LTE's from Undergrounders

[KBCraig]

My LTE to TheSouthern.com (with thanks to lynn271 for the inspiration):

re: "Home-school mom charged with allowing truancy", Friday, April 29, 2005

To the Editor:

I understand that Illinois is one of the states where a home school is considered a private school, and private schools are not regulated by the state. Good for Illinois!

Still, "Williamson County State's Attorney Charles Garnati is taking a tougher stance with parents who fail to follow established curriculum guidelines when home schooling their children", according to an article in The Southern on April 29.

Mr. Garnati acknowledges, "Unfortunately, there is no law on the books that criminalizes improper home schooling." He thinks it is unfortunate; and yet, he is prosecuting a home-schooling mother for violating a non-existent law.

There is also no law on the books that criminalizes improper public schooling. Has every graduate of the Marion school district received a "proper" education? Is every high school graduate fully literate and prepared to begin freshman courses in college? If not, has Mr. Garnati served warrants at any area schools?

Thank you for this article. It illustrates why state control of education is a very bad thing. If you agree, please join us as we seek liberty in our lifetime: http://www.freestateproject.org.

Kevin Craig
xxx xxx xx
Nash, TX 75569
For verification, not for publication: 903-xxx-xxxx

[Dave Ridley]

good job kb!

One recommendation for the future...you may want to put something in the letter about moving to new hampshire for more freedom; most people are not going to come to the link but they may remember the idea of New Hampshire having more freedom.

[dawn]

Sent this to the Sentinel:

House Report Card

The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance has released their interim report card on New Hampshire representatives.? Representatives were rated on how well they did respecting your rights and your pocketbook.? If you would like more information on how representatives were rated, please visit http://nhliberty.org.? Here are how Keene's representatives rated:

Rating? ?Representative
F-? ? ?Suzanne S. Butcher?
F? ? ? ?J Timothy Dunn? ? ?
F? ? ? ?Peter S. Espiefs? ? ? ?
F? ? ? ?Kris E. Roberts? ? ? ? ?
F-? ? ?Timothy N. Robertson?
F-? ? ?Charles F. Weed? ?

Please vote for individuals who respect the Constitution and who believe a person's possessions/money are not public property for the taking.

Published today! Good job Kat. There was also one last week from Justin Somma regarding the minimum wage bill. Watch for one from Bill Campbell concerning the Winchester School Board.

[Russell Kanning]

"There is also no law on the books that criminalizes improper public schooling. Has every graduate of the Marion school district received a "proper" education? Is every high school graduate fully literate and prepared to begin freshman courses in college? If not, has Mr. Garnati served warrants at any area schools?"

Great point....when the homeschoolers start performing as badly as the public schoolers...they can get back with us.

[GT]

Listing of NH Newspapers online

http://www.nh.gov/nhnews/

[Kat Kanning]

Thanks GDouglas!  That's very helpful.

[Dave Ridley]

Sending this to herld:

opinion@seacoastonline.com
Dear folks at the Herald:

Thanks much for your insightful coverage of the "outlaw manicurist."    Mike Fisher has made his point well:  In a free country, you should not need the government's permission to start a business.

Gandhi once said that in order to fight an unjust law through civil disobedience, you must first make the unjustness of the law *visible.*  Fisher has accomplished that too.  There's nothing more visible and ludicrous than three cops cuffing someone for doing something harmless, then taking him to a judge who sentences him to over 30 days in jail.   

I hope every local and state representative will keep that image in mind when they consider whether to make something illegal.  Are you ready to send armed men to cuff and imprison anyone who refuses to comply?   

[Michael Fisher]

Thanks, Dave! 

[Dave Ridley]

Can't remember who sent this or what paper they sent it to , but here is an LTE that went out from an undergrounder this week:

To the Editor, for publication:

Under New Hampshire law, to become a licensed manicurist requires 300 hours of coursework at a government-approved school, and passing a government-administered practical and written exam.  Becoming a licensed barber or cosmetologist requires 1,500 hours of coursework and 3,000 hours of apprenticeship within 18 months.

Under FAA regulations to obtain a a Private Pilot license, 40 hours total flight time are required, or 35 hours if you go to an approved flight school.  Twenty  of those hours must be flown with an instructor.  You must also pass the private pilot written exam, for which there is no minimum amount of classroom instruction - you can do it entirely through independent study.

Demanding 300 hours of classes to be licensed to trim & polish fingernails, or 1,500 hours to be licensed to trim hair or apply makeup; versus 40 hours plus enough study to pass an exam to fly an airplane.

Does this make sense to anyone except the Board of Cosmetology?
===

[Dave Ridley]

Msg. from Tim Myers:
---

FYI, sent to the Portsmouth Herald in response to their Wednesday editorial: http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/05112005/editoria/41681.htm

Your May 11th editorial "This licensing law is one we can live with" is poorly written and misses the point entirely.

Someone at The Herald must have really been incensed by Michael Fisher's peaceful act of civil disobedience.  Actually, not someone but everyone on your Editorial Board, as the generous use of "we" throughout the hastily written editorial implies.  Unfortunately, as is often the case, haste makes waste and this editorial is a complete waste of paper, ink, and your readers' time.

First, it looks like the result of a Jr. High School writing assignment.  Were you worried that you would insult us or go over our heads if you actually did research on your own and cited factual evidence that would support your opinion?  Did you opt for a string of one word sentences because bullet points would have been too obvious?  Maybe next time you could use a USA Today-type bar chart indicating the percentage of laws that are good versus bad.  As one reader aptly put it, it's a good thing you don't need a license to write an intelligible editorial because this wouldn't have made the cut.

Second, I believe the point of Michael Fisher's act was less about this particular law and more about the thousands of federal, state, and local laws like this that attempt to micromanage the minutia of our lives.  Your writer doesn't see the forest for the trees.  If The Herald had been covering Gandhi in the 1920s the editorial would have read "What's Wrong with English Clothes?"

You cite a procedure on how to clean a cut that the licensee is required to know.  I'm sure this is a relief to the millions of parents across the country who have been cleaning cuts since their children were born.  Shouldn't they be licensed too?  The editorial goes on to say that we would expect most manicurists would follow these rules whether they are licensed or not, but it doesn't hurt to make sure.  Yes, it does hurt.  You and I, and everyone in the country spend billions of dollars, wait countless hours, and lose hundreds of lives each year because of excessive regulation.  Regulation Magazine, which you can find at CATO.org is just one of the publications that brings this issue to light.  This law, and many, many like it are unnecessary uses of the legislature's time and the public's money.   

In this case, if someone would like to voluntarily get certified by an industry association, which they can proudly advertise in order to charge more and generate more business, then no one is stopping them.  However, they should not be forced into this type of certification or licensing.  If two consenting adults want to voluntarily enter into a business transaction, whether it be a manicure or otherwise, they should be free to do so without government intervention.

To paraphrase your editorial: Sometimes the government is heavy handed, sometimes it is an annoyance, and sometimes it can be downright dangerous.  This is true, and the problem is that everyone's definition of these terms is different.  This is why our country and state were founded on the principal of erring on the side of personal liberty.  This is clearly outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Your editorial board should read them sometime.

Tim Myles

[Dave Ridley]

Mike Lorrey LTE to Nashua Telegraph

---

Dear Editors at the Telegraph:

With regard to your coverage of Mike Fisher, the Newmarket man who chose arrest
over
submission to business licensing...I have some questions which I hope your reporters
will be able to answer as they continue to cover this story.

How often does the Board of Barbering send inspectors to the average licensed nail
salon to ensure safety?   Do the inspectors call in advance when they check a business,
or do they execute the inspection unannounced?

Does the requirement for a manicuring license constitute a violation of New Hampshire
Constitution Article 83?  It reads:  "Free and fair competition in the trades
and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected
against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it."

Fisher received a 30 days suspended sentence plus one day in jail for performing
a $1.00  manicure without state permission and refusing to post bond.
Does this sentence constitute a violation of New Hampshire Constitution Article
18?  It reads:  "All penalties ought to be proportioned to the nature of the
offense."

[Michael Fisher]

Mike Lorrey LTE to Nashua Telegraph

Tell Mike thanks for me! 

[Michael Fisher]

I KNOW they're not going to publish something so long, but I sent this to the Foster's editorial staff:


Dear Fosters Editorial Staff,

Thank you for doing at least some research on one side of the licensing issue.  The purpose of my event was to create debate because I believe these regulations are slowly encroaching upon the people without their knowledge or approval.  To this extent, the event was wildly successful.  It is unfortunate, however, that your staff did absolutely NO research on the opposite perspective, particularly the view that liberty should prevail in this matter.  I do not believe your editorial staff was fair to the opposite perspective, especially with such a lengthy article.

I deeply appreciate all sides of this issue, and all arguments for and against licensing laws.  I spent hours researching and training for the event.  It's very disappointing how your editorial staff failed to realize that I researched all known nail conditions before my protest and could easily identify those conditions.  This took a few hours of research.  It's also disappointing that your journalists failed to notice that I refused to sell a manicure to one person at the event because he had a nail condition (peeling and splitting layers) that I identified.

Also, without ever interviewing me, you claimed "Fisher contended he had learned everything he needed to know about manicuring by surfing the Web for half an hour."  This quote is a complete fabrication by your staff.  Your professional journalists should have known better than to put their own words into someone's mouth.  The "30 minutes" of research most papers refer to is only the time required for me to look up the sanitary manicure procedures.

It's funny how the cosmetology schools are half of the people pushing for these laws - they are the primary benefactor of such laws.  In the meantime, entry-level workers and entrepreneurs are seriously hurt by these restrictions.

It's too bad that so few people understand how fragile small businesses really are, and how much damage is inflicted by these laws.  If people knew that 95% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years, they would NEVER support such restrictions unless they wished to stifle their potential competition.  Instead, people would depend on professional reputations and optional private sector certifications when making their buying decisions.

Caveat Emptor.  Buyer Beware.  Consumer Responsibility.  It's wisdom as old as time.  However, through paternalistic laws such as licensing, the government protects us from small evils at the expense of our rights and responsibilities.  We refuse to oppose these laws and we wonder why so few people today have a strong sense of personal responsibility.

Gandhi helped inspire me to do this event.  I fought against New Hampshire's tyrannical licensing restrictions by filing nails in violation of manicurist licensing laws.  Gandhi fought against the British by boiling saltwater in violation of salt licensing laws.  The parallels are clear.  The principles are the same.

Thank you very much for covering the event and writing a lengthy editorial about the subject - that is exactly what I hoped for from as a result of this event, and I am very thankful for your coverage of this topic, positive or not.  Hopefully from now on you will research more than one side of the issue before publishing an editorial.

Mike Fisher
Newmarket, NH

[Michael Fisher]

Jason Sorens sent this LTE to Foster's in response to their editorial:

Dear Editor, "Free State protest misses the mark" (Sunday, May 15) missed
the point. The point Mike Fisher was making with his civil disobedience
was not that manicurists do not need comprehensive training: they clearly
do, and that's the reason he restricted himself to the safe activities of
buffing and polishing. The point was that no one should be taken to jail
for providing a real service to a willing customer.

Licensing laws invariably restrict competition, driving up prices for consumers and
discriminating especially against the poor, who may have extensive
informal training but little formal education. A better system is private
certification, whereby businesses display their credentials and consumers
may choose to pay higher prices for highly-credentialed services or lower
prices for less-credentialed services. Dozens of professions already use
private certification, from microprocessor testing to midwifery.

Laws protecting consumers from fraud rightly exist, but licensing regulations
are wholly unnecessary.

[Kat Kanning]

In today's Sentinel:

Monday, May 16, 2005

Ever mindful government

To The Sentinel:

I?m sure glad officer Pearl arrested Mike Fisher for giving an illegal manicure on Monday in Concord. It?s good to see the proper use of handcuffs behind the back for such a criminal manicurist as Mr. Fisher. He is obviously a grave danger to the people around him.

I?ve heard about the bad things that can happen from a manicure given without a government license. I?m sure Mr. Fisher was oblivious to the prospect of a fungal infection and could not possibly have known anything about sanitary practice given his lack of government license. Ms. Dillon should have been stopped from endangering herself by paying a dollar for half of a manicure from a guy without a government license. Getting these unlicensed manicurists off the streets is exactly the kind of thing I wish New Hampshire police were doing more of.

I?m really glad other professionals have their government licenses, too. Without government licenses, they wouldn?t know what they?re doing at all. But since those professionals have government licenses, they all know what they?re doing for sure. I know without my government license I wouldn?t be safe at all.

We have government licenses for just about everything, and I couldn?t be more pleased. I know that having a government drivers license means I?m a safe driver. And my car is a safe car, too, thanks to its own government license. There are government licenses for doctors, pilots, electricians, barbers, teachers, businesses, alcohol peddlers, driveways, even signs. Aren?t all those government licenses great?

I just can?t imagine a world without government licenses. Can you?

VARRIN SWEARINGEN

Keene, NH