Monday, March 30, 2009
Lunch with Washington & Lincoln
The front page of today's Wall Street Journal has a funny article about the licensing of tour guides by the City of Philadelphia, and the law suit filed by the guides, which goes to trial next week.
The City wants the guides to have some basic knowledge of the history that they are purporting to tell, and score at least a 65 on a test, so as to avoid whoppers such as:
- George Washington is buried in Washington Square
- Washington once lunched with Abraham Lincoln at Powel House
- The equestrian statue near the Philadelphia Museum of Art is actually Frederick the Great with George Washington's head
- The prince of Monaco proposed to Grace Kelly in the Embassy Suites Hotel
- Ben Franklin had 80 illegitimate children
The guides say that any licensing abridges their First Amendment rights.
Of course, if Kramer can say in "The Rye" episode of Seinfeld, while driving a Handsome Cab:
then anything is fair game, I suppose."Of course, uh, this is Central Park. Uh, this was designed in 1850 by Joe Peppitone. Um, built during the Civil War so the northern armies could practice fighting on...on grass. Oh, yeah. Giddyup. On Rusty!"
There is a libertarian argument to let consumer sovereignty and the market determine the outcome -- do people on the tours want entertainment or do they want facts? The attorney for the guides is quoted in the article saying: "Government can't make sure you understand the Constitution before it has to abide by it." That is an interesting point of view, but perhaps is one that The Founders would have shuddered to hear, since their hope was that the populace would have an appreciation for the document that they worked so hard to draft. I hope we are not at the point where our slogan is, "America: Be as ignorant as you wanna be."
I am not sure that people on the tours necessarily rely or act upon the information provided, but it certainly would be nice if it was accurate.
H/T: SportsProf
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Mar 30, 01:25:00 PM:
Since one must pay for a tour, one might expect that the information given would be accurate. Would her 1st amendment claim override the fraud perpetrated by her providing demonstrably false information ? Is she selling damaged goods to an unsuspecting public ?
By 
Andrewdb, at
Mon Mar 30, 05:46:00 PM:
Family stories hold that during the Depression one of my Great Uncles gave tours of the star's homes in Hollywood to tourists. He had no idea who lived where, but the tourists didn't know any better and had a great time on their vacation.
By joated, at
Mon Mar 30, 08:19:00 PM:
Tour guides are selling their expertise. When it's in an area of history it needs to be correct. The guides are purporting to educate the populace. All I have learned from this is to never hire a tour guide in Philly.
I'm surprised the city is willing to allow a 65% passing score.
If it were an area of entertainment...such as Andrewdb's Great Uncle, then who the heck cares. Show business is snow business.
By Polybius, at
Mon Mar 30, 10:43:00 PM:
It seems to me that a practical libertarian approach, in which each party can be satisfied, is as follows:
The government can require any standard it wishes in order to issue a government endorsement (certificate, license, etc.), including minimum scores on a history exam. However, no such government endorsement should be required to operate a tour.
Let the market decide whether a governmentally-approved guide is what they want. If you want an assurance that a tour is accurate, look for the government endorsement. If you don't care about government approval of your tour, that's your choice.
It seems to me that the real problem is that the government is seeking to enforce a monopoly on the travel guide market.
By , at
Tue Mar 31, 03:10:00 PM:
Oh boo hoo. Another whiner unhappy about standards. Cry me a river!
Next up: the job from Hell. Where they actually expect you to DO stuff.
If it cuts so deeply into your psyche, get another job.
