
A van is set on fire during a protest by dozens of blind masseurs who threatened to leap from a bridge into a river in Seoul on September 18, 2008, in protest at a ruling which they fear will cost them their jobs. Two protesters jumped into the river but were rescued by police while 26 others were detained.
When Vladimir Lenin implemented his New Economic Policy (NEP) in the Soviet Union in 1921, he immediately faced a backlash of criticism from the purists in his camp who claimed that, by allowing small business to pursue private profit, he had put the collective foot on that slippery slope toward capitalism.
Chill out, Lenin said, these small outfits will seek their profits but the state will continue to control the commanding heights of the economy: mines, railroads, foreign trade, banking and the military. We'll control the input, the output, and we'll decide who works in each sector.
Of course, even the NEP couldn't save the Soviet Union from itself, but at least Lenin had the good sense to understand that the state, if it wishes to encourage a healthy economy, needs to keep its hands off certain sectors of that economy - i.e. as many as possible.
Perhaps, we could arrange for the Korea's constitutional court to have a sit-down with Lenin's corpse. In the event, the judges might stand to learn a thing or two, namely that these commanding heights do not include the massage industry, and that the Korean government is doing no one any favors by deciding who is allowed to rub your back. I mention this because the Constitutional Court can't seem to decide whether the government has or does not have the right to decide who can become a licensed massseur in Korea.
According to the JoongAng Daily, the massage service industry has been reserved for blind people since 1912, a time of Japanese occupation. There are now about 7,000 blind masseurs in Korea, but the exclusive right to ply their trade has been under threat throughout this decade by people who can see just fine and who would also like to take a crack at that knot in your back. This latter group - the fully-sighted, would-be masseurs - have filed numerous petitions with the Consitutional Court, alleging that the government's protection of the massage industry violates their right to choose their own profession.
The Court, for it's part, has come to exemplify flip-floppery on the issue. In 2003, it ruled in favor of the blind people, but in 2006 it overturned its own decision. And, in what should now come as no great surprise, the court on Thursday ruled 6-3 that restricting the massage industry to blind people is once again constitutional, as being a masseur is one of the few professions open to the blind.
"One of the few professions open to the blind?" Am I to assume, then, that the Constitutional Court will declare that each of these other professions are similarly the sole province of blind people? It's safe to assume, I guess, that soon only blind people will be permitted to do voice-overs for radio and TV. The court is also expected to rule tomorrow that only short people will be allowed to work as shoe-shiners and that only hearing-impaired folks will be permitted to work with table saws.
This form of market meddling by a government is irksome on multiple levels. First, if I'm a consumer who wants a massages, I want the best massage my money can buy and I don't care if the masseur (or masseuse) is blind, sighted, or a paraplegic hermaphrodite. Some blind masseurs are probably excellent at their trade, but I'd venture that a far greater number are merely adequate at best, having been funneled into their job by these government provisions. In the end, restricting entry into this field serves only to lower the overall level of competence therein. Consider the consumer ill-served.
Furthermore, by allowing only blind people to legally become masseurs, the government and courts have willfully trammeled the rights of countless other citizens to freely choose to their profession and to sell their services to any willing buyer. Small wonder, then, that a sizable group of sighted, wannabe masseurs has a burr in their butt over the court's ruling.
I realize that blind people, on average, have more than their share of challenges, and that perhaps society, via the state, needs to look out for them. But why do it on the front end by distorting the market and restricting the rights of others? I, for one, could more readily abide a small increase in my taxes to fund disability payments to such people than I can the blatant restrictions placed on the rest of society by the current restrictions.
Somehow I think even Lenin would agree with me on this one.
Chill out, Lenin said, these small outfits will seek their profits but the state will continue to control the commanding heights of the economy: mines, railroads, foreign trade, banking and the military. We'll control the input, the output, and we'll decide who works in each sector.
Of course, even the NEP couldn't save the Soviet Union from itself, but at least Lenin had the good sense to understand that the state, if it wishes to encourage a healthy economy, needs to keep its hands off certain sectors of that economy - i.e. as many as possible.
Perhaps, we could arrange for the Korea's constitutional court to have a sit-down with Lenin's corpse. In the event, the judges might stand to learn a thing or two, namely that these commanding heights do not include the massage industry, and that the Korean government is doing no one any favors by deciding who is allowed to rub your back. I mention this because the Constitutional Court can't seem to decide whether the government has or does not have the right to decide who can become a licensed massseur in Korea.
According to the JoongAng Daily, the massage service industry has been reserved for blind people since 1912, a time of Japanese occupation. There are now about 7,000 blind masseurs in Korea, but the exclusive right to ply their trade has been under threat throughout this decade by people who can see just fine and who would also like to take a crack at that knot in your back. This latter group - the fully-sighted, would-be masseurs - have filed numerous petitions with the Consitutional Court, alleging that the government's protection of the massage industry violates their right to choose their own profession.
The Court, for it's part, has come to exemplify flip-floppery on the issue. In 2003, it ruled in favor of the blind people, but in 2006 it overturned its own decision. And, in what should now come as no great surprise, the court on Thursday ruled 6-3 that restricting the massage industry to blind people is once again constitutional, as being a masseur is one of the few professions open to the blind.
"One of the few professions open to the blind?" Am I to assume, then, that the Constitutional Court will declare that each of these other professions are similarly the sole province of blind people? It's safe to assume, I guess, that soon only blind people will be permitted to do voice-overs for radio and TV. The court is also expected to rule tomorrow that only short people will be allowed to work as shoe-shiners and that only hearing-impaired folks will be permitted to work with table saws.
This form of market meddling by a government is irksome on multiple levels. First, if I'm a consumer who wants a massages, I want the best massage my money can buy and I don't care if the masseur (or masseuse) is blind, sighted, or a paraplegic hermaphrodite. Some blind masseurs are probably excellent at their trade, but I'd venture that a far greater number are merely adequate at best, having been funneled into their job by these government provisions. In the end, restricting entry into this field serves only to lower the overall level of competence therein. Consider the consumer ill-served.
Furthermore, by allowing only blind people to legally become masseurs, the government and courts have willfully trammeled the rights of countless other citizens to freely choose to their profession and to sell their services to any willing buyer. Small wonder, then, that a sizable group of sighted, wannabe masseurs has a burr in their butt over the court's ruling.
I realize that blind people, on average, have more than their share of challenges, and that perhaps society, via the state, needs to look out for them. But why do it on the front end by distorting the market and restricting the rights of others? I, for one, could more readily abide a small increase in my taxes to fund disability payments to such people than I can the blatant restrictions placed on the rest of society by the current restrictions.
Somehow I think even Lenin would agree with me on this one.






