Every now and then you hear about someone getting in trouble for operating without a license.  Just the other day on my local news, they did a huge investigative piece on unlicensed plumbers.  I didn’t watch it on TV, but I kept seeing the ads for it.  The idea behind professional regulation is that you know the person you are hiring has minimal qualifications to do the things they claim to be able to do.  Over the last few years, I’ve come to question this more and more.

Jumping through government hoops doesn’t make you better at your job.  Let’s take hair stylists as an example.  Some people have the ability and natural talent to cut and style hair.  While I’m sure this could always be improved with schooling and experience, it shouldn’t require schooling.  Probably the only people who will disagree with me here are people who are licensed cosmetologists.  My oldest son got his first hair cut from a friend. I trusted her.  She did a good job.  But, she didn’t have a license.  What we did was, technically, illegal.  The state probably won’t do anything about it because tons of money wasn’t exchanged.  But, this occurred in Kansas, and you do have to have a license to cut someone’s hair (link no longer available) in that state (and many other states as well).

Licensing for most professions should be voluntary.  Let’s face it, no matter how good someone is at their job, a lot of consumers will prefer that they are licensed.  So, if it were voluntary, they could continue to hire those individuals while other people could choose differently.  If it were voluntary, I could probably save some money going to a non-licensed individual for certain services.  Earlier this year, we had our sump pump fixed by a “handyman.”  He did a great job, but he told us that he wasn’t a licensed plumber. But, he sure knew more about sump pumps than we did, and saved us a lot of money.  Of course, the recommendation to use him came by word of mouth, which is just smart practice.

If licensing were voluntary, people would not have to hide the fact that they are not licensed since they wouldn’t be breaking the law by failing to obtain a license.  The piece I linked to above about unlicensed plumbers made a big deal about people acting like they have licenses when they don’t.  They never found out whether these people could perform the necessary repair or not.  They just wanted to bust them for doing a job without a license.  In my opinion, government caused this problem by requiring a license for everything.

If licensing were voluntary, Company A could advertise that they did X, Y, and Z to obtain the license, which makes them more qualified.  Company B could advertise that they have such-and-such experience and satisfied customers, etc.  Then, the customers could decide what is important to them.

Even if professional regulation were optional, I don’t think it should be a matter for the government.  Instead, we should have private agencies or clubs that have certain admission standards.  For instance, I currently have a credential as a CRC (Certified Rehabilitation Counselor).  This certification is issued by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification and is not affiliated with any government entity.  However, most jobs in counseling require a state license (or the ability to obtain one within a certain amount of time).  When I lived in Illinois, I held a counseling license.  Guess what.  Now that I live in Indiana, I cannot get licensed here.  According to Indiana, I don’t have enough education (even though I have a master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling from one of the best programs in the nation) or experience (even though I was previously a licensed counselor in another state for three years and did two lengthy internships before that).  I do agree that states should have the prerogative to have different requirements.  What I don’t agree with and what always muddies the waters is government intervention at all.  Why does Indiana assume I can’t be a good counselor until I jump through their hoops while Illinois thought I did a fine job?  Why don’t we leave the whole thing to the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification or similar agencies?  After all, I had to do quite a bit to qualify for their certification.

One argument in favor of professional regulation is the whole idea of continuing education.  Most governments assume that, without their licensing requirements, people would stagnate in their professions and become severely out of date, which would, in turn, harm consumers.  Of course, this is a bunch of malarkey.  First of all, the continuing education that is required isn’t always beneficial.  As a counselor, some of the conferences I went to were outstanding and motivated me to try new things and refresh my mindset.  However, others were just…terrible.  Some of them wasted my time, but were mandated either by my company or the government.  If I didn’t have their requirements, I would have simply chosen workshops that I felt would be beneficial to me and my career.  Stagnation is not an option in a competitive field.  Government regulation and requirements are not what motivations a person to improve themselves in their field of choice.  Competition amongst peers for jobs or promotions generally fulfills that role much better than government requirements.

I leave you with another thought/example.  My husband is a college professor.  He teaches microbiology.  He attended over 10 years of full-time college in order to get his degree. This is his fourth year teaching at the college level.  In his third year, he was promoted to associate professor. This doesn’t happen for most people until they’ve been teaching at that level for at least five years.  Every semester he gets great evaluations from his students.  If he wanted to change venues and teach at the high-school level, the school that receives his services would benefit greatly from such experience and education.  Unfortunately, this won’t happen because he isn’t qualified to teach high-school classes.  Why?  Because he doesn’t have an education degree.  (Of course, here I am talking about government schools.  He could naturally teach at a private school).

We often think of unlicensed professions as people running around in uniforms who have no idea what they’re doing that are trying to get away with something.  We think that government involvement is necessary to make sure that we aren’t getting taken advantage of.  However, the government regulations that dictate who can do which jobs have become so overbearing that they are keeping some talented professionals away from the workplace.  And also, it’s still your job to do your homework to make sure you’re not getting taken advantage of.  No amount of government regulation can ensure you won’t be ripped off.

For a follow-up story on this post, click here.

In Michigan, you have to notify the DNR if you hit a deer and decide to take it home.  I know this is probably the case in every state.  They like to monitor the population of certain animals.  I guess there’s probably some purpose or reason behind this — like knowing how many hunting permits to issue. But, that’s not the only issue.  If it were, they wouldn’t have a problem with you reporting it after the fact. But, the law states that you have to notify them before you take the carcass or risk a ticket from $50 to $500 or 90 days in jail.

To me, this is all about control. The issue here is that it is illegal to possess a deer without a permit.  Hunters have to get permits to hunt with bows and guns, so I guess drivers have to get permits if they want to enjoy the fruit of their labor, too.

When I lived in Illinois, an elderly family member told me that, when he was a boy growing up in Southern Illinois, there were no deer.  Over the years, it had gotten to the point where, in the same part of the country, he could watch deer grazing in his lawn in the morning…in town.  Maybe instead of regulating hunters so much, we should turn them loose and then people might not be hitting them so much on the roads.  Anyway, just another public service announcement here at TTI to inform you of the rules.  Have a safe and law-abiding day!

I know daylight savings time actually ended today, but it feels like the beginning of something new.  I wouldn’t feel this way if the government didn’t mandate that we mess with the clocks twice a year.  The sun would do its thing and I would get used to this getting dark earlier thing at a reasonable pace. 

My kids woke up early this morning and negated the “extra hour of sleep” I was supposed to get.  So, I can’t think clearly to write my own diatribe on the practice of changing the clocks.  I did, however, find a good quote.  Click here for the full article.

Daylight Saving Time is a perfect illustration of a misguided government program that causes both minor hassles and serious harms. Ironically, it may not even conserve energy, which is its ostensible purpose. Daylight Saving Time provides a warning for newer proposals to use government to disrupt the normal course of society, in the name of reducing energy consumption.

I seriously didn’t intend for this blog to be an anti-police haven.  However, I do see the police as playing a role in the bigger problem of over-regulation in my life.  The police have a job to do, but their job is getting more and more overbearing as new laws are passed.  This and other things have served to make some of the police bitter, obnoxious, and condescending.

You will find me making the argument that “one bad apple ruins the bunch.”  That’s really how I feel.  Some people leave feedback that I should abandon this view because all police are bad because even the “good ones” turn a blind eye to the actions of the bad ones.  Then, other people tell me that I shouldn’t let a few bad apples ruin the bunch because the police really are, by and large, decent, good folks who have society’s best interest in mind.  For now, I will maintain the middle of the road view that the bad ones are serving to ruin the reputation of the good ones.

One of the roles of this blog is to bring awareness of the problem to regular citizens.  I used to be in the boat that considered all police heroes.  I come from a very patriotic background and, somehow, supporting the police is seen as patriotic.  So, I believe that people need to be aware of the increasing police presence in their lives so they can stand up for themselves when new laws are enacted that restrict their liberties.

One of the terrible things that I think is happening in modern day America (U.S.A.) is the more frequent exposure to the idea of the police state at an early age.  This is reflected in having armed officers patrol the schools and giving kids criminal citations for school-related behavior.

You can search through the archives of this blog to find all kinds of articles regarding my view of the police.  I think I’ve made a good case in the past and I’m not going to rehash it all right now.  I think that the problem I have with the police can actually be summed up better by the Twin Rivers Police Association.  They recently stopped selling a shirt that depicts a young child behind bars with the phrase “You Raise ‘Em, We Cage ‘Em.”  Wow.  This police association evidently sees their main job as “caging” our children.

The insidious nature of this shirt disgusts me.  First of all, there are so many laws on the books now that the argument to “just follow the law and you won’t get in trouble” is impossible. The United States has more prisoners than any other country, and it’s not because our citizens are more devious, it’s because we have more laws on the books that are criminal offenses. Once we pair the fact that there are too many laws with the fact that the police have an “out to get you” attitude, we’re doomed.

If you wonder why I have taken the stance against the police that I have, look no further.  It’s increasingly becoming an us vs. them situation, and the police are the ones perpetuating it.

Today I am writing about more bad news from Michigan.  Recently, I wrote about lawmakers in Michigan that are trying to change the helmet law.  It sounds good, but only on the surface.  Anyway, I generally consider it bad news whenever new legislation is passed.  I know there are tons of people who disagree with me, but I believe new legislation causes more problems than it solves.  I’ll go into that another day.  For now, I want to talk about their effort to pass Caylee’s Law.  The state senate has approved the bill, but it still needs to be signed by the governor.

Caylee’s Law is named for Caylee Anthony.  As you probably know, she was the daughter of Casey Anthony who was tried for Caylee’s murder and acquitted.  What has happened is that people are upset that Casey was acquitted and want to figure out a way of keeping this from happening again.  The article states that the representative’s offices were flooded with calls to get this bill on the table and passed after Casey was acquitted.  Caylee was missing for 31 days before it was reported to the police.

Here are a few problems with this law (that requires parents to notify police if their kids have been missing for 24 hours):

1. Harm can come to a child in less than 24 hours.  People are astounded that Casey didn’t report her daughter missing until 31 days expired.  However, if she killed Caylee, it would have only taken her a few moments to do so.  How does this new law help?
2. This new law does nothing to punish Casey or to save Caylee.
3. Making something a felony (like not reporting your children missing) isn’t going to keep kids safe.  Parents who would harm their children aren’t going to be motivated not to do so because of this law.  The harm they would do to their kids is already a felony (like murder, etc.)
4. This law assumes that the police are better prepared to find your kids than you are.  When I was growing up, if I happened to be missing for a day, I’m sure my parents could drive around and find me quicker than the cops could.  If the cops did happen to find me, it would probably just be a result of asking my parents a few questions, anyway.  Can’t they do this job themselves as parents?  Not now — unless they want to be felons.
5. This law perpetuates the idea that we need a new law for every tragedy that occurs.  Meanwhile, we’re using up a lot of paper to pass these useless things.

Read these posts for more examples of useless, reactionary law attempts.

The winner of my new book is comment #4

Congratulations to Jenny Denig and thanks to everyone who entered.

Even if you didn’t win, stay tuned to this blog for information that will boggle our mind about over-regulation in today’s society!

I’ve lived in several states.  My perpetual moving around is one of the reasons I had the idea to write my book.  I came to notice that a law-abiding citizen in one state isn’t a law-abiding citizen in another state. I’m OK with that because I think states should have the right to have different laws than one another (that doesn’t mean I agree with all of the laws, though).  Anyway, one of the most obvious ways in which citizens have different requirements from state to state is in the use of helmets on motorcycles.

This issue is very personal to me because my dad survived a motorcycle accident in 1995.  His accident was a really serious one, and most certainly would have resulted in death had he not been wearing a helmet.  Obviously, I’m glad he was wearing one, and I always wear one myself, but that doesn’t mean I believe this to be a matter for government involvement.

I remember talking about this issue with my husband one morning over breakfast at McDonald’s.  This was when we lived in Illinois (a state that does not require the use of helmets).  This was before we had kids, so we were just sitting around drinking coffee like good little graduate students.  We were talking about the idea of personal freedom and responsibility and government involvement in choices like this when this nasty old lady butted into our conversation with the condescending response that she pays taxes that pay the medical bills of stupid people not wearing helmets.  Then she stormed off with this look on her face like “stupid kids don’t know how the world works.”  If she had stayed around and finished what she started, I would have responded politely with a couple of points.

First of all, the fact that she pays taxes that support people’s medical bills, doesn’t mean that the solution is to regulate everyone’s behavior.  Where would that end up? She might not be able to enjoy a McDonald’s breakfast with supposedly disastrous cardiac results since she is presumably on medicare.  Secondly, helmets are often the factor that keeps someone alive and in the hospital longer.  My dad is an example of this.  If he hadn’t been wearing his helmet, he would have died on the scene — no medical intervention necessary.  But, since he didn’t, he was in the hospital for about three weeks, in physical therapy after that, and didn’t return to work for a good, long while.  Now, he wasn’t on medicare or medicaid, but this is just one example of how helmet use may actually add to medical costs.

Anyway, all of that brings us to today’s story.  I found out this morning that Michigan is attempting to repeal their helmet law (the link contains a video).  Yesterday, the bill passed the state house and is going to the state senate.  If it passes the senate, Governor Snyder has said he would sign it if it includes items about insurance reform…and that’s where this good news for liberty story turns a little south.

Even if this bill passes, it doesn’t mean that all riders will be allowed to ride without helmets in Michigan. The stipulations to the law include being 21 years old, having a certain amount of riding experience, and carrying a certain amount of insurance. Those things seem pretty unenforceable to me.  But, it’s just like lawmakers to tout freedom and liberty as their motivation for passing something while then maintaining as much control as possible.  I guess this law is a step in the right direction, but I’m not sure how effective it will be.

Don’t forget about my book giveaway.  You can enter to win until tomorrow morning.

This is my 100th post at Technically, That’s Illegal.  Stay tuned at the end of this post for a giveaway opportunity.

Earlier this week, I posted about a couple who had their daughter taken away for allegedly stealing two sandwiches.  I always intend to give you the follow-up information as it becomes available.  However, often it doesn’t become available because the original story causes so many more headlines than the follow-up.  But, this is one case in which I am glad that I heard the rest of the story.  It turns out that the store is dropping the charges and says they need to look into how these situations are handled in the future.  So, a victory for common sense.

Now, in honor of my 100th post, I am going to give away a print copy of my book.  If you already have one, enter the contest anyway and give it away to a friend.  Comments on this post will be considered “entries” into the contest.  A winner will be chosen randomly.  You may leave one entry for each of the following actions (you have to leave a comment telling me that you did these things — be honest):

• “like” Technically, That’s Illegal’s facebook page
• invite your friends to like the page
• subscribe to this blog via whatever method you prefer (tell me what method that is, please)  If you are already subscribed, you may say so in your entry
• get a friend to subscribe to the blog
• follow me on twitter @ttillegal
• Leave a review of the book at either lulu or amazon (one entry for each if you do both).

The winner will be chosen on Friday morning during my normal blogging time (before about 8:00 a.m. Eastern time).  Please don’t comment as anonymous at this time since it will be difficult to identify the winner.

I’ve posted here before about why you should not rely on the police for your safety.  You should also not talk to them unless necessary, or unless you want to have your plates and identification run through their system “just in case”.

Are you relying on the police to keep you safe?  Do you expect to have a quick response when you call 9-1-1?  If you live in Smithfield, North Carolina, I’d be coming up with a back-up plan if I were you.  Actually, I’d come up with another plan no matter where I live, but it is definitely more salient to discuss the recent revelations in Smithfield.  The police there have said that they are going to stop investigating some crimes and stop responding to some emergency calls because of the price of gas.

The more I think about it, the more I realize this may be good news for residents of Smithfield.  Maybe they won’t have time to arrest and fine people for directing traffic, collecting money for cancer research, or making sure people get their kids taken away.

If you think it couldn’t happen to you and that only the worst of the worst get their kids taken away, think again.

This is unreal this could happen to a family like ours.

These words were uttered by Nicole Leszczynski after her and her husband were arrested for forgetting to pay for two $5 sandwiches.  Of course, her daughter was only taken for 18 hours, but it was over night, and that seems like a lifetime for any worried mother of a toddler.

We didn’t know where our daughter was, didn’t know what the situation was, she didn’t have any clothes they just took her right from the grocery store.

Leszczynski experienced a dizzy spell after grocery shopping for a while and decided to eat a sandwich while walking around the store.  Her husband did the same (he probably didn’t have the pregnancy-related dizzy spell, but he did have a sandwich).  They went through the line and paid for their groceries, but in what they call a “distracted parent moment”, they forgot to pay for the sandwiches. When they were stopped by security, they offered to pay for them in cash.

Instead, they were arrested and retained over night while their three year old daughter was taken by Child Protective Services.  I guess this is standard practice when both parents are arrested.  Even if these two were guilty and you don’t buy their story (personally, I believe them), it doesn’t seemingly warrant this kind of intervention.  It doesn’t make them neglectful parents.  Why weren’t they allowed to call someone to come get their daughter?  I would say this is unbelievable, but it is starting to not shock me when I hear thing like this.

A while ago, I wrote about the woman who had her kids taken away for possessing a small amount of marijuana.  It was such a small amount that charges weren’t even pressed, but that didn’t stop the child welfare people from getting involved.