Do licensing laws protect consumers from death and destruction or, as the Interior Design Protection Council argues, do they protect licensed designers from competition?
Perhaps I was being too kind in an earlier post when I said that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act would have "unintended" consequences.
A brief rabbit trail:
Republicans tend to be skeptical of big government (and regulation), and Democrats tend to be skeptical of big business (and greed). They each attack their chosen evil while defending the other's enemies. As someone who dislikes both big government and big business, I take a more libertarian viewpoint that you really can't have one without the other.
Innovation, service, strategy and skill are great ways to achieve success as an entrepreneur, but open competition leaves room for the next wave of entrepreneurs to usurp "established" business. So, as commenter Dr. RosenRosen has said in the past, there are only two options for businesses - they either fail, or merge other businesses until they fail.
Almost without exception, successful businesses shift from being lean and hungry hunters to bloated hoarders, and as the saying goes, the larger they are, the harder they fall. But to prevent the inevitable, "established" business try like mad to eliminate competitors and tilt the competitive rules in their favor, wherein the power of government becomes eminently valuable. A new marketplace naturally develops between government and the organizations most able to supply funds and influence. And so big government and big business grow, two parasite with society as its increasingly crippled host.
So, back to "unintended" consequences, it may be a tad cynical, but perhaps all too accurate to say that most politicians know exactly the consequences they seek, and are far to clever to be explicit in their intentions.
When it comes to interior designers it is hard for the average person to get ruffled about regulation. Because of the CPSIA, a college friend can no longer sell hair bows for little girls that she crafted for her daughter's friends. Who cares, right? Slowly but surely, however, barriers to entry are raised, and eventually everyone loses.
1 comment:
Guilds have existed for centuries and their purpose has always been, at least in part, to raise the barrier for entry into the market. I say this as a member of a particularly large, wealthy, and self-absorbed guild, the Georgia Bar.
I'm not categorically against guilds - particularly for services where actions taken by the service providers can have dire and often life-altering consequences upon the recipients: engineers, architects, financial planners, and even lawyers (*warning* - bias). However, I fail to see how decisions about the color of draperies are significant to require board certification. I judge this to be blatant protectionism.
Post a Comment