told that you have to remove a thing is leaps and bounds different from ginning up outrage because something is there.

Would it be proper to start going after the U.S. Mint for God references, too?

[future inspector.]

You gotta have your license and environmental impact statement taped to the door of your bathroom to take your morning shit. Non-compliance is $1000 a day fine.

[Troy]

Now the ACLU can tell any local municipality to take down their Nativity display.

What is that (yet another) idiotic SCOTUS case that said a nativity scene is OK if you secularize it like adding Rudolph or Santa Clause?

[ClubMedSux]

Ever read In Re Anastaplo, 366 US 82? If you want to get real pissed off and sad, read it. Justice Black's splendid dissent makes it a little easier to take.

Hadn't read it before, and you're right. At least Justice Black gave us this chestnut:

". . . the destruction that can be inflicted upon individual liberty when this Court fails to enforce the First Amendment to the full extent of its express and unequivocal terms."

[libertymike]

kilroy-

Nope. Just a typo. But, I do see the humor.

[Other Matt]

::yawn::

Y'all don't understand Maryland. Living here, I can tell you how it will be. This just means that there will be another 10 people hired to manage the new licenses of "animal masseuse" with the appropriate license fees and regulation.

It's Rockville, for god's sake, in Montgomery County. They have vays.

[Troy]

What information is thereby imparted?

That you suck cock obsequiously enough to satisfy the licensing agent.

[Fluffy]

Would it be proper to start going after the U.S. Mint for God references, too?

Person 1: "Take that 'In God We Trust' stuff off of future coins and bills that are minted. It offends me as an establishment of religion."

Person 2: "We will not do any such thing. That's our sacred tradition and we will spend lots of taxpayer dollars to fight against any demand that we change it!"

These two people are being equally petty and unreasonable, as far as I can tell. Person 1 is making a mountain out of a molehill. Person 2 is willing to fight to defend that molehill. It takes two to do the petty tango.

But Person 1 has the constitution on their side. So we have a tie score in pettiness, and Person 1 wins the first tiebreaker, so I guess I have to be on Person 1's side.

[Nick]

Licensing doesn't mean shit. My father is a veterinarian with nearly 40 years experience. When he was contemplating retirement, the animal hospital he worked for hired 3 new doctors out of vet school to directly replace him and fill some other needs in their growing business. None of them could perform surgery. At all. All 3 are licensed by the Sad State of FL. "WTF?" was his response.

He benefitted by being paid an exhoribitant amount for a couple days a week in semi-retirement to teach them how to perform surgeries, but he says that place is so screwed when he sells his house and hits the road. They might be able to perform spays and neuters after he leaves (provided they don't fuck up the anesthesia) but anything more complicated than that is gonna be life-threatening to the animals.

[MNG]

I can see requiring a license for something like a doctor, but it is in fact retarded to have them for things like barbers. Licenses that are simply revenue collecting bullshit types of things are egregious.

[troy]

Ever read In Re Anastaplo, 366 US 82? If you want to get real pissed off and sad, read it. Justice Black's splendid dissent makes it a little easier to take.

Jesus, SCOTUS, you people really are a gaggle of idiots. What better way to mock the Constitution than to deny civil rights to those who are supposed to its champion.

And where Stari decisis in the constitution? What does it really mean other than "I am a really intellectually lazy fuck who is too busy getting $50,000.00 a pop for speeches than to assure opinions are sound and valid?"

Aren't these lazy fucks down to about 75 cases a year?

[MNG]

" a nativity scene is so far down the list of oppression that I never understood what all the hubbub was about, anyway."

TAO's Wheel of Traditionalist Institutions To Defend Today landed on religous displays today!

[troy]

I can see requiring a license for something like a doctor

I don't know what sort of fucking joke that it is. I would rather see voluntary commercial licensing. Sure there might be licensing agents that might give their stamp of approval if you give them enough money. But there would also be licensing agents who would earn the trust of the public based on their integrity. Think underwriters laboratory or consumer's reports.

[SugarFree]

Rudolph and Santa are not enough to secularize a nativity scene. You need Muslim prayer rug, menorah, a sacrificed goat, a painting of Ahura Mazda wrestling Tiamat, an animatronic David Hume kicking a rock, and there must be black, Hispanic, Inuit, Persian, Arabic, Indian (dot and feather), Chinese, Japanese, Southeast Asian, Maori, Aborigine, and Polynesian Baby Jesuses. (Jesui?)

[troy]

I don't know

[Seamus]

I have a friend who's brother graduated from law school and, while going through the state bar's "character and fitness" investigation, was called out for having cheated on a test in high school without disclosing it to his law school (or something like that).

Your friend's brother should have sought admission to the Massachusetts bar. I hear they didn't give Ted Kennedy any trouble, even after he got thrown out of Harvard for a year for cheating.

[Beelzehubbub]

" a nativity scene is so far down the list of oppression that I never understood what all the hubbub was about, anyway."

Oh, it's oppressive, alright ...

[Groovus Maximus]

@liberty mike

As far as the medical profession is concerned, licensing is not only being accountable to the State Medical Board and Dept of Health how we physicians perform our practice in our given specialty(ies), but also to the consumer by having publicly available our rates of successful outcomes (particularly surgery; I am a board certified General Surgeon with subspecialty in Bariatric Surgery) i.e. where one went to medical school, where internship and residency was completed and how many years licensed and practicing. The board and other governing bodies detemine crteria required for subspecialty certification as well. It is also public record if a phsycian has been recently brought before the board for any type of infraction detrimental to the practice of medicine in general and any notations against a physician's license in particular. By the public's ability to discern who "the good docs are" thus congruent with referrals from PCP's and Internists, it should (in theory) increase consumer empowerment by selecting the physician with the best record of successful outcomes. I suspect though, Obamacare would make such transparancy more difficult; it can be very easily argued that this administration's level of transparancy is opaque as barium enemas.

Also If I knew then FULLY, the hoops I have to jump through now (and who knows what in the next five years), I would never have considered a career in medicine.

@ MNG

How is the proposed "Hate Crime" legislation gaoing to effect the licensed horse massuese? The hate crime bill would make it legal (essentially) to blow a horse, but muscle reflexology for a horse would be illegal unless "licensed".

[Groovus Maximus]

Damn typos! 🙂 Preview is there for a reason.

[R C Dean]

But Person 1 has the constitution on their side.

Only if you think publishing a motto is "establishment of religion." I, for one, don't. And I am both (a) irreligious and (b) a strict constructionist.

[Sandi]

" it can be very easily argued that this administration's level of transparancy is opaque as barium enemas."

I took a barium shit once. Whiter than Johnny Winter.

[Hazel Meade]

Rudolph and Santa are not enough to secularize a nativity scene. You need Muslim prayer rug, menorah, a sacrificed goat, a painting of Ahura Mazda wrestling Tiamat, an animatronic David Hume kicking a rock, and there must be black, Hispanic, Inuit, Persian, Arabic, Indian (dot and feather), Chinese, Japanese, Southeast Asian, Maori, Aborigine, and Polynesian Baby Jesuses. (Jesui?)

How about David Hume wrestling a thirteen-headed Baby Jesus on a Muslim prayer rug, while Santa sacrifices Rudolph in front of a menorah. I think that covers all the bases.

[The Angry Optimist]

wasn't it Samuel Johnson who kicked the stone? I believe it was a "refutation" of Bishop Berkeley.

Don't say philosophy degrees are good for nothing.

MNG - ha! I used the Wheel of Justice referenced downblog.

[Tony]

Would it be proper to start going after the U.S. Mint for God references, too?

Yes. The only reason the motto hasn't been changed is because the Christians would throw the world's biggest tantrum. Hell every time they're told they can't shove jesus down the throats of public schoolchildren they scream oppression. Can you imagine if we took their deity off their very own coins? "In God We Trust" is a lie and it's unconstitutional, but can you imagine the exploding heads of Christian teabaggers if the scotus ever ruled that way?

[The Angry Optimist]

ah, I see I found what I thought was a mythical individual who was really wrapped up in the pettiness of the culture war on this particular front.

Congrats, Tony. You're the mirror image of those you hate.

"Isn't it obvious? Lokai is white on the right side. All his people are white on the right side.

[Tony]

The oppression I feel from the motto is minor, but I do have the first amendment on my side. That's not the mirror image of people who feel oppressed by the first amendment and go nuts every time it is enforced.

[The Angry Optimist]

you are such a second-hander. Tell me, Tony, do you really feel that mottos and nativity scenes amount to an "establishment of religion"?

[EscapeWestOfTheBigMuddy]

Tell me, Tony, do you really feel that mottos and nativity scenes amount to an "establishment of religion"?

Can't speak for Tony, of course, but...

Every damn time some lackwitted religionist (not a redundant phrase, BTW, I know some wit-equipped religionists) says 'this is a Christian nations, deosn't it say ["In God we trust" on the money|"One nation undr God" in the pledge]?' or something similar.

If you can guarantee that I won't have to listen to that kind of shit, I'll agree to treat these intrusions as de minimus.

How's that?

[Enough About Palin]

STFU, Tony.

NLNT. NLNT.

And again, a self-identified gay man using "teabaggers" as a pejorative is textbook internalized homophobia.

So, why do you hate your gayness, Tony?

[Tony]

TAO,

I think they are, on their face, examples of the establishment of religion. The motto in particular. Congress made a law declaring that our national motto is "in god we trust." What clearer an exercise in establishment could there be? It doesn't say "don't establish an official religion," it says "make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

[Tony]

EAP,

I happen to enjoy visualizing fat, pasty rednecks engaged in testicular play.

[The Angry Optimist]

If you can guarantee that I won't have to listen to that kind of shit, I'll agree to treat these intrusions as de minimus.

Dude, that shit drives me up the wall too. Would it be apropos to say "Amen"?

Tony - fine. I am not going to appeal to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Aronow v. U.S., because you might be right that the Constitution was misread in that case. But I am going to need more than your say-so.

And from here on out, no blank appeals to court rulings or constitutional interpretations with which libertarians take issue, either.

[One of Tony\'s Reason Rubes]

"I happen to enjoy visualizing fat, pasty rednecks engaged in testicular play."

Where's Suge when you need 'em?

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

Would it be apropos to say "Amen"?

I can't think of a better time.

[Tony]

TAO,

Oh I've never been fond of applying stare decisis to blog commenting, and the current makeup of the scotus means that I'll probably have to do a lot of arguing in the face of scotus decisions to the contrary.

[One of Tony\'s Reason Rubes]

"Oh I've never been fond of applying stare decisis to blog commenting"

There's a simple solution for that. Just imagine that by providing stare decises, you'll earn the right to watch real life fat, pasty rednecks engaged in testicular play.

[The Angry Optimist]

very funny, Tony, but you could have just said you do not feel the need to be consistent.

[MNG]

I do think its odd that putting the ten commandments up at a courthouse violates the 1st, but putting In God We Trust on the money does not.

[MNG]

TAO
Do you think that anything short of actually having a state church like the C of E falls outside of the establishment clause?

I've always thought it best to read the clause as mandating that government not provide support for any religion. To state "in God we trust" as the government motto provides support for some religions (namely monotheistic ones) vs. others (including those with no religion).

[The Angry Optimist]

Do you think that anything short of actually having a state church like the C of E falls outside of the establishment clause?

No. But I would question those whose identity is so wrapped up in harmless words that they have to literally make a federal case out of it.

you know what it is? I expect better out of my atheistic brethren. Christians already worship lots of silly symbols, so what's one more?

[Christian Prophet]

If government worshippers were not putting force behind licensing, most occupational groups would still probably form guilds for the same purpose. So while I salute the article and the fight, once again it's not the ONE issue that will win people's hearts and souls to liberty. The entire governmental infrastructure has gone beserk. Maybe it's time to talk about basics. See:
http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/

[Jason Straetz]

Read "Mugged by the State" by Randall Fitzgerald. He dedicates a chapter on examples of this. My personal favorite is the Hair-Braider that got shut down because of a lack of a cosmotology liscense.

[mark]

libertymike | August 4, 2009, 3:19pm | #

mark-

Connection? Nexus?

I am just genuinely confused about what the Supreme Court is actually supposed to do. Should I be upset that the Court has failed to invalidate local licensing and zoning laws of every kind? The right to associate freely is a natural right and should be protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments, and under a number of other clauses, right? Meanwhile you have localities with a public Nativity display, and somehow that's against the Constitution.

I have heard people say that Roe v. Wade "invented" a right to privacy, but is it possible to be against that case for other reasons? Because I'm in favor of a right to privacy, but I'm not sure it's right to tell states they can't ban abortion. Or licence doctors, for that matter.

[perilisk]

"The right to associate freely is a natural right and should be protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments, and under a number of other clauses, right?"

I'm thinking that the 9th and 10th are at odds, in this case.

[soahc]

I don't think doctors or drivers or anyone should need a license.

In Mexico, people drive without licenses. It keeps hesitant, bad drivers off the streets. To be a driver in many parts of Mexico, one must have good reaction time, assertiveness, awareness. I bet that even drunks are hesitant to drive in Mexico for fear of getting in a wreck.

Can anyone tell me why third world countries are not on the top of the 'most libertarian' countries in the world list? It seems like there is so much more personal liberty in places like Mexico, where one can run a business without a license and drive without a license. Is it just the poor who have personal liberty, meaning that if they start turning any sort of profit noticeable to the authorities, they will be taxed back into poverty? Are the middle class in Mexico less liberated than the middle class in the U.S., and it's just the destitute that manage to avoid being persecuted by strict enforcement of oppressive laws. Bribery? Thanks.

[Hazel Meade]

It seems like there is so much more personal liberty in places like Mexico, where one can run a business without a license and drive without a license. Is it just the poor who have personal liberty, meaning that if they start turning any sort of profit noticeable to the authorities, they will be taxed back into poverty? Are the middle class in Mexico less liberated than the middle class in the U.S., and it's just the destitute that manage to avoid being persecuted by strict enforcement of oppressive laws. Bribery? Thanks.

Unfortunately, this is largely not the case. More third world countries are burdened by extraordinary regulation that is usually selectively enforced by corrupt officials looking for bribes. It is generally not possible to simply open a business. You will be hassled endlessly by state offcials and have to pay bribes as well as protection money to local mafia that are thoroughly in control of the government.

[soahc]

Thanks for your answer Hazel. I have traveled in Mexico a few times, and it just seemed to me that someone who wanted to open a taco stand in a city there could just do it, rather than applying for licenses.

The bribery aspect is a problem. Either way it seems like a bribe. In the U.S. someone must apply and pay for a license or else face prosecution on behalf of oppressive laws. In Mexico one just pays to keep working, and keeps paying for fear of prosecution.

I would like to learn more about Mexican business laws. I wonder if the cops and local officials there just take bribes and make threats or if there are actually laws like the U.S. has that they can threaten small businesses with. It seems to me that as long as the business is small enough, it may be able to operate under the radar. Perhaps only when it starts making more money do Mexican mafias and government officials start prodding for bribes. At least at face value it certainly seems like poor small businesses have more freedom in Mexico than in the U.S. In the U.S. city officials go after anyone, they go after small businesses regardless of how much that business turns a profit. I have heard of Seattle city officials calling and making threats to people who book small moving jobs off of craigslist.

Still, I like that people drive without licenses in Mexico.

[Stefani Olesn]

I am glad Ms. Clemens prevailed. While I am not against all licensing of all professionals, there are two things that call into question the process:

1. Common sense dictates that some things do not need licensing. A certified massage therapist who practices on horses is one of them. The fact that first the vet board, then the chiro board, jumped out to stop her indicates to me only one thing: They want those revenues to grabbed by their "club" members or no one at all. Ironically, there are not really very many people offering equine massage, therefore it would have meant horses would be without this service had they ruled against it. The vet board has been doing the same thing with people who float horses teeth. VERY FEW vets get any training in equine dentisty, yet the vet boards are running around trying to shut down non-vets from doing equine dentistry. Licensed vets can't even provide the supply.

2. The lack of regulatory oversight by licensing agencies of their licensees means that a license is NO guarantee of consumer protection or quality. The boards don't do their jobs adequately (I am convinced that this is especially true of the veterinary board). So what value is a license? What safeguards does a license provide? The Maryland Vet Board allows convicted animal abusers to practice veterinary medicine (Sean Saltsburg, look him up). They barely took any action at all against a vet in Silver Spring who locked patients in cages with no food or water, left them in their own excrement and refused to release them to the owners until the cops had to break in finally after days and days. They let that guy still practice. Then they say that licensing is some kind of guarantee of quality? PUHLEASE, AS IF!!! Or should I say, IF ONLY!!! I wish it were!

[gypsyrose]

I have personal knowledge of Dr Saltsburg and the main complainant in his case. He was being blackmailed, and apparently it succeeded. Dr Saltsburg was my veterinarian for years, and I would call him again in a minute if he hadn't been forced to leave PA because of the bad publicity. The only reason he took a plea bargain was because he has a family and couldn't risk a severe sentence by a judge who knew nothing about horses. The vast majority of Dr Saltsburg's clients supported him at his preliminary hearing. His vocal opponents were people who only knew what they read in the paper.
The licensing board heard the whole story of the incident in question - not just the one side that was printed in the news.