Monks Prevail On Appeal Over Rent-Seekers And Bureaucrats

You may also like...

26 Responses

  1. Paul Baxter says:

    It does seem to be a rare day that a protectionist law gets overturned. Perhaps the citizens of Louisiana should declare it a state holiday. Parades might be in order.

  2. David Schwartz says:

    You know what's really like being struck by lightening? Vitiligo.

  3. Ancel De Lambert says:

    My man-brain failed at this: "but economic protection, that is favortism, may well be supported by a post hoc perceived rationale as in [some prior cases] – without which it is aptly described as a naked transfer of wealth."
    Is that them looking for.. you know what, I just have no idea what that means.

  4. Collin says:

    *lightning

  5. Ken says:

    If I had editors I would flog them.

  6. sorrykb says:

    @Ancel De Lambert: My brain boggled a bit at that too, but I think it says, in essence: "Economic protectionism may be supported by a rationale, but absent a good rationale, it's just money-grubbing thievery." But I could be wrong.

  7. David Schwartz says:

    I think it's just awkwardly trying to say that the purported rationale for protectionist regulation is often a rationalization. Rent seeking often poses as consumer protection, for example.

  8. Al says:

    There was also the hair braider in Utah that won a similar lawsuit. Does two cases in one year make a trend?

  9. Joe Pullen says:

    I don’t understand how simply making the “container” for a dead person’s remains would necessitate becoming a fully licensed "funeral director" any more than someone in consumer goods packaging needs to become FDA certified to create a container for some manufacturers food/beverage item.

    Besides, funerals are for the living. The dead do not concern themselves with what sort of “container” they are placed in. They’re dead. They don’t care. It’s not like they’re going to wake up and say oh shit I’ve got to redecorate the place.

    I’ve told my kin if they waste money on doing this to me I WILL come back and haunt them. Just stick me in a cardboard box and throw me in the oven. Shake and bake baby.

  10. Joe Pullen says:

    @Me – bad example – apparently food packaging DOES need to be FDA certified. So much for my point.

  11. Caleb says:

    It's a narrow victory, yes. And rare as well. But it's a victory, and for that I'm glad.

  12. Reed T says:

    @Joe – Perhaps a better variation on your example would be the food package producer being required to be a state board certified nutritionist?

  13. Joe Pullen says:

    @Reed T – yes – much better. Thanks

  14. Lex says:

    A rare but undeniable victory for the forces of good. In fact, Imma go out back and start making coffins tonight.

    No. Wait. Imma do homework tonight. But once my thesis is finished …

  15. JdL says:

    I've started giving a lot of my discretionary donation dollars to the Institute for Justice. They're on the right side (IMHO), they pick their battles carefully, and often win almost unprecedented victories.

  16. Gal says:

    Just because were bereaved doesn't make us saps!

    Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

  17. Josh C says:

    @ancel:
    Roughly, 'putting lipstick on a pig, doesn't make it not a pig.'
    Less roughly: "you may come up with a rationale for thievery after the fact, but anyone outside your little group sees it for what it is. "

  18. Josh C says:

    Though, I'm really not certain how it's a victory that the fifth circuit has decided to judge the "goodness" of state laws, as opposed to (say) constitutionality.

  19. SA says:

    I read the post from 2010 that Ken links to at the top of this post, and it looks as if constitutionality was the challenge. Here's the specific snippet from that post:

    "The Institute for Justice has sued in federal court on behalf of the monks, seeking an injunction against the relevant Louisiana codes. They assert that they violate the monks' due process, equal protection, and privileges and immunities rights."

  20. Adrian Ratnapala says:

    …expressed disdain and skepticism at the protectionist arguments of the state and the rationality of the statutory scheme…

    Nice that the judges disdain the legislature, but what is the grounds for striking down the law. 14th Amendment? As much as it pains me, it is perfectly understandable that the judiciary wants to leave the fight between protectionism and the free market economics to the judgement of voters.

  21. Adrian Ratnapala says:

    …you must be approved for "good moral character and temperate habits" by a funeral-related government entity

    Reading this, did anyone else have a mental image of the monks in their refectory quaffing down wine from jugs, lustily singing about their love of the Devil while a row of their brothers stand on the head table doing the Cancan?

    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

  22. SA says:

    Some of the most *fun* music has been made about that …

    Ego sum abbas Cucaniensis
    et consilium meum est cum bibulis

    "good moral character and temperate habits" always made me want to go leaping to read the definitions portion of the bill.

    "Funeral-related government entity" is just scary.

  23. Josh C says:

    @SA
    It seems extraordinarily unlikely that the court would have overturned a similar regulation on who can offer legal services, even though that is exactly the same situation. To me, that suggests that the court disagreed with the legislature on what protections the public needed, not that whether they are allowed to require guild membership generally. No matter how much I agree with their conclusion, it's hard for me to get real excited that the fifth circuit believes this ball was in the judiciary's court.

  24. Kelly says:

    "good moral character and temperate habits" Shouldn't they have some sort of free pass on this alone? I mean they are *monks* and all?

  25. mojo says:

    Because it's impossible to bury a stiff if you're not of "good moral character and temperate habits", obviously!

    Silly.

  26. andrews says:

    extraordinarily unlikely that the court would have overturned a similar regulation on who can offer legal services

    The difference is in what is being offered. If the [state] Bar said that only lawyers could sell these yellow tablets on which we write our notes, then you would have an analogous situation. People could no longer buy yellow memo pads but from lawyers or out-of-state vendors.

    There is no especial legal expertise requires to sell yellow memo pads, nor is there an especial embalming expertise required to sell wooden boxes.