手機版
IN 1941 Franklin Roosevelt added two new items to America’s ancestral freedoms of speech and worship: freedom from fear and freedom from want. Today’s politicians offer a far more generous menu: freedom from unlicensed hair-cutters, freedom from cowboy flower-arrangers and, most important of all, freedom from rogue interior designers. What is the point of enjoying freedom from fear or want, after all, if you cannot enjoy freedom from poorly co-ordinated colour schemes?
1941年富蘭克林•羅斯福在美國祖先的言論自由和信仰自由論上加了兩點：免于恐懼的自由和不虞匱乏的自由。今天的政治家提供了更多的自由清單：免于無證理發(fā)師的自由，免于無證花藝師的自由，最重要的是免于流氓室內設計師的自由。畢竟，如果你不能享受到免于糟糕的色彩搭配方案的自由，去談論享受免于恐懼的自由和不虞匱乏的自由有什么意義呢。
In the 1950s, when organisation man ruled, fewer than 5% of American workers needed licences. Today, after three decades of deregulation, the figure is almost 30%. Add to that people who are preparing to obtain a licence or whose jobs involve some form of certification and the share is 38%. Other rich countries impose far fewer fetters than the land of the free. In Britain only 13% of workers need licences (though that has doubled in 12 years).
在上世紀50年代，當強制統治時，只有不到5%美國工人需要執(zhí)照。今天，在經歷了30年的放寬管制，拿執(zhí)照的大約有30%，加上正準備取得執(zhí)照的和那些包括類似執(zhí)照證明的工人，比例能達到38%。其他的富裕國家卻比“自由島”——美國強加更少的束縛。在英國只有13%的工人需要執(zhí)照（盡管這個數字在12年里已經增長了一倍）。
Some occupations clearly need to be licensed. Nobody wants to unleash amateur doctors and dentists on the public, or untrained tattoo artists for that matter. But, as the Wall Street Journal has doggedly pointed out, America’s Licence Raj has extended its tentacles into occupations that pose no plausible threat to health or safety—occupations, moreover, that are governed by considerations of taste rather than anything that can be objectively measured by licensing authorities. The list of jobs that require licences in some states already sounds like something from Monty Python—florists, handymen, wrestlers, tour guides, frozen-dessert sellers, firework operatives, second-hand booksellers and, of course, interior designers—but it will become sillier still if ambitious cat-groomers and dog-walkers get their way.
一些職業(yè)確實需要執(zhí)照。沒有人想讓一個江湖醫(yī)生或牙醫(yī)來給公眾看病，也不希望一個沒經過訓練的紋身師傅來紋身。但是，正如《華爾街日報》堅持不懈的指出，美國執(zhí)照制度已經將他的觸角延伸到那些不會威脅到健康和安全的職業(yè)，此外，執(zhí)照只是依照偏好而不是由執(zhí)照權威機構客觀地評定。需要執(zhí)照的職業(yè)清單在一些州看起來像來自英國六人喜劇團——花藝師，手工藝師，摔跤選手，導游，冷點銷售員，焰火操作師，二手書商，當然還有室內設計師——但是如果雄心勃勃的給貓打扮和遛狗也要有執(zhí)照，那將更愚蠢。
Getting a licence can be time-consuming. Want to become a barber in California? That will require studying the art of cutting and blow-drying for almost a year. Want to work in the wig trade in Texas? You will need to take 300 hours of classes and pass both written and practical exams. Alabama obliges manicurists to sit through 750 hours of instruction before taking a practical exam. Florida will not let you work as an interior designer unless you complete a four-year university degree and a two-year apprenticeship and pass a two-day examination.
獲得一個執(zhí)照很耗費時間。想要成為加州的理發(fā)師么？那將需要學習剪、吹頭近一年。想要在德州買假發(fā)？你需要上300小時的課并且通過筆試和實踐考試。阿拉巴馬州的美甲師在參加實踐考試之前要耐著性子聽完750小時的課程。在佛羅里達州，除非完成了4年的大學課程、并且做2年的學徒、還有通過2天的考試，你才能成為一名室內設計師。
America’s Licence Raj crushes would-be entrepreneurs. Consider three people who come from very different states and occupations. Jestina Clayton is an African hair-braider with 23 years of experience. But the Utah Barber, Cosmetologist/Barber, Esthetician, Electrologist and Nail Technician Licensing Board told her that she cannot practise her craft unless she first obtains a licence—which means spending up to $18,000 on 2,000 hours of study, none of it devoted to African hair-braiding.
美國的執(zhí)照制度扼殺了潛在創(chuàng)業(yè)者。以三個來自不同洲、有不同職業(yè)的人為例。賈斯汀娜•克萊頓是一名有23年經驗的非洲辮美發(fā)師。但是猶他州的理發(fā)師、美容師、電解療法專家和美甲師執(zhí)照委員會告訴她除非他先獲得執(zhí)照，否則她就不能從事非洲辮美發(fā)師的工作，這意味著她得花費18000美元上2000小時的課程，這些課程都跟非洲編辮無關。
Justin Brown is an abbot at a Benedictine abbey that supplements its meagre income by making and selling simple wooden coffins. But the Louisiana Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has ordered him to “cease and desist”. Heaven knows what harm a corpse might suffer from an unlicensed coffin. Barbara Vanderkolk Gardner runs a flourishing interior-design business in New Jersey. But when she tried to expand into Florida, the state’s Board of Architecture and Interior Design ordered her to delete all references to “interior design” from her website and stop offering “interior design services” in the Sunshine State.
賈斯丁•布朗是一個本篤會修道院的一名院長，通過制作、出售簡單的木質棺材來增加微薄的收入。但是路易安娜州的殯葬業(yè)委員會用相關法律“制止”他這么做——上帝才知道一個沒有執(zhí)照的棺材可能給尸體帶來的痛苦。芭芭拉•萬德庫克•加德納在新澤西州經營著不錯的室內設計的業(yè)務。但是當她想要在佛羅里達州擴大她的業(yè)務，佛州的建筑與室內設計委員會要求從她的網站中刪除關于“室內設計”的所有內容，并且停止在該州的“室內設計服務”。
The cost of all this pettifoggery is huge—unless, that is, you are a member of one of the cartels that pushes for pettifogging rules or an employee of one of the bureaucratic bodies charged with enforcing them. Morris Kleiner of the University of Minnesota calculates that licensing boosts the income of licensees by about 15%. In other words, it has about the same impact on wages as membership of a trade union does. (Trade unionists who are also protected by licences enjoy a 24% boost to their hourly wages.) Mr Kleiner also argues that licensing slows job-creation: by comparing occupations that are regulated in some states but not in others he found that job growth between 1990 and 2000 was 20% higher in unregulated occupations than in regulated ones.
所有這樣矯情的手段代價是巨大的——除非，你是推廣這些吹毛求疵的規(guī)定的某個壟斷聯盟的成員或者官僚機構的雇員負責執(zhí)行這些規(guī)定。明尼蘇達大學的莫里斯•克萊恩計算過執(zhí)照制度讓獲得執(zhí)照的人的收入增加了15%。換句話說，執(zhí)照對工資的影響就像成為工會會員一樣的效果。（工會成員受執(zhí)照保護，享受每小時工資增長24%），克萊恩先生也說過執(zhí)照制度減緩了就業(yè)機會的增加：通過把一些在某些州受到監(jiān)管的職業(yè)和在其它州沒有受到監(jiān)管的職業(yè)進行比較，同樣的職業(yè)，在不受監(jiān)管的州比在受監(jiān)管的州的就業(yè)率要高出20%。
The Institute for Justice, a free-market pressure group, argues that this is only the beginning of the Raj’s sins. The patchwork of regulations makes it hard for people to move from state to state. The burden of regulations falls most heavily on ethnic minorities (who are less likely to have educational qualifications) and on women (who might want to return to work after raising their children). States that demand that funeral directors must also qualify as embalmers, for example, have 24% fewer female funeral directors than those that don’t.
維護自由市場的壓力集團——美國司法部指出這僅僅是執(zhí)照制度弊端的開始。不同的州不同的法律，這樣混亂的法律讓人們從一個周搬到另外的周變得很困難。這樣的法規(guī)是對少數族裔（他們更缺少學歷）和婦女（她們生完孩子想返回工作崗位）來說更不利，比如，需要殯儀員要有尸體防腐技能的資格的州和不需要此資格的州中，女性殯儀員少了24%。
You might imagine that Americans would be up in arms about all this. After all, the Licence Raj embodies the two things that Americans are supposed to be furious about: the rise of big government and the stalling of America’s job-creating machine. You would be wrong. Florida’s legislature recently debated a bill to remove licensing requirements from 20 occupations, including hair-braiding, interior design and teaching ballroom-dancing. For a while it looked as if the bill would sail through: Florida has been a centre of tea-party agitation and both chambers have Republican majorities. But the people who care most about this issue—the cartels of incumbents—lobbied the loudest. One predicted that unlicensed designers would use fabrics that might spread disease and cause 88,000 deaths a year. Another suggested, even more alarmingly, that clashing colour schemes might adversely affect “salivation”. In the early hours of May 7th the bill was defeated. If Republican majorities cannot pluck up the courage to challenge a cartel of interior designers when Florida’s unemployment rate is more than 10%, what hope has America? The Licence Raj may be here to stay.
你也許會想到美國人將采用武力手段反對這件事。畢竟，執(zhí)照制度里包括兩件事讓美國人感到憤怒：大政府的崛起和創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機會機器的停轉。你也許錯了。佛羅里達州的立法機關最近討論取消20個工作的執(zhí)照要求，包括理發(fā)師、室內設計師、交際舞老師。目前來看，這些法律看起來能順利通過，佛羅里達州已經是茶葉黨抵抗運動的中心，該州的參眾兩院共和黨占多數。最計較此事的壟斷聯盟卻最使力讓此議案通過。一些人說無執(zhí)照的設計師使用的織物可能傳播疾病并導致一年88000人死亡。還有人說，甚至更令人擔心的是不協調的色彩搭配可能導致“流涎癥”。在5月7日一早，這項法規(guī)被否定，如果共和黨的多數議員不能鼓起勇氣挑戰(zhàn)室內設計師的聯盟，那么佛羅里達州的失業(yè)率將超過10%，美國還有什么希望？美國的執(zhí)照制度可能已經存留下來了。
