I was kind of being politely facetious, but that’s good to confirm. In which case, we’re not arguing about individual liberty, we’re arguing about corporate liberty to operate without governmental oversight despite the potential for harm, which isn’t really the ACLU’s thing, that’s more of a right-wing libertarian thing.
1 Like
That news story really affected me,
It seems like a lot of states have this type of regulations, which just makes trying to make an honest living harder, especially since Utah also doesn’t accept out of state licenses. These aren’t trillion dollar megacorporations, but often poor people trying to make a few extra dollars to make ends meet.
But these people are approaching that other person with consent. I wouldn’t say that it’s an unalienable right, but falls into the general category of
“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;”.
I’m for common sense licensing, a safety/hygiene test, annual inspections to make sure hygiene standards are met. Requiring a person to spend 16 thousand dollars and two years in school for something that doesn’t actually teach them how to do what they are doing is restricting those liberties. Again, these aren’t billion dollar megacorporations, but poor people trying to make ends meet.
I would argue that when we’re talking about something that could potentially affect someone’s health, you should prove that you’re capable of doing the job with a minimum of impact. You article already points out that he fails at least one requirement (he has no training in how to deal with African hair, which as someone who’s had a girlfriend of African descent, I can tell you is far more different from European hair than you’d likely think if you have no experience with it).[quote=“JCDenton, post:68, topic:339”]
“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;”.
[/quote]
You have a very twisted definition of these words that I can’t say is reasonable.
I’ve often found that what seems like “Common sense” is often wrong. For example, I had no idea that braiding your hair wrong could result in it falling out until I read Kate’s post. That’s not something I’d think to check on, but it’s something I’d want them to know!
[quote=“JCDenton, post:68, topic:339”]
But these people are approaching that other person with consent.
[/quote]Irrelevant. It’s not about braiding someone else’s hair, it’s about doing it for money. It’s a commerce restriction, not a restriction of individual liberty.
[quote=“JCDenton, post:68, topic:339”]
Requiring a person to spend 16 thousand dollars and two years in school for something that doesn’t actually teach them how to do what they are doing is restricting those liberties.
[/quote]Except, a Hairstyling Cosmetology education and License does teach you how to do that, it doesn’t specifically teach you how to do African style hair braids. It’s required for hairdressers, which someone doing braids falls under. Seems more like a problem of commercial standards(and for that matter, trade education curriculums) not keeping up with trends, rather than an issue the ACLU should be handling - since again, it’s corporate/commercial liberty, not individual liberty.
And the ACLU’s stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States” - not corporate liberties, not commercial liberties.
Though this does seem a little unfair, since I’ve already had this argument many, many times with libertarians who love to use the hair-braiding argument as a reason of why the ACLU is totally the worst thing ever.
4 Likes
You don’t like people needing certifications, licenses, and education in order to practice professions which could harm other people? Here’s your new doctor. Enjoy.
8 Likes
Yeah, you’ve actually failed to present the ACLU as partisan. You’ve complained about things it does and does not do, but you’ve yet to show how they are exclusively tied to doing what the Democrats want. You’ve failed to show a situation in which the Democratic party largely ignores human rights and the ACLU sides with them purely as a partisan move.
On this new forum, lots more people have the power to rename threads, so go for it. It’s the flamewars category, though, so awful and misleading titles are kind of expected.
1 Like
This is a great conversation for the Like function, I knew if I waited long enough someone would make the points I wanted to make and I could just Like them :-p Laziness for the win!
6 Likes
Whether or not you can braid someone’s hair in your home, and they can give you money IS about individual liberty.
They just refrain from doing any lawsuits in regards to it, again
These are the arguments used against abortion in the Supreme court case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, where there was a statement that the right to an abortion ended at the “other person’s nose”, in this case being used by the fetus, as well as “reasonable public safety restrictions is not infringing on a right”, this argument didn’t hold water in that supreme court case, as what a “Reasonable public safety restriction is”, can often be used as a protectionist measure.
While having a negative experience with an unlicensed person can happen, you can also have a negative experience with a licensed provider. If someone gives you a chemical burn, the fact they had a piece of paper they said they knew what they were doing isn’t much of a comfort.
Yes, and the same is true with with handling of food, the problem is relative cost, both in time and money. In most states it costs about 7-10$ to get a food handling certification, and can be done in a single shift (8 hours). The important distinction is between that of licensing and certification. Certification requires you to prove you can do something, and is usually administrated by a non profit or government institution. Occupational licensing gives that authority to private, often for profit institutions who’s incentive is to restrict the supply of those entering a marketplace. There isn’t a lot of studies focusing on the quality change that results from occupational licensing, but those that do exist " occupational licensing of dentists does not lead to improved measured dental outcomes of patients, but is associated with higher prices of certain services, likely because there are fewer dentists"
[goo.gl/mDbpQh]
Again, tying back to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, where in the Constitution does it say that you have an inalienable right to an abortion? There’s an interpretation that it falls under the 14th amendment, but this is not a specific inalienable right, but one that falls under the 14th amendment. The fact that states do not accept certifications or licenses across states puts a restriction on freedom of movement which is constitutionally granted by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, as well as in the broad category of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. It prevents you to move from one state to another and continuing to do your occupation. This effectively firing you when you move from one state to another, despite having the qualifications to do the job.
“A study from the Mercatus Center showed that occupational licensing can lead to greater income inequality, with each step needed to open a business leading to an additional 1.4% of national income going to the top 10% of earners.” Do Entry Regulations Promote Income Inequality? | The Regulatory Review
It also leads to more income inequality.
That was the point of me discussing the affordable care act. The individual mandate is a restriction on civil liberties. It requires you to pay for something, or get fined. Previously, there was the liberty to buy health insurance or not buy health insurance, after the individual mandate that liberty no longer existed. You can argue that it was necessary (as a Canadian I have no idea how to get your system from where it is now, to a system that works), but it was undeniably a restriction on that civil liberty. The ACLU sided with them purely as a partisan move.
[quote=“JCDenton, post:79, topic:339”]
Whether or not you can braid someone’s hair in your home, and they can give you money IS about individual liberty.
[/quote]Nope! If you’re exchanging money for services, you’ve just gone beyond the bounds of individual liberty and into the murky world of commercial liberties. Even if you’re just an individual.
[quote=“JCDenton, post:79, topic:339”]
where in the Constitution does it say that you have an inalienable right to an abortion?
[/quote]While not precisely literal on the matter, I believe you’d agree that the constitution guarantees the right to bodily autonomy, falling under the “life” part? Unless you want to argue that a fetus is an independent life of it’s own, it falls under that same personal bodily autonomy generally held to be guaranteed by the whole “Life, liberty and Happiness” bit. Unless you’re a strict constitutionalism, which you can’t be, since you keep citing Whole Woman’s Health V Hellerstedt.
Also, funny that you cite a study - though quoting while doing so - from the Mercatus Center, a very right-wing libertarian think-tank, who are also responsible for the Bush Government’s wide-scale deregulation of corporations. They also released a study about how the Affordable care Act is basically going to crash the entire economy from the deficit it would cause, which didn’t bear out. Funnily enough, their “studies” always seem to back up the right-wing libertarian point of view.
[quote=“JCDenton, post:79, topic:339”]
You can argue that it was necessary (as a Canadian I have no idea how to get your system from where it is now, to a system that works), but it was undeniably a restriction on that civil liberty. The ACLU sided with them purely as a partisan move.
[/quote]Of course, you can also apply for an exemption. Or just not, and eat the 2.5% tax penalty, that’s a choice you have too. It’s not like they put you in jail or owt.
There’s also the part where on the balance, the ACA actually increases your liberties as a consumer, and gives you more rights as a consumer, not less. But then again, I’m not entirely sure you care, considering how you keep singing the same old songs from the same, tattered old libertarian hymnals that we’ve all heard before.
1 Like
[quote=“JCDenton, post:56, topic:339, full:true”][quote=“Apreche, post:53, topic:339”]
The ACLU doesn’t care about Democrats or Republicans. They care about human rights. It just so happens that Republicans are opposed to human rights.[/quote]Then why is it only people on the right that actually go out and fight for civil liberties, like the ability to braid hair, or own a gun? Why is it that only the right fights for the right to be able to paint nails in Texas, move to Maine, and not have to go to cosmotology school for 2 years? The left isn’t intrinsically pro license, but they don’t spend any political capital on getting rid of them when they’re crony capitalist protectionist measures.[/quote]
Oh?
[quote]One such policy—the subject of today’s forum —is removing overly burdensome and
unnecessary occupational licensing requirements. In these remarks, I will summarize a recent
report that was prepared by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Economic Policy, the
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) and the Department of Labor. I will also talk about our
Administration-wide efforts to reduce overly burdensome and unnecessary licensing, including
the work of the Department of Defense (DoD) to enable service members to earn civilian
licenses and credentials, a call to action by First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden to
reduce the licensing obstacles faced by military families and returning veterans, the President’s
Budget proposal to assist States in licensing reform through grants at the Department of Labor,
our efforts to raise awareness of the issue through our report and forums like this, and our
outreach efforts to get States to adopt the best practices I will outline today.[/quote]
- Jason Furman (Obama’s Chief Economist), “Occupational Licensing and Economic Rents”
See also:
You’re right to say that occupational licensing can potentially be an obstacle to economic freedom. You are, however, completely wrong to say that “the right” are the only ones who care about the impact of burdensome licensing.
Didn’t Heller establish that the second amendment is an individual right? Shouldn’t the ACLU update their views after SCOTUS ruled in Heller?
As for licensing… Why not offer a knowledge test for people who have the skills and experience but lack formal training? Personally I only hire people who are licensed and bonded but if a profession allows for helpers/trainees to learn from an experienced person while they work why not allow them to take a knowledge test to prove they have the skills? At least in cases where formal training can be very expensive.
I’m glad to hear he did that, whenever I see in the news about occupational licensing being torn down it’s by Libertarian groups.
I’ve heard the name in the past, they seemed to be a credible institution, if that’s not the case than I apologize.
Unless you’re choosing not to get healthcare, in which case you are penalized. Again, there was no acknowledgement of it being a tradeoff.
You appear to completely neglect the most obvious possibility: that the ACLU has a solid rationale for their decision to support the ACA. Instead, you continue to insist, without any real evidence, that the only explanation for the ACLU’s position is partisanship.
In actual fact, the ACLU has made precisely the case you seem to be insisting that they haven’t: that the ACA involves a tradeoff between some kinds of liberty and others, and serves to provide an overall increase in liberty for many people.
From an amicus brief by the ACLU and others on the minimum coverage provision:
From an amicus brief by the ACLU and others on contraceptive coverage:
It’s almost like JCDenton doesn’t realize that civil liberties sometimes come into conflict with each other and when they do some sort of compromise position is usually reached.
5 Likes
I think you probably meant “compromise position” rather than “compromised position”. 
1 Like
Someone might want to read this particular article.
The ACLU is pretty consistent in their work and they have defended the actual civil liberty rights in cases where they do not like or agree with those involved. Aside from guns (where I think they are wrong but, their choice) there is not much of a case to made against them.
There are also cases where you might think they should get involved but the case itself is weak.
AFAIK the ACLU did not file an amicus brief in Kelo vs New London but the NJ chapter did support a property owner in 2005 who’s business was being targeted via eminent domain for reuse by a religious group.
1 Like
But Scott, I must be pure in all my views! Intellectual purity is the single most important thing in the world!
1 Like