Interior Design is Serious Business

I didn’t realize interior design was such a serious business. Did you know that Florida, Nevada, and Louisiana require a state license to practice interior design. That seems like pointless licensure requirements if I’ve ever heard of them. It seems as though Florida is getting smart about this and are moving to deregulate the interior design market but abolishing the need to get a state license in order to work as an interior designer.

As with any government protected cartel the interior designers are fighting back with some very interesting claims. My favorite on? That improper interior would contribute to 88,000 deaths every year. How did they come to that number? No idea but it sure sounds scary if not completely far fetched. Maybe all those deaths come from people not having enough “zen” in their living room because a couch is 0.05cm too far to the left.

Government licensure is nothing more than a means of creating cartels. In order to protect themselves from competition people working in a specific field will make up a reason why there needs to be a requirement for government oversight and licensure of their field. This creates a barrier against entry for new employees and thus reduces the potential competition they may be facing. These licenses usually carry an arbitrary number of pointless restrictions that make the barrier to entry even higher.

You Know That Conflict of Interest I Periodically Mention

I often talk about a conflict of interest the exists by having one branch of the government determine the validity of the action another branch takes. The idea of having the same organization both perform actions and watchdog itself doesn’t fly anywhere else but somehow we’re willing to accept it when such action is taken by government. It would seem that I’ve found an example of this:

A bitterly divided Supreme Court tossed out a jury verdict Tuesday won by a New Orleans man who spent 14 years on Death Row and came within weeks of execution because prosecutors had hidden a blood test and other evidence that would have proven his innocence.

The 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas shielded the New Orleans District Attorney’s office from being held liable for the mistakes of its prosecutors. The evidence of their misconduct did not prove “deliberate indifference” on the part of then-District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., Thomas said.

How’s that for the government protecting it’s own? An innocent man spent 14 years on death row because a prosecute concealed evidence that would have acquitted the man. Instead of holding the District Attorney’s office liable for the actions taken by one of its members the Supreme Court decided to shield the office from any accountability.

This is about as disgusting as it gets ladies and gentlemen. When a government office can’t be held responsible for taking 14 years of a man’s life because of direct actions taken by one of its members then there is no recourse. Then again what can be expected from entities that have officers that shoot an innocent person and give that office nothing harsher than paid administrative leave?

The land of the free is become less so every day.

More Government Stealing Shit

Need an increase in your blood pressure this morning? Well I think I can oblige you with a video of the Delaware Department of Transpiration stealing more private property:


Yes they not only ripped out a basketball hoop that’s been there for 60 years but then they stole it after telling the owner he could keep his property. I hope this man gets some justice but being the justice is doled by the ones stealing property I highly doubt it.

Voluntary Taxation

Last week I brought up the idea that those whining about not being taxed enough should put their money where their mouth is and cut the state a check. You can also do it on a federal level if you so choose:

So, if anyone out there feels like Uncle Sam’s letting you off too easy, stop bitching and cut the Government a fucking check. Make it payable to “Bureau of the Public Debt” and send it to:

Bureau of the Public Debt
Department G
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

There you go. If you think we aren’t being taxed enough cut your government a check for whatever amount you feel is appropriate. When you finally pay up I’ll start listening to you when you go on about not being taxed enough. Until then feel free to shut up and let the rest of us who don’t believe the government is doing a good job keep the money that is rightfully ours.

Ownership Rights

Linoge has a post talking about a person who faced charges for defending his property (the person was found not guilty thankfully). The defense of property is one of those debatable things in the gun community with many claiming it’s perfectly fine while others claim a gun is for defense of life not merely property. I think the remarks Linoge has in his post exemplify the fact that defense of property should be an acceptable thing.

This subject crashes head first into another topic of have a big interest in, economics. I find the philosophical concept of ownership rights to be very interesting as an argument can be made several ways. One of the arguments against ownership rights is the fact that all products produced have derived from natural resources that nobody can make rightful claim to. I would like to present a different argument, one that is in favor of ownership rights.

None of the ideas I’m going to present here are my own. Instead they are ideas that have been described by many libertarians and Austrian economists. The best description of these concept that I’ve found can be found in Murray Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty.

In the United States we have many rights described in our Constitution. These rights are protections from our government and arguments can be made against their universality (for instance a right to due process only applies in as society with a state and thus can not be considered a right deriving from nature). There is one right though that can be derived purely from human reason and can be considered the one right all others derive from; the right of self-ownership. Self-ownership can be summed up as the simple fact that you own you. Even if you are a slave you still are the owner of yourself which is why you can perform such actions as attempting to escape or even kill your capture.

As you own yourself you also own your labor. Of course you can trade your labor for the products of other people’s labor but you own your labor. There is a valid argument in stating nobody can lay claim to the natural resources found on this planet as they came into being without any human action. What can also be argued is that mixing your labor with natural resources gives you a rightful claim to those resources by the fact that you own yourself and thus your labor.

By mixing your labor with natural resources you have produced something that is consumable. This applies to everything from farm goods to automobiles. By mixing your labor with natural resources you have made something new, something more useful. As this new thing is a product of your labor it is valid to claim ownership rights to it as an extension of self-ownership.

These items can then be traded to other people for products of their labor. Going up enough rungs of the trade ladder we’ll create an economy. In this economy any property owned by a person will ultimately be a product of their labor either through production or trade (which is simply a voluntary exchange of ownership rights). Voluntary trade is the basis of the free market which the United States economy is very loosely based on.

What Linoge stated in his post can be derived from the right of self-ownership. When somebody takes your property they have taken a product of your labor and thus an extension of yourself. Working a job is an agreement between employer and employee where you trade your labor in exchange for another good (usually money). When somebody steals your television they haven’t just stolen the physical device but a product of your labor and thus have taken a part of yourself. As you have a finite amount of time to live the theft of labor can be considered the theft of the hours that the labor was being performed.

Using this progression of reasoned steps a conclusion in favor of property defense can be arrived at. When defending your property you are defending yourself in the form of your labor. When a thief deprives you of your property they are also deriving you of your life in the form of time you must spend in replacing said property. Even if you have theft insurance you must still use your labor to pay for that policy which would be unnecessary if it wasn’t for criminal elements.

So it’s not unreasonable to claim people should be allowed to defend their property with the same vigilance as they may defend their life. In the grand scheme of things both situations are really the same.