Must We Obey Interior Design Regulations?
The idea that the state has the legitimate authority to tell people whether they can or cannot recommend shades of paint without a license is a moral absurdity. Laws and regulations like these are not laws and regulations we have a duty to obey. If anything, as Schaeffer might argue, we have a moral duty to disobey them. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (48)
Brad
My observation shows that the State, by and large, ends up punishing the good in that the good TRIES to measure up to the rules, fails a little, and is willing to be punished. It is the evil that get away with it because they refused to follow the rules and the State is powerless to do anything about it. This exists at least in the petty rule making the State makes. If someone patently isn't going to follow the rules or pay fines etc no matter what, it leaves the State in the position of having to use options (that at least for now) to fit the "crime" so they do nothing. It is the good, those who surrender their throats to the wolf who get a small bite and are patted on the head and sent on their way. In fact, punishing those who are willing to be punished is where the State makes its money and "proves" its worth. The State LOVES useful idiots and always has whatever the semantic name given to their Statism.
So yes, let's not obey. And KEEP on not obeying. Then we can either clean off the bureaucratic ledgers of such nonsense or bring on the heavier whips the State has its disposal. I think the days of the average citizen acting like yoked oxen are soon to be over.
Published: October 27, 2008 8:27 AM
Matthew
Your friend with Florida State decorations has excellent taste. Perhaps he should even receive protection and/or subsidization from the government to ensure that he continues to improve the aesthetic of the world.
Go Noles!
Published: October 27, 2008 8:50 AM
christopher hunter
the author should identify just the opposite of his point: just what are the rules that an individual has a duty or obligation (moral or legal) to adhere to? and upon what authority have you determined such rules? either the state has the authority to make or amend rules, or it does not. if not, then there is no question that no one need abide any rules. if so, then one has a choice: abide the rules, or chance being punished as the rules prescribe, or argue that the rules were abided but the enforcer is wrongly punishing the state's citizen--assuming the state's rules allow for the citizen to raise objections. perhaps rothbard's arguments against the state and and state institutions in favor of individuals lay the foundation for individuals to congregate under a non-statist flag, as it were, and aggregage so as to influence the state on points with which anti-statist arguments may have some impact. no question he failed several times over throughout his years to build such a congregation. but without several significant activist populations across the u.s., let alone other "states," reasonable doubt informs us that no change in that direction will occur. as mises noted, bureaucracies will never fail to be expansionist. there is no "reason" that cannot be found within their system of thought for diminution of regulation and dominion.
Published: October 27, 2008 9:01 AM
Rubén Rivero
Where do you draw the line on when to disobey the law and when not? If people start following your claim that laws on interior design licensing should not be followed, then laws on robbery, murder and other crimes should also not be followed? I believe it is very problematic to induce people to break the law.
Published: October 27, 2008 9:06 AM
Jasmine
'but fraud and deceit are best handled by a sound legal system (consisting of competing private courts!) than by entrenched bureaucracy' ???
The writer can't be serious here can he? I had to stop reading the article any further at that point. Any clarifications or qualifications to that statement? It is horrific, otherwise. The agenda you are pushing for can as a political system lead to a lot, lot worst disaster compared to anything we are currently having to deal with.
Having read Von Mises extensively, I find it especially offensive that something of this sort would be written on a website that has his name -he would be horrified to say the least, at what is implied in that statement. He never advocated political anarchy as the solution -EVER.
Published: October 27, 2008 9:24 AM
Jasmine
'but fraud and deceit are best handled by a sound legal system (consisting of competing private courts!) than by entrenched bureaucracy' ???
The writer can't be serious here can he? I had to stop reading the article any further at that point. Any clarifications or qualifications to that statement? It is horrific, otherwise. The agenda you are pushing for can as a political system lead to a lot, lot worst disaster compared to anything we are currently having to deal with.
Having read Von Mises extensively, I find it especially offensive that something of this sort would be written on a website that has his name -he would be horrified to say the least, at what is implied in that statement. He never advocated political anarchy as the solution -EVER.
Published: October 27, 2008 9:25 AM
Stanley Pinchak
Jasmine,
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty" -- Mises, "Liberty and Property"
"Government means always coercion and compulsion and is by necessity the opposite of liberty" -- Mises, "Human Action"
You are right that Mises was a minarchist, but his own analysis and intuition guided by his understanding of praxeology should have been sufficient to convince himself that the only state which is compatible with the free market is no state. That is, no systematic coersion, no band of thieves writ large, no monopolistic extortion for the essential protection of property (what an oxymoron). People desire justice based on the rule of law, under the state in any form you supplant the rule of law with the whims of men. Your incredulity is greatly over rated.
Published: October 27, 2008 9:42 AM
Michael A. Clem
Yes, indeed, under what guidelines should the individual decide which laws to follow and which ones not to follow? You could also ask the same question of the legislators: which laws should they create and pass and which ones shouldn't they?
It's a terribly murky subject, but to say that elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats know better than private citizens what is best for them and must be obeyed is unavoidably arrogant and tyrannical.
Freedom and responsibility, and the non-aggression principle provide pretty good guides, I would think, though nothing is infallible. The value of licensing is vastly overrated, and restricts the freedom of competition in the market place. Various unintended consequences ensue.
Published: October 27, 2008 10:20 AM
Noelle Milkey
I'm frustrated that you have taken the time to visit this issue (I nearly fell off my chair when I saw my field addressed in a Mises article) without digging in a little bit. The idea behind these attempts at regulation (and it's spreading like wildfire) is that designers, like architects, specify materials-- especially in public buildings--that might affect the safety of the public in case of a fire or other evacuation situation. One example: olefin carpeting should not be used in a kindergarten classroom, because it generates so much toxic smoke in a fire. Five-year-olds, who are short, will be that much more vulnerable to inahalation of the smoke. What I am trying to point out is that interior design is not merely an artistic endeavor without practical consequences. I do not support licensure, but you won't last long in this debate with jokes about paint colors and thrift store furniture--and we could use some serious, well-reasoned help here, before a bunch of us are on the wrong side of the law.
Published: October 27, 2008 10:31 AM
Tim Kern
"If anything, as Schaeffer might argue, we have a moral duty to disobey them." Which laws, professor? Who chooses?
Perhaps Jefferson had an idea: "all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
It sounds like Thomas Jefferson understood that a government must be taken whole, lawfully amended, or rejected.
Deciding on an individual basis which law(s) to follow is an individual (not societal) act, and one can expect no comfort or protection from society for taking that path.
Published: October 27, 2008 10:43 AM
Michael A. Clem
Noelle, are you talking about a public kindergarten classroom or a private kindergarten classroom? ;-)
Okay, seriously, what you are talking about is knowledge and information, knowing all the aspects of design materials and how they relate to the particular issue at hand. Licensing is bad because licensing doesn't guarantee that an interior designer really knows anything about interior design, only that they know how to deal with the licensing process. Licensing also unfairly restricts competition.
If people need assurance of expert qualifications, there are various ways of doing this: educational degrees, public reputation, and certification all provide some assurances, and since they are voluntary, they don't unfairly restrict people from going into interior design. But nobody can provide a guarantee, especially not government licensure.
Published: October 27, 2008 10:54 AM
Greg
All public buildings must meet minimum safety standards and it goes well beyond the simplistic picture the author laid out. Again, these rules are governed by the insurance commission that is in place to help minimize lawsuits.
But if a builder uses a licensed decorator or not, they are responsible for what is used and if it does not meet the current code, they have to remove it. So if the builder does not understand the codes, it may be in their best interest to go with the licensed person that has the liability insurance in place to cover any mistake.
Published: October 27, 2008 11:02 AM
Michael A. Clem
Since Art wasn't talking about "public" buildings, this insistence on public building requirements seems a little off-mark. Nonetheless, there' s no reason insurance can't work with certification as well as or better than licensing. With licensing, insurance can only accept or reject the licensing requirements that governments create, whereas with certification, they can help create or shape certification requirements, and thus, help make them better and more useful.
Published: October 27, 2008 11:42 AM
I Hate Taxes
Brad,
Those who surrender their throats to the wolf, the "good", deserve to be eaten alive slowly and painfully by the wolf and I have absolutely no sympathy nor pitty for them because they are feeding my enemy.
Published: October 27, 2008 11:45 AM
Eric
Ruben asks how far we can go with disobeying rules. Good question.
I would recommend 3 sources of material on this,
1. How I found Freedom in an unfree world, Harry Browne.
2. Whatever happened to Justice, Richard Maybury.
3. The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard.
As Harry Browne wrote in "How I found freedom in an unfree world" each of us should determine for ourselves what laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore. It is in our own best interests to choose a morality that is consistent with living along side other human beings.
His major advise, however, is that one should not flaunt the disobedience in the states face but rather keep it to oneself.
I think this is good advice. If you think licenses or even income taxes are immoral and don't want to pay, then don't, but then also don't be an Irwin Schiff who has suffered for disobeying openly. As Harry wrote, don't try to butt heads with the state head on, because you'll most probably lose. But if you realize that any government program is hugely inefficient (a good thing to Harry) then you can assess your chances of success.
So, which laws should we disobey? Harry says that we make our own choice of morality. Morality is our tool for deciding which actions we should avoid. And the most important principle in morals should be how an action of ours effects others. And in this respect there really need only be two rules, as best worded by Richard Maybury, in his book on justice:
Maybury's Two Rules:
"Do all you have agreed to do. Do not encroach on other persons or their property."
The first rule covers the essence of private contracts, and the second rule covers all criminal law.
And both laws also are in agreement with my one major moral compass: Follow the force. If one uses force (except for defense against agression) then one is encroaching, and if one breaks one's promises, that is fraud. Fraud can be thought of as an indirect use of force.
The use of force or fraud is the essence of the (non-religious) subset of the Ten Commandments, namely on murder, theft, and false witness. No society lasts very long if it does not honor Maybury's two laws. This does not bode well for the American society.
And this essence of force is at the core of Rothbard's writings in his Ethics of Liberty. It is the guiding principle. But Murry doesn't stop there. He goes into details such as how does one first aquire property (his rules of homesteading) and pretty much tackles all the difficult questions. If you don't like reading it, there's an audio version which is excellent.
So, Browne and Maybury provide the principle and Rothbard provides the detailed day to day rules that adhere to the principle of non aggressive force.
Published: October 27, 2008 11:46 AM
I Hate Taxes
Tim Kern,
Society already does NOT provide comfort nor protection and you pay a lot of taxes for nothing.
Published: October 27, 2008 11:55 AM
maera
Interior design is something most people do themselves and are free to do so. Two other areas where regulations come into play are more problematic, education and construction. Home schoolers often have great difficulty negotiating with the state but children educated at home by suitably competent parents often fare better than their public school counterparts. It's obvious that we have a public education system that invites monopoly control but as of yet people who don't like the methodology or the goals can send their children to private school or teach at home. In other words, you can operate outside the system if you have the resources.
I'm mostly anti government interference wrt education because the state's attempt to standardize education has also reduced its value. There are many different ways children can be educated that would produce desirable outcomes once the child reached adulthood and parents should be free to make choices about how and where their offspring will learn. Since the resources to replace public education already exist, it shouldn't be all that difficult to make the transition to a mostly private system
WRT construction, I've seen both extremes of the consequences of no regulation and a complex system of requiring that the homeowner pay exorbitant fees to inspectors for plumbing, structural soundness and/or electrical wiring for even the most minor project always under the threat of being found out and having to pay a much larger penalty for forgoing these dictates. At the opposite extreme, you buy a home in a less regulated area, you buy at your own peril.
Private inspectors could probably effectively replace state and local building standards but at some point you're going to have to trust the inspector to be competent and have integrity. And who determines what the standards should be - a private rating agency, word of mouth? I'm not as comfortable replacing government regulation in construction as I am in education probably because I know much more about education than construction. There are details that have to be worked out if you want to replace the state regulations that are already in place. People want quality control and protection from fraud.
Published: October 27, 2008 11:55 AM
Pat
Speaking of the Tampa Bay Buccanears, if we are going to make laws about designs and fashion, we should first sue the pants off of those people who redesigned their pewter-colored helmets. This was one of the worst mistakes in the history of fashion IMHO.
Published: October 27, 2008 12:50 PM
Inquisitor
"The writer can't be serious here can he? I had to stop reading the article any further at that point. Any clarifications or qualifications to that statement? It is horrific, otherwise. The agenda you are pushing for can as a political system lead to a lot, lot worst disaster compared to anything we are currently having to deal with.
Having read Von Mises extensively, I find it especially offensive that something of this sort would be written on a website that has his name -he would be horrified to say the least, at what is implied in that statement. He never advocated political anarchy as the solution -EVER."
Actually, it's the best. The worst is awarding a monopoly over force to a group of degenerates known as the "state". Mises advocated secession down to the individual level where feasible. He was, in essence, an anarchist himself. And at any rate, Mises's arguments against socialism apply to socialized provision of the law just as they do to that of medicine. It is a matter of consistency.
Published: October 27, 2008 12:55 PM
Michael A. Clem
People want quality control and protection from fraud.
Of course they do. But why do you think government licensing can provide that? You don't think government control and licensing helps improve public education, do you?
Published: October 27, 2008 1:12 PM
Jarrod Atkinson
The heart of the matter to me is that interior designers are getting into the government game in order to create artificial barriers to entry, which will, in the end, increase the cost to consumers without increasing the quality of the service. Instead of competing freely and fairly in the market place, they've learned from the other industries that receive special perks from the government. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to lobby your State Rep and State Senator than to compete fairly in the marketplace, so interior designers are seeking rent through the government at the expense of consumers.
One problem with licensing interior decorators is enforcement. Prostitution is illegal, but tens of thousands of prostitutes file their taxes as "escorts" or "message therapists" or whatever on their tax returns. So interior designers will just come up with a new term to skirt around the regulations and stay "legal."
Published: October 27, 2008 1:33 PM
Abhilash Nambiar
This must be one of the more poorly written daily articles I must have read here. It was still fun to read and made good economic sense, but falls shot as a well written essay.
Published: October 27, 2008 2:24 PM
Al
Rothbard came to his anarcho-capitalism right under Mises' nose with no complaints from Mises, as far as we hear.
Published: October 27, 2008 2:46 PM
Maturin
Shame on you! Using unlicensed artists!
I bet you did not even pay them minimum wage, either! And exactly how many hours per week did you make them slave away to beautify your home? I am certain that you are in violation of labor laws!
Did they use OSHA approved tools and safety equipment to move your furniture and hang the pictures?
I would even bet that you allowed them to bring all those toxic chemicals they use to paint into your house without MSDS sheets and an EPA Environmental Impact Statement!
And I bet they did not have a permit for disposal of the toxic old art and furnishings they replaced!
Were your artists even US Citizens? I'm calling DHS on you!
Published: October 27, 2008 3:09 PM
malakas
I also took issue with the "private courts" comment. While not the main point of the article (which I otherwise agreed with) it stood out as a major distraction that took away, rather than added to, the other salient points within the article.
I also consider myself a "minarchist", a libertarian (anyone else see that hack piece in Newsweek bashing us?) and a proponent of justifiable "civil disobediance." I agree that the State is overreaching in general, and I applaud all who shine the light of truth on its long and slimy tenticles, particularly the ones many people may not even be aware exist.
But the State does have a few things within its charter and domain, and the court system is one of those few things. It would do us more good than harm to recognise and respect that basic concept a little more. If we stay the course and faithfully insist on an "all or nothing" approach to the practical application of our ideas, we will die as a movement.
Sure, we may write a thesis, article or even a book here or there, published and circulated primarily amongst ourselves, but that kind of over literal interpretation will marginalize us to the annals of obscure philosophy, think tanks and the target of late night jokes.
There is a major battle going on right now for public opinion, and in my opinon we are losing. The press is telling Americans and the world that capitalism and free markets caused this financial meltdown, and people are actually starting to believe it! The last thing we need to be doing right now is taking the position that everything under the sun should be privatized. It is not only untrue, but it serves to discredit the rest of what we have to say.
I of course am not advocating that we artificially restrain ourselves to make the rest of our message more palatable to the masses. But if we are to have a role in shaping the future to any significant degree (i.e. another Ron Paul Revolution in an upcoming election cycle) then we need to both focus on the practical application of our ideals as well as acknowledge the minimalist role of the state that is actually justifiable. Otherwise we will be forever sidelined as intellectual radicals and the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater every single time.
Published: October 27, 2008 3:20 PM
Brent
"Where do you draw the line on when to disobey the law and when not? If people start following your claim that laws on interior design licensing should not be followed, then laws on robbery, murder and other crimes should also not be followed?" -- Rubén
Isn't that the classic libertarian argument as to why we should not have so many laws?! People end up breaking the "laws" all the time and then there is less respect for the real law.
"example: olefin carpeting should not be used in a kindergarten classroom, because it generates so much toxic smoke in a fire." -Noelle
Why isn't this an insurance issue? Why would anyone insure an education company that's buildings put the company at higher risk for severe liability damages?
Published: October 27, 2008 3:48 PM
C. Evans
malakas,
"But the State does have a few things within its charter and domain, and the court system is one of those few things. It would do us more good than harm to recognise and respect that basic concept a little more. If we stay the course and faithfully insist on an "all or nothing" approach to the practical application of our ideas, we will die as a movement."
I would recommend you read Anthony Gregory's essay, "The Minarchist's Dilemma."
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/gregory/gregory6.html
Also pick up Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy-The God that Failed.
“I of course am not advocating that we artificially restrain ourselves to make the rest of our message more palatable to the masses. But if we are to have a role in shaping the future to any significant degree (i.e. another Ron Paul Revolution in an upcoming election cycle) then we need to both focus on the practical application of our ideals as well as acknowledge the minimalist role of the state that is actually justifiable. Otherwise we will be forever sidelined as intellectual radicals and the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater every single time.”
I would recommend you read Albert J. Nock’s essay, “Isaiah’s Job.”
http://mises.org/daily/2892
Many libertarians worry too much about us dying out as a movement. There will always be a Remnant of people who desire freedom in every generation. Etienne de la Boetie describes the Remnant thusly,
“There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always, like Ulysses on land and sea constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney, cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”
Despite my years of indoctrination through State-approved education, I have found my way to the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com. Such is the nature of those in the Remnant. Frankly, I don’t believe that we can convince people to want freedom. As long as they are convinced that life without the State will be one of chaos and death, they will continue to live as slaves to the State, for fear is the foundation of all government power. What good are we to the nation and liberty if we are bound by the same fear?
Published: October 27, 2008 3:55 PM
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Uh-oh, I'm in big trouble. My apartment looks like it was decorated by Sanford & Son. The statists obviously can't let that go--the SWAT team has probably already been dispatched. After all, if the state lets that go then we'll all fall down the slippery slope to murder...and drinking beer.
Published: October 27, 2008 6:52 PM
Mary Diane Dolan
Once I was trying to decide what color to paint my house. I was new in the neighborhood. I complimented a neighbor on the pretty color of his house, and I asked him if he would mind if I used his color. He looked at me in horror and contempt. He said, "THIS is 'Norman Foster Green'. It costs (tens of thousands) just to use it--without buying any paint or labor". Norman Foster is--I learned later--a designer. I suspect I might have been able to come very close to reproducing the color--at least if using artists' oil paint. But, after this experience, I found I had lost my taste for "Norman Foster Green". (I guess this experience plus your article tell me why someone would WANT to be liscensed as a designer).
Published: October 27, 2008 7:31 PM
I Hate Taxes
Be careful Art Carden, one day you might need a license to post criticism about government on websites, LOL !
And your criticism will have to be approved by a pro-government panel. LOL
Published: October 27, 2008 7:40 PM
malakas
C Evans,
Thanks, I enjoyed the article. However, the way I read it it pretty much made my point. No matter, as the theory itself is a big enough tent to include many in its fold. In any case, the "Minarchist's Dillemma" can be used to justify complete anarchy or simply a minimalist government (yet still a government).
Some versions of annarchy can work on paper. Just like communism of course. If everyone worked their tails off and produced 100% of what they were able to produce, put it all in one big pot, and took out an equal share (and in addition chose not to committ crimes, etc) theoretically we could all live in the perverbial "worker's paradise" bus as we all know (with the exception of most of us currently running for President at least) it doesn't work in real life.
Even if we "spread the wealth around" like "The One" advocates, and gave everyone on earth an equal share, within days or weeks at the latest we would have billionaires and scores of poor again. If we simply abolished all government and let the free market take care of everything, it wouldn't be 24 hours later before massive amounts of people started banning together to protect themselves. These groups would need structure, leaders and funding. In other words, government would spring forth as the "change agent" of choice for the masses.
Minarchy may be a more palatable position than flat out anarchy, but in any case take a look around. Look at our total tax burden (including double taxations and the inflation tax). Look at the antics of "The Fed" and "The Great Society" and "The New Deal" as examples of the heavy hand of government way past it's limits. Is the answer anarchy and free market court systems? No way. The answer is very radical. Practically unprecidented, in fact. The answer is to embrace and follow our Constitution as it was originally intended.
If we did that, we would have a minimalist central government and we could he hashing out the rest of this debate at the state and lower levels. If our local government failed us, correction would be much closer in reach, and we would have the ultimate check and balance of simply moving to a new county or state if necessary, which many do already..aka the "New Hampshire" or "Vancouver, Washington effect."
I stand by my point, even if I neglected to articulate it very well; if we hitch our horse to the "all government is bad and should be abolished" wagon, we are going to lose the cause of liberty itself. We will then be left with our lofty ideals of theoretical brevity to keep us warm in the perpetual centrist gulags of Statism.
Much like our Revolutionary War against big, opressive government, our peaceful revolution demands the careful application of winning stratedgy. While we follow in the footsteps of Rothbard, Von Mises and Hayek, and rally our Continental Army of intellectuals on the field of battle of public opinion behind great generals like Ron Paul and others, the fact remains we are severely outnumbered and outflanked. To win we will need to know when to advance and when to retreat, and in any case without the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen, not only will we not win the war, we run the risk of turning more against us. There is no shortage of Bennedict Arnolds out there willing to sell Lady Liberty down the river for the promise of a Royal Commission (yes, I'm talking to you Alan Greenspan).
If we hoist the banner of "against anyand all government" we will be regarded as a footnote in history along with the "A in a circle" logo punk rock/anarchist movement, and our cries for additional intellectual respect will fall on deaf ears.
A sensibile military, police force, judicial system and minimally invasive regulatory and oversight system is not only necessary, but vital to our path to victory in restoring liberty someday. Even if Atlas shrugged today, where will we all go? We need to increase our numbers; we need to know how to win. Faithfully sticking to a theoretical ideal at all costs is no substitute for measured progress for said ideal. There is plenty of "political capital" available for our cause. There is traction for eliminating the IRS and various Departments. Despite the Brady hysteria, there is traction for the true meaning of the people's militia and the original intend of the Second Amendment. There is traction for a more peaceful path to foreign policy, a mandatory balanced budget and I believe (if we do a good enough job) the elimination of the Federal Reserve, meaningful tort reform, fiscal responsibility, judicial reform, free and fair (and sensibile) trade agreements and all sorts of quantum leaps from today's bankrupt (literally) intellectual quagmire. But if we allow our message to be linked to "all government is bad no matter what and let's let private corporations own the court system" well not only is there no traction for that, the rest of our momentum will be left spinning its wheels for a very long time.
Published: October 27, 2008 8:00 PM
Tim B
The chapter on interior finishes in the building code is about 10 pages long. My guess is that in a 4-year degree program, they spend one week on building codes. That's about the amount of time we spent learning about building codes in my mandatory 5-year architectural degree program.
Flame spread and smoke-development are given in all product data as a simple number based on an ASTM test. If it's higher than 25, it's combustible. If it's lower than 25, it's non-combustible. Certain building types allow combustible materials, others don't. There's a chart that tells you which ones do. Congratulations, you now know everything you need to know to prevent kindergarteners from burning alive. Go forth and design.
Some people think that architectural licensure is necessary as well. The mandatory 5 years of education, 3 years of internship, and 7 tests have precious little emphasis on building codes and life safety.There's nothing in the building codes that can't be learned in a few Saturdays at a vocational school, and they would probably teach it more thoroughly than accredited architecture schools do. Anyone who sat down for a weekend and read a code book cover to cover would instantly know more about building codes than 80% of licensed architects.
If anyone wants to read an argument against architectural licensure, I invite you to my neglected blog at http://arch-rival.blogspot.com/2005/08/societal-costs-of-architectural.html
Published: October 27, 2008 8:24 PM
Evans M
Why do some libertarians teach that the free market is competent in all things except the legal system---and perhaps police and military? People acting can do anything without having to invent the State and all its monstrous tentaces.
Published: October 27, 2008 8:41 PM
N. Joseph Potts
This article doesn't make clear whether the author might approve of state licensing of, say, doctors, or policemen, or economics professors (which last are, I believe, in the unlicensed realm - including that Mises fellow).
Published: October 27, 2008 9:04 PM
Evelyn
The author Art Carden is assistant professor and he will stay that way if he doesn’t do a little bit more of a research before he writes such a junk like this.
Noelle Milkey, I do agree with you but very sadly because all those shows on TV people feel to realize what Interior Designer do. Our job is not only about beauty because at the end, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Interior designer actually are more use for public building because to decorate your house you can do it yourself, ask a friend, or get a decorator.
Michael A. Clem to get a interior design license you have to have to have the 3 “E”. Education, experience and examination.
Maera coming from somebody advocating a better education system you should get the facts stray. What you call Interior designer are just decorators. Everybody can be call a designer or a decorator. If you are teaching somebody about interior design please stop watching bad TV and get good information.
Jarrod Atkinson evens thou interior design is an old profession the laws that regulate it are. Interior Designers had to go to the government because architects wanted to create a law that said that the interior of the buildings can only be design by them. We were going to lose a big of our business so we had to become license and regulated.
Mary Diane Dolan is a famous architect. I am an interior designer that the last things in my mind are curtains or pillows. Most people do not understand but you just have to see the National Building Code and the Florida Building Code. I have to design with many codes and regulations in mind before I decide what color I would select. Sorry, for your experience but a lot of people like to flaunt their money in stupid ways
Published: October 27, 2008 10:01 PM
Yancey Ward
How can a non-licensed interior designer know how to pick out the appropriate load-bearing paints? I, for one, respect our overlords.
Published: October 27, 2008 10:34 PM
Scott
Checkout "The Station Nightclub Fire"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire
This fire which caused 100 deaths. 200 injuries in 2003 was set off by normally innocuous, but illegal gerbs (sparklers) fireworks igniting illegal, highly-flammable foam soundproofing panels, and was not prevented by a negligent government fire inspector which overlooked the necessity of a sprinkler system and foam panels (IIRC). To frost the cake, innocents, such as the foam-manufacturer and Anheuser-Busch sponsor, were sued and settled (http://www.projo.com/news/courts/content/STATION_FIRE_01_08-01-08_DLB29I1_v9.3da9e8b.html). Nothing was done about the government inspector, but the club owner and band manager were convicted and jailed.
The morale of the story? Government regulation is no guarantee of safety or justice, and in fact, can create false security if not become the biggest malefactor themselves. I'd like to think, if professional degrees (doctors, et.) were not required by law, malpractice insurance (or the lack thereof) premiums would establish a benchmark for consumers of competency, and the market would set a premium on effective college accreditation.
As for civil disobedience, I found some of Ayn Rand's opinions interesting. She didn't have a problem taking government research grants, since part of the government-caused opportunity-cost penalized private sector research, but only as long as the recipient denounced government funding on principle. She was against the draft, but didn't think that morally obliged protest or prosecution and imprisonment. She didn't sanction everyone being a law unto themselves, but that objective and independent courts were necessary for impartial justice. All these opinions seem Aristotelian to me - navigating a middle-course, away from extremes and proclivities, (though Rand opposed taking the middle-course as a principle in itself).
At the DailyPaul there's a thread about the propriety of vandalizing the property of congressmen who voted for the bailout. If someone stole $5000 or $150,000 (depending on how you recon it) from you and your descendants, does that sanction taking the law into your own hands when the thieves are protected by the police and courts?
Ah, if only Jesus Christ were here!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017:24-28;&version=31;
"What do you think, Simon?...whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?...Then the sons are exempt...But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part1.html
Thomas Paine (Rights of Man) speaks to obligations of successive generations made by their parents:
"The rights of men in society, are neither devisable or transferable, nor annihilable, but are descendable only, and it is not in the power of any generation to intercept finally, and cut off the descent. If the present generation, or any other, are disposed to be slaves, it does not lessen the right of the succeeding generation to be free. Wrongs cannot have a legal descent. When Mr. Burke attempts to maintain that the English nation did at the Revolution of 1688, most solemnly renounce and abdicate their rights for themselves, and for all their posterity for ever, he speaks a language that merits not reply, and which can only excite contempt for his prostitute principles, or pity for his ignorance."
Yet, G. K. Chesterton makes a case for giving our ancestors a vote:
(Orthodoxy)
"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead...Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."
Free to act to bring about the good, constrained to avoid evil. Strict adherence to the law, to me, seems a renouncing of independent judgment, a sacrifice of one's soul to either arbitrary authority and/or popular concensus, or senseless tradition. Yet renouncing adherence to law is an arrogant claim to infallible objectivity and temptation to corruption.
Our ancestors fled their native Europe and abandoned their countrymen, as well as rebelling against tyrannical British authority, tradition and law, both in accordance with Aristotle's Orthos Logos. I think, in Rand's words, I'll "judge and prepare to be judged". While praying for grace.
Published: October 28, 2008 12:37 AM
Stanley Pinchak
malakas,
mere words on parchment are powerless to constrain the advances of the state. What is required is for people to follow the negative form of the golden rule. As long as the people can vote for plunder and their moral system allows them to do so without any objection of conscience, neither minarchism nor anarchy can prevail. Instead we will ever slip towards a bureaucratic regime of redistribution (read theft). Since now a majority of the populace lives at the expense of the minority, it is quite an overwhelming prospect to educate or convert the masses. Railing against the wholesale brainwashing of public schooling and reinforcement by mass media is like draining an ocean with a thimble. The public is not in any state where the judicious application of the truth will convert the prevailing opinion in one stroke like the marginal drop in a chemist's titration. Rather, I see greater hope in secession movements and panarchy. Coalescing a critical mass for a reinforcing chain reaction is much easier than trying to ignite ubiquitous hydrogen molecules, attached as they typically are in combinations reluctant to live free. So it is with liberty and the prospects of the remnant.
Published: October 28, 2008 1:04 AM
C. Evans
malakas,
"Even if we 'spread the wealth around' like 'The One' advocates, and gave everyone on earth an equal share, within days or weeks at the latest we would have billionaires and scores of poor again. If we simply abolished all government and let the free market take care of everything, it wouldn't be 24 hours later before massive amounts of people started banning together to protect themselves. These groups would need structure, leaders and funding. In other words, government would spring forth as the 'change agent' of choice for the masses."
What you described is not a State. You should read Our Enemy, The State by Albert Nock and Anatomy of a State by Murray Rothbard. You can find both on the Mises website. As Albert J. Nock and Murray Rothbard have noted, States arise through violence and deception. Government arises through people voluntarily getting together to protect themselves, which is what anarcho-capitalists like myself and Hans Hermann Hoppe advocate and what you described.
A State is a territorial monopolist of law and order, and ultimate judge of conflict, including conflict with itself. Thus, it has an incentive to provoke conflict and then judge in its own favor. This is why tax court and traffic court among all State courts are laughable; the State is almost always going to decide in its own favor.
You also wrote, "A sensibile military, police force, judicial system and minimally invasive regulatory and oversight system is not only necessary, but vital to our path to victory in restoring liberty someday." The problem with this assessment is that a State has a monopoly on all of these activities. It also has the power to tax without consent and make laws without consent. Thus, the State doesn't have to serve its subjects because there is no competition and the people cannot get these services anywhere else. Moreover, the State cannot be it be limited because it receives its funds through theft and violence; rather it always uses their subjects own resources to oppress them. States also forbid secession, which is what Mises advocated. He believed that any group of people had the right to leave any government for any reason. This is pretty much an anarchist view, i.e., people choosing government to suit their tastes and leaving governments they find objectionable, although I don't think Mises would have described it this way
Regarding the Constitution, it's an egregious error. There were people at the time who fought its ratification because they saw that its adoption would lead to the oppressive State under which we suffer today. Just google Anti-Federalists to read their arguments. I believe the empircal evidence vindicates their concerns. I agree with Lysander Spooner's assessment. To paraphrase, the Constitution either authorized the government we have or it it powerless to stop it; "In any case, it is unfit to exist."
Regarding making inroads into the general public, I don't believe that the masses want freedom. As H. L. Mencken has said, people want security and will sell anything to get it. I believe our job is to minister to the Remnant, for when society falls apart, it is the Remnant that will rebuild it. Continue to advocate the minarchist view if you wish, but as La Boetie said, some of us are too aware of the yokes around our necks. I don't know what a stateless life would look like, but I would much rather live as a freeman than a slave to the State. And I won't compromise or water down my views just to appeal to the masses. My natural rights are non-negotiable.
Published: October 28, 2008 1:10 AM
Yadranko
This article reminds me of a recent law passed in Croatia (south-central European country) which prohibits friends and family from taking photos and videos of your own wedding. Just imagine that, something's terribly wrong here!
Published: October 28, 2008 5:05 AM
Lucas M. Engelhardt
Yadranko,
If we allow the sun to shine, who will buy candles?
I'm pretty sure that's basically the argument for that new Croatian law.
Published: October 28, 2008 8:34 AM
Michael A. Clem
Michael A. Clem to get a interior design license you have to have to have the 3 “E”. Education, experience and examination.
Ah, so it really IS a scheme to limit competition! ;-)
But seriously, the point about licensing is that it's a political system, subject to the corrupting problems of political influence. There's no economic feedback, or as economists might say, they face the Calculation problem. How can any licensing agency know if their requirements are too easy or too difficult? They could be doing too much to protect us, resulting in unnecessary higher costs, or they could be doing too little to protect us, resulting in unnecessary harm or deaths. Only a market process such as certification is flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and provide something close to the right amount of protection, and without immorally restricting entry into the field.
Published: October 28, 2008 9:36 AM
Evelyn
Michael A. Clem, yes we get a certification beause we have to past a exam. I also understand that you do not know what an interior design do so I would not waste my time. I hate occupational license and business license because it is just for the goverment to collect money. Business spend a lot of money for the interior and they should be get somebody that actually know what they are doing not somebody that starts telling you what color the like.
Published: October 28, 2008 9:57 AM
Connan Negus
I was well into my twenties when I found out I wasn't the only person in the Remnant. Thanks to people like Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, I can see I'm not even the smartest person in the Remnant.
But I think those people who consider themselves freedom loving but still desire a state are either lazy to think or cowards afraid of the unknown (I don't mean to be insulting, just brutally honest).
If you follow your line of thought vis a vis stock markets and medical care through to its logical culmination, you will see that police forces, courts and the military can and must be privatised. There are numerous examples: private security guards in South Africa respond to emergency calls faster than the government's police already (and assist in captures); private investigators have been around for ages and can easily take on the extra load, especially when the state fires its detectives and they form their own companies; militias exist all over, as in Somalia, Michigan and the Boer War commandos who gave the British such hassles they resorted to mass internment in concentration camps. Better yet, think of how many countries Afghan tribesmen have invaded, and how many countries have successfully invaded Afghanistan.
Except when people are trying to install a government, Somalia is a successful non-state territory; and history books show Iceland and England (to name just 2) had successful non-state societies in the first millenium.
If you oppose socialised healthcare (which is important if you want to save your life), why not oppose socialised police protection (which is important if you want to save your life)?
Logically, if you are against the state because it exists by force, you are against all of the state, especially its forceful arms. You must follow your logic through to the end.
And if you are scared of what it would be like without that reassuring hulk of Leviathan standing over you, I would offer some Latin words you may be familiar with to stiffen your spine: Tu ne cede malis.
And let me assure you, the state is evil.
Published: October 28, 2008 10:08 AM
Tim B
evelyn makes a good point:
"Interior Designers had to go to the government because architects wanted to create a law that said that the interior of the buildings can only be design by them. We were going to lose a big of our business so we had to become license and regulated."
In most states, renovations requiring structural work require drawings stamped by a licensed architect (even though architects are not allowed to perform structural engineering). Non-structural renovations do not require an architect. I believe that architects have tried to get laws changed in some states to require architects for non-structural renovations. When I first heard about interior design licensing, it was in this context, and at the time I understood it to be their way of breaking into the monopoly of architectural licensure, as evelyn suggests.
However, this is the wrong approach. If interior designers want to protect non-structural or structural renovations from the monopoly of architectural licensure, they ahould join with contractors, decorators, unlicensed architects, and other interested parties to fight against state requirements for architectural licensure. They should not aspire to create an parallel monopoly for themselves.
By the way, single-family homes do not require any licensed design professional in their design, construction, or decoration. You can design, build, and decorate your own house if you want to, although it does have to be code-compliant, permitted, and inspected.
Also, a quick revision to my previous post. The interior finishes chapter in the International Building Code is barely 5 pages, not 10, and one whole page is just a chart. Anyone could have read it twice in the time it took to read Art's article. The material could be exhausted in a 1-hour seminar. Anyone who argues that formal education or extensive experience is required to understand code requirements for interior design it is out of his mind.
Published: October 28, 2008 1:30 PM
Shuster
It's good to see another WashU grad fighting the good fight. Though I don't fight so much as read and argue with anyone and everyone.
Published: October 28, 2008 2:20 PM
Michael A. Clem
Business spend a lot of money for the interior and they should be get somebody that actually know what they are doing not somebody that starts telling you what color the like.
They should, yes, but should their options be forcibly limited by licensing laws? Would that be any different than laws that require their interiors to meet certain governmental regulations?
There are plenty of ways to ensure compliance without coercion. I don't need to know interior design to know that.
Published: October 28, 2008 3:15 PM
Biea
Very Creative and wonderful Post.
Thanks
Published: August 28, 2009 1:09 AM