Minnesota Engineering Board Fines, Censures Engineer-Activist for Calling Himself an Engineer
Licensing authorities are penalizing Strong Towns founder Charles Marohn for referring to himself as a professional engineer while his license was briefly expired.

The head of an urban policy nonprofit has been penalized by Minnesota's licensing board for referring to himself as a "professional engineer" in speeches and articles while his license was expired.
Last month, the state's Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design (AELSLAGID) issued an official censure of Charles Marohn, founder of the Brainerd-based advocacy group Strong Towns, and slapped him with a $1,500 fine.
The board argues that such sanctions were a necessary and proportional punishment for Marohn's purported misrepresentation of his credentials.
Marohn counters that the board's primary interest is in censoring his criticisms of the engineering profession. The penalties he's been hit with are both extraordinary and unconstitutional, he contends.
"I'm very disappointed in the board and I'm very disappointed with my colleagues in the engineering profession who try to stifle not just free speech but also calls for reform," says Marohn. "The point is to tell other engineers within the profession, if you go down this path and make yourself a target, the violation process can and will be weaponized against you."
Marohn has been a licensed civil engineer since 2000. Though he stopped practicing in 2012 to focus on his advocacy with Strong Towns—which generally argues for zoning reform and safer road designs, and against additional infrastructure spending—he's kept renewing his Minnesota license every two years.
The one lapse occurred in 2018. Marohn says he moved without informing the board of his change of address, and thus missed the biennial reminder to renew his license. In June 2020, a colleague made Marohn aware of his lapsed license. He promptly renewed it and paid a $120 late fee.
That was unfortunately too late to stave off a February 2020 complaint filed by South Dakota engineer David Dixon, who checked up on Marohn's licensing status after seeing he referred to himself as a professional engineer in an article critical of traffic engineers on the Strong Towns website.
Seeing that his license had expired in 2018, but that Marohn had made repeated references to himself as an engineer as part of his advocacy work since then, Dixon decided to complain to the licensing board.
"Mr. Marohn talks about being a policy expert, the type that reads law and ordinance. It is not reasonable to assume that Mr. Marohn was not aware that use of the term Professional Engineer, PE, or other similar representations while not licensed, is a violation of law," Dixon wrote in his complaint. "I urge the board to investigate as it sees fit, and to send a clear message that frauds of this sort are not tolerated."
Marohn was first made aware of the complaint in July 2020, a month after he'd already renewed his license. In an interview with Reason at that time, he initially waived off the possibility that the board would sanction him.
That prediction hasn't aged well.
After an investigation, AELSLAGID initially recommended a $1,500 fine against Marohn in November 2020. Board members argued that the references Marohn made to his engineering credentials while his license was expired posed a threat to public safety, and therefore needed to be punished.
Marohn declined to accept that fine, arguing that the state's restrictions on unlicensed people referring to themselves as engineers only applied in circumstances where people were doing actual engineering work—and he'd stuck to First Amendment–protected advocacy.
He wasn't the only one to hold that view.
"The board's enforcement against [Marohn] raises some serious First Amendment concerns," Sam Gedge, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, told Reason last year. "The government licensing boards are the new censors in America. They're aggressive, and time and time again it becomes clear they just don't believe the First Amendment applies to them."
Marohn's case got appealed up to a Minnesota administrative law judge who declined to rule on the First Amendment arguments and instead said AELSLAGID had the authority to bring enforcement actions against him.
A federal First Amendment lawsuit Marohn had filed against the board was also dismissed on the technical grounds that he needed to exhaust his options in state court first.
All that resulted in AELSLAGID moving ahead with its sanctions against Marohn in July. Their decision argues that the number of times Marohn referred to himself as an engineer while his license was expired, and the prestige he gained from doing so, more than justified penalties.
The board also punted on the constitutional claims Marohn made, saying the law is the law, and they were bound to enforce it.
A Strong Towns press release from this week notes that the board has declined to censure professional engineers who have committed far more egregious violations. That includes one civil engineer who gave public contracts to his former company (where he was still a shareholder), another who concealed past embezzlement convictions when applying for a license, and, most ironically, a man who worked as an engineer for 10 years without a license.
Marohn has appealed these penalties to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. He says overturning these penalties is important for protecting the ability of engineers to criticize practices within their profession.
"I'm not practicing engineering. I don't make my living doing engineering work," he says. "If you do, you can see how someone who has now spoken up for reform gets hit with a fine and a censure, you can see the chilling effect that could have on others working in the profession."
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Someone like Dixon, sounds like has a lot of 'Mommy' issues. State is entitled to regulate the use of the term 'professional' with a license requirement so fine is perfectly legal.
I refer to myself as a professional titty tester but have yet to be sanctioned.
"State is entitled..."
Right there you went off the track.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (as-08) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
My friends makes 80-100 every hour on the internet.. (US-03) she has been without work for eight months but the previous month her revenue was 20,000 only working on the laptop 5 hours a day..
.
CHECK THIS LINK:>>>> https://googleservice045.netlify.app/
Where do I go to take the certification test?
re: "State is entitled to regulate the use of the term 'professional'"
No, it's not. The state is entitled to regulate behavior - in this case, the act of providing engineering services. That entitlement is based on the need to ensure that the engineered products (such as bridges) meet required safety standards. No engineering behavior is alleged to have occurred during the lapsed period.
re: "so fine is perfectly legal"
Not necessarily (and definitely not here). Inconsistent enforcement can be evidence than an otherwise legal penalty was in fact a pretext for an illegal decision. And that's before considering the need to balance the regulatory right to penalize against competing needs such as not chilling the First Amendment.
Besides that, the board's contention that it's a safety issue is an utter crock - unless you believe that a man forget everything he knew about his job when his license expired, but recovered all his memories when he renewed it. A traffic engineer who can meet the requirements for a PE license may or may not be less likely to screw up than one that doesn't [1], but once he meets those requirements, he isn't going to forget what he knows. And considering that they fined an engineer who wasn't doing engineering work but spoke out as a PE, while not fining several people who _were_ doing the work _badly_, it's utterly clear that this is about suppressing dissent rather than enforcing professional standards.
[1] The lack of a PE license certainly does not prove incompetence, and having one is no guarantee of competence. In my own field, electronics engineering, I did not pursue a PE license once I learned they were still testing for knowledge of FORTRAN and vacuum tubes in 1983, one and two decades after better compilers and transistors replaced these; studying for that test took time away from studying what actually mattered. The PE test might be relevant in a slowly-changing engineering field, or the licensing board might have let it go a century out of date... There is one part of the PE qualification that should work to improve your work quality, and that is a requirement to work for a PE for several years, but this can go wrong, too - your mentor may have gone out of date, too, or your on the job experience might be a very narrow specialty, but the PE license covers a much wider range of work.
Nope
A Strong Towns press release from this week notes that the board has declined to censure professional engineers who have committed far more egregious violations. That includes one civil engineer who gave public contracts to his former company (where he was still a shareholder), another who concealed past embezzlement convictions when applying for a license, and, most ironically, a man who worked as an engineer for 10 years without a license.
Other people did worse stuff and didn't get into trouble, so that means what he did was ok. Why does that sound so familiar?
'Other people did worse stuff and didn't get in trouble', so that means the board must present additional evidence to overcome the presumption that their enforcement in this case was pretextual rather than a neutral application of the law. That's very different from "what he did was ok".
So that how you translate "Johnny steals cookies all the time! Why am I getting into trouble? Not fair!" into legalese. Hm. Interesting.
Try, "Johnny steals cookies all the time and gets caught but never gets punished because the baker is his mother's brother-in-law. I say the cookies aren't great and get punished because the baker's father is the sheriff."
Are you familiar with this case or pulling stuff out of your arse?
No sarc, Jerry B seems to have nailed it
I was offered a couple of times to go get my PE. Nope, not worth the effort. The PE's I know need a piece of paper to prove their worth. Buyer beware.
In my state you don’t even need an engineering, or any, degree to sit for the PE exam. A PE license doesn’t mean much, practically speaking. It’s just a special interest group using the threat of government violence to prevent competent engineers from engineering. Those who are especially proud of their PE license are usually especially poor at engineering.
What state is that?
This right here. When interviewing an engineer if they put being a fe or pe as an asset I automatically drop them from concideration
If someone with a penis can call themselves a woman, then someone with an engineering degree and decades of engineering experience should be able to call themselves an engineer.
This is the correct hot take.
The guy goes two years without renewing his license even though he knew it had to be done? I thought I was a horrible procrastinator.
I think it's pretty normal to forget about something when you're used to being reminded. You just put it out of your mind.
A PE that goes two years without renewing his lic, then bitched about the consequences, is full of shit.
If your PE lic expires, you’re not a PE.
Maybe Reason can find a non-journalism major to explain what happens to someone who stamps an engineering study/evaluation with an expired PE license.
I know occupational licensing is one of this websites hot button topics, but Marohn’s bitching is going to fall on deaf ears, at least among his profession.
"Maybe Reason can find a non-journalism major to explain what happens to someone who stamps an engineering study/evaluation with an expired PE license."
Which is not what he did, slaver.
Gonna bet he ignored his continuing ed requirement for 2 years and couldn't renew.
He was not offering his services as an engineer, so it didn't matter that his license was lapsed. The licensing board does not own the word "engineer". They are arrogating authority beyond the scope of their purpose.
"He was not offering his services as an engineer, so it didn't matter that his license was lapsed."
But he did use the term Professional Engineer on his bio. And he did so for obvious reasons- because the capitalized term is an appeal to expertise. If he had said, "Practiced as a Professional Engineer for 20 years", or something like that, he wouldn't have had a problem.
I don't think the punishment was correct. But if you are going to say you have certain qualifications to bolster your credibility, you need to actually have those qualifications.
And he does, in fact, have that expertise, so he was being truthful. At most, the law may require licensing to PRACTICE engineering, not prohibit someone from claiming truthfully that he is an engineer.
Kungpowderfinger: You've just revealed yourself as believing in magic: that not paying a fee magically deprives a man of competence, but paying that fee magically restores competence. You are fully qualified for a government job, but I sure hope you're not a practicing engineer!
Only blessings from Gov-Gun Gods can determine your skill set!! /s
Oh wait; Maybe GUNS were never needed to determine a persons skill?? Hmmm...
I guess the question is; Did Charles lie and say he was licensed by the Nazi-Regime? I guess a de-fraud case could be made in claiming credentials one never earned.
But I don't think the Nazi-Regime should have gotten the POWER to ?copyright?/monopolize the generic term "Professional Engineer". Seems like they took-over a term of general skill inference.
Yes, that's it.
"...referring to himself as a "professional engineer" in speeches and articles while his license was expired."
Hey, they coulda' gotten him on the library fine for the late book return.
I wanted to use Software Engineering in my state-registered business name. Turns out use of the word “Engineer” has to be approved by the state Board of Mining.
To their credit, they promptly put my request on the agenda for their next meeting. Where they summarily ruled that Software Engineers aren’t real Engineers.
That is funny.
Only people who operate engines are real engineers.
But "engine" can have a very expansive definition.
They arent
what a Marohn.
I find the response of a few in the comments interesting. It seems that the professional engineer class is very protective of their cadence and their nomenclature, to the point of your existence and expertise as an engineer is entirely dependent on something as irrelevant as the status of your dues payment.
I have an almost diametrically opposed opinion on this. It seems to me that in the realm of "I am making public comment on this issue of public interest", using the label is representative of experience and expertise in the field.... so dues or even retirement status is irrelevant.
Whereas in the realm of obtaining work doing engineering, licensing is relevant... but dues status is much less relevant. What I mean is, "did not graduate from engineering school" and therefore is unlicensed is vastly different than "licensed and practicing for 20 years but forgot to send in my dues check".
The latter is entirely a nothing burger and is easily remedied by paying back dues. The former is fraud.
Yet I see people here claiming that saying you are an engineer when you are in fact an engineer but your membership in the professional licensing is lapsed because you forgot to cut a dues check is fraud. That seems a ludicrous stretch of the word fraud into the realm of meaninglessness.
But others seem to passionately disagree.
Can Gronkowski call himself a professional football player? Can he offer commentary on ESPN and say "as a professional football player, I believe the NFL concussion protocol needs changing"? Or is this fraud because he retired this year?
Meanwhile, 90% of the 'Architect' job listings the last time I looked were for computer programmers of some sort.
Also, yes, I agree that giving speeches or writing opinion articles is not 'practicing' engineering in any sort of professional sense.
If he had signed or sealed drawings or specifications or contracts or something like that, while representing himself as a currently licensed professional, while he wasn't, the board might have a point.
That's my opinion as well.
If he had signed or sealed drawings or specifications or contracts or something like that, while representing himself as a currently licensed professional, while he wasn't, the board might have a point.
^
Another guy did work 10 years as an engineer without a license, but the board went after the retired engineer who spoke out.
As someone with an engineering degree who never went on to practice (and never applied for "professional" status), I am nevertheless familiar with a lot of this nonsense. And it is nonsense.
I'm not going to debate whether engineering licensing is actually effective at ensuring PE's are "professional" and up to whatever standard that ensures a public good. But let's just suppose they are effective.
What the board has done here may be according to its rules, but if so, its rules are problematic.
First, in reading other articles about this, I discovered that the first charge against this guy is violation of this clause: "A licensee shall avoid any act which may diminish public confidence in the profession..."
Now, the board investigated it and said he wasn't guilty at this time, but filed the charge and said it would reopen if additional evidence warrants. Right there is a SERIOUS issue, as the wording of that regulation implies that one isn't allowed to criticize industry practices and still be called a PE. What if the industry practices are bad? What if they lead to deaths (as this guy actually has claimed)?
Regardless of anything else, I lost faith in anything the board says after they hold that hanging over him. Right there is inappropriate overreach.
As for the remaining charge, again from other news coverage I was able to find out the board actually had the complaint saying this guy had misrepresented himself as a PE -- they had that complaint *MONTHS* before they renewed his license (late) without a hitch. And it was a further 6 weeks after he renewed his license without a hitch before they then decide to fine him AND require him to sign a statement saying he engaged in conduct involving fraud: specifically he needed to agree to admit to making "an untruthful statement," a "false statement," and "engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation." Implication is admitting, "I'm a liar," rather than "I let a membership lapse."
As stated here, none of this conduct involved any tasks that required him to be a PE. He didn't sign off on any building plans or anything. All that happened (as far as I can tell) is that some of his bio materials that were distributed around talks he gave or whatever on advocacy issues had "PE" listed. Personally, while I do believe he should have been more careful, the impetus behind the regulation to ensure that qualified people aren't doing bad things or signing off on critical engineering documents, not to publicly shame a clearly qualified individual for failing to submit a form that has nothing to do with the actual practice of engineering.
Yet I agree it IS an issue, but why wasn't it brought up BEFORE they renewed his license? (And by the way, he apparently did realize he was lapsed and did renew without prompting from the board or in response to a complaint.) If it's such a heinous act that he committed, shouldn't they have discussed whether he should be automatically reinstated in good standing (at least initially)?
Failure to check into this before renewing his license indicates to me that the BOARD is committing an "act which may diminish public confidence in the profession." Either this is a serious issue about licensing -- in which case they should have taken it very seriously from the start and flagged him IMMEDIATELY so he couldn't just renew his license -- or it's not a major issue, but they're forcing him to sign statements saying he intentionally deceived people in the hopes to tarnish his public reputation (as a critic of some professional practices).
Either way, there are serious issues with the board's actions. They are either admitting they don't have standards high enough to care whether to suspend a member after a serious complaint and just let him renew without checking, or they are being vindictive. It's hard to see it other ways here to me.
And in any case, based on their actions here, I now have no confidence in any action this board takes to protect the profession or in any other matter.
It wasn't brought up until after he renewed his license because until he did, the board had less (or no) authority to censure him.
" A licensee shall . . ." Until that point he was not a licensee.
They would have had to sue him or bring him up on fraud charges, which would have involved the courts, which could have ruled either way. And a ruling telling them to go pound sand might have threatened their ability to regulate all the professions they have captured.
No way were they going to allow that, especially considering the relatively low level of his offense and the complete lack of harm to the profession or the public.
While it's possible they intended to ensnare him like that, I don't think that's really the issue for two reasons:
(1) The conduct behind the first charge apparently dates back to 2015, when he was licensed. They could have theoretically gone after him for that anyway, and in any case, it isn't the charge that stuck (so far). The charge that stuck is essentially "falsely claiming to be a PE," which by definition is something that applies to members of the public that aren't licensees. He doesn't need to be a current licensee for them to go after him for that.
(2) He resigned his PE status several months ago this year and requested to be put into "retirement status," so he's no longer a current licensee. Yet they still haven't dropped this matter.
The original complaint that was reported in July is that this dude has on his website that he is a "Professional Engineer". Note the capitalization. He is using a very specific term to show why he is qualified for the advocacy he is putting out there.
I think Gronk would be wrong to say "As an NFL employee, I think this is foo". He is not an NFL employee. And I don't think it is incorrect to point out to him that he is stating an inaccurate fact. If he is doing so as a mistake, he ought to fix it. If he is saying it because he believes it lends authority to his argument, then he is engaging in fraud. Maybe it is a little fraud, but it is fraud.
I think this complaint could have easily been avoided if the description of him was something like, "...worked as a Professional Engineer for 20 years". As is, saying you are a "Professional Engineer" when you are not a Professional Engineer is wrong.
That isn't to say that the response to a mistake was correct. I don't think it is. But people should tell the truth.
Can Gronkowski call himself a professional football player
What does the state board for football say?
Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design (AELSLAGID)
Take that, LGBTQIA+ !!!
But seriously, don't let your PE license expire. Just about every state board will nail you for this.
And they arguably should, for PRACTICING engineering. Simply referring to oneself as an engineer, when that is factually correct regardless of ones licensing status, should not be subject to censure.
Simply referring to oneself as a professional engineer.
Why? I can understand someone who has never gone through the process of becoming a "Professional Engineer". What I can't understand is why they think he's any less competent because he hasn't paid for a license renewal? His knowledge and skills haven't changed just because the State didn't get their money.
About a month ago my driver's license expired. I was waiting on paperwork to obtain my "Real ID" and it was a couple of days late. I went on the State's website and got an extension. I went to a store to buy some beer and was told that they couldn't sell me the beer because my license was expired. I was using the license for identification. Does that mean that I'm not the person on that license because it's expired?
I know that Reason is big on State required licenses. A Professional Engineer is one of the few areas where I agree with the State. I use the services of PE's. The guy I use loves to see me walk in his door. He says I'm easy money. All he has to do is to double check my design and my math.
My state won't allow extensions on PE renewals. You're current, or you're suspended.
“ know that Reason is big on State required licenses.”
They are? Since when?
You are too stupid.
When haven't they been? I agree with their views most of the time. We don't need licenses for things like "Hair Braiding" or "Interior Design".
One of the things I found odd about the COVID shutdown in my State (Pennsylvania) was the closing of Beauty and Barber shops. Both professions require a State License. The excuse by the State for requiring the license is Public Health. Both licenses have a requirement for training in how to work with people who have a contagious disease, yet they were shut down longer than most other businesses.
>>>LGBTQIA+ !!!
think there's a 2S on the front of that now ... for Two-Spirit?
I was wondering if we were going to do that one.
Someone sent me the video of Trudeau doing the 2SLGBTQAI+ thing and I thought it was some kind of deepfake parody.
Anyone know what 2 spirit is? Anyone ever hear of it before Canada brought it to our attention?
Civil engineers? They don't seem very civil.
Civil Engineers design targets. Mechanical Engineers design weapons.
Rf engineers do it with frequency
"Though he stopped practicing in 2012 to focus on his advocacy with Strong Towns—which generally argues for zoning reform and safer road designs, and against additional infrastructure spending—he's kept renewing his Minnesota license every two years."
I think what happened to this dude is egregious, but I find Mr Brittschgi's characterization of Strong Towns to be equally egregious. I do not know if ST and Reason are co-funded, or if they just have common friends, but it is pretty creepy to me how often I see Strong Towns talking points become the seed of Reason articles.
This is the second article about this specific issue (the first was back in July). And in general, Strong Towns is the big proponent of removing Parking Space requirements in building codes.
Take them or leave them, but understand that Strong Towns is not a Libertarian group- it is an Anti-Car group. They want to end highway funding, parking spot mandates, and convert roads to open-air markets. They aren't looking for freedom, they are looking to impose their own regulations that are hostile to people driving their own cars.
To the extent that some of this may intersect with libertarianism is nice, but the way Brittschgi describes the group is not giving the full picture, which then smacks of an advocacy mill.
Yes, Strong Towns is a part of the authoritarian collectivist movement in urban planning.
I would be in favor of removing parking space requirements from city ordinances, and leaving that up to the property owners, generally speaking. I've run into some pretty ridiculous rules on that in the past.
I don't think it is this simple. The problem right now is that streets are a public good that are regulated by the government.
If you are going to run a business, you need to concern yourself with how your customers are going to consume your product. That might mean spending money on delivery or packaging. And in a business like a restaurant or apartment complex, that means figuring out where your customers are going to park. If you are going to own a house, you need to understand the costs imposed on you if you will drive a car (and whoever develops that house needs to be concerned with the same). These aren't moral imperatives- they are just alignments of incentives. A business with no parking will not get customers. A house where a person has no options to park will likely not get buyers.
In libertopia, you as the business owner would have a vested interest in making sure your customers have a place to park, and you would pay to ensure that happens- through funding parking in some manner. But because we live in a world with these public commons (streets), the business owner gets to push this on the government and other property owners.
This is where one can get a little confused and think that Strong Towns is pro-libertarian. Because they make a point that I (from a libertarian perspective) agree with- that the government subsidizes car driving with its "car friendly" policies such as free street parking, and dedicating a large amount of space to roads.
But the problem is that Strong Towns isn't libertarian. They don't object to the government taking and managing these public spaces. They just object to the government favoring car drivers. They want the government to favor bikers and walkers. Because they don't like the idea of people living in a house with a lawn, and their kids being able to walk to school past other houses with lawns. They are urban utopians who believe we should all live in apartments over mixed retail; that we should be commuting via rail; that we should be buying groceries each day from the farmer's market in the plaza; that our kids should get to school walking past safe drug injection sights, or whatever other urban features they favor. This is not libertarian, and constantly flogging their anti-car agenda without understanding the consequences will not create a more libertarian world.
The anti car movement is well funded. They have been all over my reddit feed of late, which takes some doing as my reddit presence is entirely devoted to space science and rocketry.
That is why I mentioned "advocacy mills".
I get the sense that there are a couple of these newsletters going around driving exactly these types of stories. Brittschgi and Wolfe have both posted articles that seem to riff on research being released by Strong Towns, as well as a couple other groups. The other big area is the PEN "Banned Books List" that seems to have driven about 300 articles at Reason over the last few months which confuse "parents not wanting their kids learning X" with "X is being Banned!".
I don't mind advocates passing around material and doing studies, but I sense something far more creepy at work. The SPLC passing around its "Watchlist of Extremist Groups" was used to generate all sorts of advocacy articles (the Mill) which then influenced a bunch of Social Media campaigns that ultimately led to decent people being censured by corporations and governments.
ESGs are similar.
As I said above, I agree that the government subsidizes car lifestyles in ways that libertarians ought to object. But that doesn't mean we have common cause with these environmental nutjobs and neo malthusians. Carrying water for these people is a TERRIBLE idea, because you are merely handing rope to people who will ultimately hang you as well, if you are interested in Liberty.
Strong Towns is not a Libertarian group- it is an Anti-Car group.
Horseshit. They support strong muni finances. That's it. Cars and R1 zoning and the US post-WW2 sprawl experiment just happen to be what is seriously undermining muni finances. The economics behind strong towns is dead on. And it becomes obvious once the growth/sprawl ponzi slows and the maintenance bills start piling up.
You're right that there is nothing inherently 'libertarian' about strong muni finances. But assuming you're not on some Somalilalaland about government - strong finances are better than munis going broke because spending is growing too fast.
Since when is the word "engineer" a label that can only be conferred by the government?
"Engineer" isn't the word in dispute.
Since forever. My state doesn't do it, but a lot of states do. Here in California I can freely call myself an software engineer. NOT a civil engineer I don't think, but most kinds of engineer I can.
Not so in a lot of states. I can't call myself a Software Engineer in Texas without getting a license and/or certification. God Bless Texas and Miss Lilly!
California is also weird in that they don't really differentiate between a Civil engineer and a Structural engineer. Or rather, that they consider Structural (buildings bridges, etc) to be a subset of Civil (roads, bridges, parking lots, sewers). Most states consider those to be quite distinct types of engineering.
There are various exams for those in civil engineering. IIRC, the way it works is that civils take the civil PE, and then can take other qualifications (structural, wastewater, seismic) afterwards.
That's the problem with the pe qualification. It's a test on if you know the current codes, and not if your a good engineer.
It's a test on if you know the current codes
Uh, no. Not even close.
Rev, did they not let you take the exam, so you don't know, or did you walk in thinking it was going to be building code quiz and fail when it turned out to have exactly zero building code questions?
"I can't call myself a Software Engineer in Texas"
(I'm sure you know all this - it's for non-engineers here).
There could be 10,000+ people in Austin alone with no PE who have "engineer" in their job title, on their business card, on their LinkedIn profile, and who routinely write down "engineer" as their occupation even when filling out state forms, and who call themselves engineer of job applications. It's all perfectly legal, and the state board has no problem with them at all, as long as it's understood that we're talking about employment with a company like IBM or Raytheon.
It only comes up when you're holding yourself out as a expert open to business with the public. In the same way anyone can work as an accountant even without a college degree much less a license, but you better not open up an office with a sign that says "John Doe, CPA".
As plenty of others here have noticed, the complaint wasn't about the word "engineer". It was about using the capitalized title "Professional Engineer", which among engineers trained in the US is a term of art with a specific meaning - someone who is currently licensed by a state board. There doesn't seem to any serious doubt that he used it specifically because he himself thought it made him more credible to claim he was licensed by a state board. So the commenter saying that a PE license ain't worth shit might have a really good point, but it's not an argument that Marohn can use.
However, it might be time to change the term of art to "State Licensed Engineer". A lot of usually informed commenters here seem to think "professional engineer" is a generic term that does not imply a license, so most likely the average citizen thinks likewise.
There is an excellent libertarian argument that there should be no such thing as a "State Licensed Engineer", but there's no good ethical support for falsely claiming to be one.
In order of credibility:
1. An engineer who has a PE but doesn't mention it unless he's required to.
2. An engineer without a PE
3. An engineer who has a PE and flaunts it as evidence of his competence.
4. An engineer without a PE who falsely claims to have one.
Whatever whistleblowing Marohn was doing would be more credible if he hadn't lied. Now I think maybe he's one of those chronic malcontents, and would want to hear the other side of the story before believing him.
I use my PE to pick up trashy women. Where do I land on the list?
How does that work for you? I get the impression that engineers' degrees and certifications repel women, trashy or otherwise.
Oh, good to know that you alleged-Libertarians support me calling myself "the police" and that I can shake down, or even shoot whoever I want with impunity - You know, because alleged-Libertarian Derp Derp Derp.
P.S. If you want to be Anarchists that much, just join ANTIFA.