Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Timothy Sandefur has been fighting a case in court that I think I've mentioned here before. The case is in Oregon, where the state had one of the most absurd rent-seeking laws I've ever seen on the books. Here's how he explained the law:
"The old law basically said that when you apply for a license to operate a moving company, the Oregon Department of Transportation would notify all existing moving companies and allow them to object," Sandefur explains. "Then the applicant would have to prove that there was a 'public need' for a new business - but nobody knows what 'public need' means." As a result, existing moving companies were protected from competition, and could keep their prices high.
When a man named Adam Sweet tried to start a moving company, his competitors in the business - surprise, surprise - didn't want the competition and voted him down. So he filed suit and Sandefur represented him in court. But that case has now been mooted because the Oregon legislature agreed that the law was ridiculous and repealed it.
"The new law eliminates this requirement and says, as long as you pass a background check and have insurance, you can start a business without having to ask permission from your own competitors. This is a victory for hard-working wealth creators - and for consumers."..."I am delighted that state legislators and the Governor have now remedied a long-standing wrong by opening up the home moving industry to competition," said Buckstein. "This is a great day for Oregon entrepreneurs, consumers, and the principle of economic liberty. It demonstrates that Oregon's pioneer spirit is still alive and well."
The old law was so dumb that the new one apparently passed the legislature without objection. A victory for freedom and for sanity.
Politics
Comments
Without objection? That is surprising. At some point there had to be at least a few Oregon representatives in the pocket of the moving companies to get the law passed in the first place. I guess whoever they were, they weren't honest crooks - they didn't stay bought.
Posted by: BobApril | June 28, 2009 9:22 AM
At least they want to fire him, I'd hope they manage it
The police department is seeking to have Abbate fired, and the Independent Police Review Authority has recommended that he be dismissed, according to Supt. Jody Weis. The case is up before the Police Board on July 7.
Posted by: G. Shelley | June 28, 2009 9:48 AM
BobApril: Somehow, I don't think moving companies have a particularly strong lobby. I'd be willing to bet that the original law was created by a well-connected legislator with relatives who owned a moving company, and got it passed as a political favor in exchange for strategic voting.
Good on Sandefur for getting that ridiculousness repealed.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | June 28, 2009 10:40 AM
There is also a 'proof-of-need' test for starting new businesses. In Barstow, California, when I lived there, there were two taxi companies, Yellow Cab and City Cab, and two ambulance companies, Desert Ambulance and City Ambulance, all four of which were owned by the same man. City Cab and City Ambulance had neither vehicles nor employees, but were listed in the phone book, having the same phone numbers as Yellow Cab and Desert Ambulance. When newcomers would apply for business licenses for a taxi or ambulance service, they would be told there were two such businesses in town already and only one of them was making any money, so the application would be denied. The man owned two monopolies, so he didn't have to be good at business in order to get rich.
Posted by: CRM-114 | June 28, 2009 1:31 PM
@BobApril: Apparently, there actually aren't that many representatives in the pocket of Big Moving...
@CRM-114: The fact that the front companies were both named "City" is so hilariously reminisecent of this South Park fixture...
Posted by: James Sweet | June 29, 2009 11:21 AM