Protesters, Cops, and Classical Liberalism

I just happened upon a story about a group of anti-war protesters who were arrested while marching down a street and yelling at cops. Now, I believe in the right to free assembly and free speech. And while I may disagree with almost every single protesting group, I will gladly let them speak. But there is another side to this story, a side most people tend to gloss over. In a number of cases, because people have the right to free assembly, cops arrest them for not having adequate permits. Of course, when the story is relayed in the news, permits are barely mentioned and rather it becomes "the police targeted us to shut up our message." It is unfortunate that the permits don't get more attention.

See, it isn't the message directly that leads to arrests; it is the lack of permits. And when groups like the ACLU come in, they fight in court against the lack of permits, but talk in public about the group's message. But what if permits got more play? What if the permits became a rallying point, rather than just a technical violation? Think about it. Why should it only be anti-war protesters who get to argue against needing permits? Why shouldn't the homeowner hiring a construction crew to cut down trees get the same ability to fight against needing a permit? Then again, why do we even need permits in the first place?

See, this ties in with a story from the Reason Foundation (HT: The Liberty Papers). Why do we have so many permits and licenses? Are they really necessary? And when a government organization denies a permit, isn't that an aspect of censorship? If the permit or license is needed before you can say something, isn't the lack of a permit the definition of censorship? (For a license, think of it this way. I could give you legal advice, well researched and the same message a licensed attorney would give, but because I don't have that license, I could be in legal trouble myself. Aren't my words being censored because of the government licensing process?)

So, what is the solution? Well, I am willing to help the anti-war crowd if they will help me. Let's abolish all permits and licenses. Let's get rid of all regulations and silly rules just designed to stop someone from doing something. A business owner does not need a handicap entrance if he is willing to piss off handicapped customers. Let the store owner take the risk and reap the reward. (Not being handicapped, I can't speak directly on this issue, but being male, I much rather shop at a store devoted to men rather than a women's store forced to cater to men.) Sure, some people might be hurt, but that is what civil courts are for, to settle damages. And honestly, don't most people make a first impression when they walk into a store? There are some stores in the mall even that I would never shop at, even though they are legitimate establishments. (For all the goth people out there, your stores scare the hell out of me.) See, the store itself is set up in such a way that non-targeted customers don't need to shop there. Those stores decide my business is not worth the hassle or the lost customers should they try to appease me.

So, here is my call. Eliminate government interference. Let businesses open and prosper and let wrongdoers be held accountable. We don't need a local building inspector (and do most people ever really trust a building inspector anyway?) Eliminate the government building inspector and I guarantee that real estate agents would be the first ones looking to hire private assurance services for buildings. (For a real world example, with the incompetence of many elderly care facilities, accountants and auditors actually have started providing assurance services, auditing the elderly care facility, and letting the older person's loved ones know the results, even though technically, the government is supposed to license elderly homes.) If I had to trust either a government building inspector or Jimbo, of Jimbo's Private Building Inspector Service, Jimbo gets my business. He has a reputation to maintain and if his inspection fails to spot a serious flaw, Jimbo is liable. Not so with the government inspector. Can't sue him. Who would you trust? A worthy question and an illuminating one. Who do you trust, the government or the open market?