Supporting McCain in order to keep the socialist Obama out has left a bad taste in my mouth.

So to balance things a little, I'd like to throw some red meat out there to my fellow libertarians.

Let's look at Joe the Plumber in a different light--the light of freedom...

Quote :

"But the New York Times did some digging and discovered – horror – that Joe is doing plumbing without a proper business license. How dare he call himself a plumber! A license is required by Toledo, not just one license for a partnership but for everyone who is called a plumber. Joe has not taken the training courses, is not a member of the union, and cannot legally call himself a plumber. The press reports on this were explosive, with reporters speaking as if they had caught this guy red-handed and completely discredited him. But what about the complete absurdity of the idea that you have to have a license in order to have the right to fix someone else's sink? This is Soviet like, but deeply entrenched in American professional life. The idea of licensing is that it assures quality standards. But this is just a cover used by guilds since the Middle Ages. The real goal of licensing is to create a professional cartel. Fewer providers means higher wages for those with licenses. It is all about boosting income by restricting competition. This is of course a violation of human rights because it impinges on the fundamental freedom of association. In a market setting, there are plenty of quality controls through professional organizations. Consumers are free to use them or not. Many private producers attempt to create cartels through this means, but it is rarely successful. There are always producers who break with the guild in order to charge lower prices for their services. This is why they often seek state regulations, such as the requirement that all plumbers have a license. By the way, this is true of all professions, including lawyering and doctoring. There was a time when entry into these fields was governed by the free market, and the system worked fine (contrary to legend). But the big players in these industries sought and obtained state privileges to officially license service providers. It was an income-boosting tactic and it worked. By practicing plumbing without a license, Joe is bucking the system in a truly heroic way. He shouldn't be condemned for this. He should be celebrated as a freedom fighter. He has a lot more to complain about than just taxes. It is the state itself in all its incarnations that is his true enemy. He ought to be demanding answers from the politicians about their regulatory schemes to further restrict competition in a wide range of areas (banking for example!). Most ridiculous is the idea that he shouldn't be called a plumber because he doesn't have a license. Here we see how licensing attacks even the use of our language. If he is doing plumbing, he is a plumber. Period. And yet taxes are also close to Joe's heart because it also turns out that he is delinquent on his property taxes, which are similarly too high and similarly unjust. The Ohio Department of Taxation placed a lien against him because $1,183 in personal property taxes had not been paid. In what sense can you say that you really own your home if the state can take it away if you don't pay what the state says you ought to be paying? This is an attack on private property in the most fundamental sense. So it turns out that we truly do have an American archetype in Joe Wurzelbacher. He is an outlaw in the same sense that our founders were outlaws. He lives outside the regulations of the state because these regulations attack his freedom and property. It was to end systems such as this that the American revolution came to be. And yet we find ourselves back in exactly the same system, and one incredibly worse in every way. Joe has an enemy, but it goes way beyond Obama. "

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/joe-the-outlaw.html

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2008 11:37:42 AM

Quote :

"The real goal of licensing is to create a professional cartel"

10/18/2008 11:40:39 AM

I agree. Of the same token, bar exams, medical boards, and any other professional certifications are a complete outrage.

10/18/2008 11:42:12 AM

I think he's got a point. Various government rules undermine the free market, often to the little guy's detriment.

I don't really care, though, as I oppose capitalism anyway.

10/18/2008 11:44:55 AM

I agree. Of the same token, bar exams, medical boards, and any other professional certifications are a complete outrage.

10/18/2008 11:45:00 AM

School is like a 12 step brainwash camp
They make you think if you drop out you aint got a chance
To advance in life, they try to make you pull your pants up
Students fight the teachers and get took away in handcuffs
And if that wasnt enough, then they expel yall
Your peoples understand it but to them, you a failure
Observation and participation, my favorite teachers
When they beat us in the head with them books, it dont reach us
Whether you breakdance or rock suede addidas
Or be in the bathroom with your clique, smokin reefer
Then you know they math class aint important less you addin up cash
In multiples, unemployment aint rewardin
They may as well teach us extortion
You either get paid or locked up, the pricipal is like a warden
In a four year sentence, mad niggas never finish
But that doesnt mean I couldnt be a doctor or a dentist

10/18/2008 11:47:35 AM

On the bright side, McCain won't require any outrageous teaching licenses if you've already been trained how to kill by the gov't.

10/18/2008 11:47:56 AM

Most people will agree that some job's should require some kind of professional certification/license. The reason for those requirements is not so much a medieval guild-like impetus to create a professional cartel, but a reaction to past problems created by shitty practitioners claiming a professional title.

A moron with a wrench can fix a sink. They can also destroy a large chunk of a high rise appartment building or at least make it unlivable. I do have to agree that on the scale of needing a license being most obvious and agreeable to not-so obvious that plumbers are probably a little below electricians. I mean a guy pretending to know what's he doing with a building's wiring can easily burn down the building by mistake. A guy pretending to know what he's doing as a plumber might cause some structural damage, inconvenience, and mold.

10/18/2008 11:55:57 AM

There's a difference between licensing, and state licensing. The former is perfectly compatible with freedom and free markets; the latter is not.

All sorts of private licensing and accreditation agencies exist, and do the job perfectly well without using the guns of the state.

In the absence of state licensing for plumbing, for example, there would be more meaningful licenses issued by private assocations, and apartment complexes, in your case, would be perfectly free to choose only plumbers certified by that organization.

But, it is just plain wrong to prohibit voluntary contracts between person A whose plumbing is busted, and person B who says he can do the job. If A wants to hire B to do the work, even though B is not certified, who are you to restrict A's freedom to make a (potentially) stupid decision?

10/18/2008 12:05:31 PM

There's a difference between a stupid decision that puts yourself at risk vs. a stupid decision that puts everyone around you at risk. While this is more obvious (as I said) with someone like an electrician where stupidity can result in deadly fires, it is slightly less so with plumbers. Here the extent of the risk is normally property damage and health issues. The requiring in most states of a plumber's license stems from problems related to flooding of residential housing, lead piping, contaminated piping, waste water issues, etc. The waste water issue is probably one of the larger concerns for large cities despite sounding sort of silly. If you had enough improperly installed sink traps and sewage pipes you could have a real health hazard or even an explosion risk in some place like new york city. Improperly installed waste water piping can result in methane gas leaking into apartments and suffocating people or causing fires and explosions.

Anyways, you're not actually arguing against my point unless you're suggesting that all state licensing is bad. Hell I'm not saying that the state has to do the actual licensing even, but that there's nothing wrong with it requiring professional licenses in some cases. Do you think doctors' and electricians' licensing should be left entirely to market forces? Personally I'm on the fence about plumbers in rural areas, but the need for licensing is more obvious in large cities.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 12:18:06 PM

Quote :

"There's a difference between licensing, and state licensing. The former is perfectly compatible with freedom and free markets; the latter is not. All sorts of private licensing and accreditation agencies exist, and do the job perfectly well without using the guns of the state."

I believe the majority of state-issued professional licenses require that you be licensed by the appropriate professional organization. The state doesn't outline the specific requirements/knowledge needed to receive a license.

10/18/2008 12:28:42 PM

This thread reminds me of a year or two ago when some idiots in Cary decided to do their own plumbing, contaminated the water supply with E. Coli, and every restaurant within a mile of the site was shut down for three or four days.

10/18/2008 12:29:29 PM

^^Yeah, state laws require licenses but leave it up to professional organizations that know what they're doing. Yes it's still interfering with the holy market, but here that's a good thing.

10/18/2008 12:36:39 PM

License to steal.

I've seen licensed contractors do absolutely shitty work and unlicensed moonlighters do work that perfect enough to hang in the Louvre.

Many things that require license now shouldn't. There's even talk of requiring licenses for things like masonry. I'm all for government inspections of completed work, but there's no need to require a license unless it involves something that an inspector can't inspect that would endanger lives.

In most cases, plumbing included, the licensing requirement was pushed into law by trade groups and unions to artificially elevate wages and discourage competition.

10/18/2008 12:43:22 PM

Quote :

"I've seen licensed contractors do absolutely shitty work and unlicensed moonlighters do work that perfect enough to hang in the Louvre. Many things that require license now shouldn't. There's even talk of requiring licenses for things like masonry. I'm all for government inspections of completed work, but there's no need to require a license unless it involves something that an inspector can't inspect that would endanger lives. "

And this is the big problem, is that a license really doesn't assure anything about the current job being performed. Sure, there's a better chance that it will be good work, as the license in theory indicates they at least knew what they were doing at one point, but faulty wiring is just as bad, regardless of whether your electrician jumped through hoops before he started splicing wires.

10/18/2008 12:48:40 PM

Quote :

"This thread reminds me of a year or two ago when some idiots in Cary decided to do their own plumbing, contaminated the water supply with E. Coli, and every restaurant within a mile of the site was shut down for three or four days."

Is that seriously how it started? Man, that was a pain.

10/18/2008 12:51:57 PM

^^ That's not exactly true. A licensed electrician gains something from their legitimacy that they would lose with a lost license. If their shoddy wiring job burns down a house then inspection records will have their information on file and they could lose their license and their legitimacy. It's a lot harder to find work as an unlicensed elctrician and you're not going to be paid nearly as much. It introduces another layer of incentives to perform a legal and adequate job and gives people hiring them proof that they have some vested interest in their legitimacy. Yes, licensed contractors can still do shitty work, but they're less likely to burn your house down.

Quote :

"the license in theory indicates they at least knew what they were doing at one point"

Yep- that and it also indicates they are above board and willing to put their name and license on the line for their work.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 1:24:25 PM

I agree. Of the same token, bar exams, medical boards, and any other professional certifications are a complete outrage.

10/18/2008 1:44:04 PM

i don't want somebody else's poop coming out of my sink every time i want to get a sip of water. let's keep the license requirements.



oh, and props for the dead prez references half a page up.

10/18/2008 3:09:38 PM

In the 1990s, 2 inspectors for the (get this) California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology showed up unannounced at the Braiderie, a San Diego hair braiding salon run by Ali Rasheed, an African-American U.S. Navy veteran and his wife.

The barbaring board told them they could not braid hair without a license. The license would cost about $7000 and nine months of cosmetology school- which taught nothing about braiding hair.

Nathaniel Craigmiles, a pastor from Chattanooga, Tenn opened a casket supply business selling funeral caskets to the public at half of what funeral parlors where charging. He soon got a letter from the (get this) Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, a state agency in Nashville. Because he did not hold a $8000 funeral director's license, he couldn't sell caskets. He did no embalming, or burying- he just sold caskets.

Officials claimed that only "qualified" people should sell caskets- because a defective casket, once buried, could harm the environment and endanger public health. The thing is he was buying his caskets from the same supplier that all the local funeral parlors where getting them from.
Six of the seven members of the Funeral Board were funeral home directors.

The point is that licencing is usually the result of members of an industry trying to squelch competition. They go to the gov't with some half-assed claim that harm could come to society without them making the decision about who can enter their business and compete with them.

Outsiders, late-comers and the poor are the victims of overregulation and unneccessary licensing.
The gov't should be encouraging competition, not taking sides.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2008 11:07:33 PM

^ Your premise is based on the idea that the only thing plumbers do is fix peoples' toilets, which is kind of arrogant and elitist really.

You can run a business fixing peoples toilets without a license, maybe just call yourself a handyman.

But actual plumbers do more than that, they're contractors that work on critical aspects of home and business construction, that's JUST AS crucial as the people doing the wiring or the framing, and are more critical than people who put up the drywall and who paint. This is a bit different than braiding hair or selling caskets.

The reasons stated for their licensing have already been noted.

10/18/2008 11:13:28 PM

I think it is totally bullshit that I need a license to drive a car.

10/18/2008 11:20:04 PM

then great. when people who are doing such things have need for a guy who really knows what he is doing, they can call a guy who has those certifications. when my toilet breaks, I can call whoever the fuck can fix it. really aint that hard of a concept here. and, here's the best part: when someone fucks something up by calling in joe-dumbass, then we arrest them and make them pay for the damages, along w/ joe-dumbass.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 11:21:16 PM

The notable thing I notice about this thread is the utter unwillingness of certain ideologies to budge on the notion that perhaps even some licensure just might be anti-competitive, rather than designed with public safety in mind.

Let's grant, for a moment, that the consequences of some professions, due to their interaction with components that can affect a broader number of people than those they serve - for instance, plumbers, electricians, etc - need to have some basic level of competency before advertising themselves as a professional in such a field.

But it's a well-known fact that licensure doesn't stop at these professions. It covers plenty, depending upon the state, that in no way impact the broader public health and safety. Florists. Stylists. Interior Designers.

Come on. The notion that licensing can be an anti-competitive move intended to create an artificial barrier to entry into the field and thus prop up prices can't be seriously denied, particularly in these cases. If licensure is required, it should be as open and unobtrusive as possible. But the expensive and difficult licensing processes for many of these professions speaks volumes to their purpose - which is not the ostensible end of "protecting the public."

10/18/2008 11:27:27 PM

The purpose of this thread was to somehow undermine the fact that this Joe the Plumber guy is a fake and was used for political purposes. The truth came out and now he and McCain were shown for that they are.

If Joe votes his self interest, he will vote for Obama. However, it appears that Joe has been taken in by the religion of politics.

I think it is plain to see that licensing for professions is both reasonable and practical. It's also plain to see that it has the side effect of raising the barrier to entry. This is an issue of our leaders balancing out the desires of special interests with the good of everyone. That's an issue far greater than "licensing."

10/18/2008 11:40:51 PM

I demand that my cleaning lady be licensed!

no seriously, it's critical.

god some of you are a bunch of fucking cunts.

10/18/2008 11:56:04 PM

Quote :

"This is an issue of our leaders balancing out the desires of special interests with the good of everyone. "

Would you say our politicians are good at doing this?


DrSteve has got it. Too many endeavors require unneccesary licensing.

10/19/2008 12:13:29 AM

remind me again, how was Joe a fake? because Joe was his middle name? because he didn't jump through the hoops for union membership? still trying to figure this out...

10/19/2008 12:27:23 AM

If licenses for certain professions were really about reducing or eliminating danger to the public and/or fraud then the licenses would be inexpensive or free.

But, often they are not. This alone proves the true motive. They are for raising cold hard cash for the do-nothing government and also to squelch competition for the obvious special interest groups.

We have courts which are perfectly able to litigate when things go awry. Frankly, over able. You guys really think the government is capable of real protective regulations?

Whatever, big government good. Free market dangerous RAWR!!!

10/19/2008 12:33:09 AM

he is not a licensed plumber, he doesnt pay his taxes, he was a member of the Natural Law Party before he joined the GOP, he is no where near close to buying a plumbing business, said business does not make more than 250k(he told Obama it did thus he was going to increase his taxes, that he doesnt pay anyway, probably makes 25k) Almost seems like the republicans set this up....

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM. Reason : w]

10/19/2008 12:33:33 AM

A guy asks a question in front of his house where Obama chose to be and it was the Republicans?

I don't know if you have been paying attention but McCain's campaign is about 100 times less clever than this.

10/19/2008 12:36:32 AM

Joe Not Really a Plumber said he was getting ready to buy a business that makes over 250k a year and that Obama would raise his taxes (by 3%)....it turns out both statements that Joe made were way incorrect....if he was "getting ready to buy" the business, wouldnt he know it wasnt making even close to 250K.....sounds like a plant...even seeing him ask the question, seemed rehearsed....not "out of the blue"

anyways, he voted for W...enough said...and Natural Law Party? Seems like a Cheney sort of republican....

I hope he doesnt get in trouble for......practicing without a license...bahahahaha

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 12:46 AM. Reason : w]

10/19/2008 12:44:36 AM

Quote :

"The notable thing I notice about this thread is the utter unwillingness of certain ideologies to budge on the notion that perhaps even some licensure just might be anti-competitive"

I don't know who's trying to defend licensing for interior designers or even casket salesmen. Hell, while I understand licensing of hair-dressers I don't really agree with it either and that's one of the most common ones out there. Yes there are health concerns for hair styling places- like lice. Does that require licensing? Hell no. Although, maybe that's cheaper than doing health inspections. Still, I think I'd rather have health inspections if that's the purpose of the licensing. Obviously those inspectors had the time to show up and inspect the place, so it seems like they would have been perfectly able to check to see if they had lice covered combs or whatever. Judging by the cost of restaurant health inspection fees (around $159 per year in Denver for example) the $7000 fee mentioned sounds like extortion by comparison.

As far as the casket salesmen go, as long as their caskets meet safety requirements I don't care. Plumbers, electricians, lawyers, dentists, and doctors? Licensing there I can mostly agree with. Funeral directors? I'd argue a cemetery or crematory might require licensing or inspection because of the health risk associated with dead bodies. Selling caskets? As long as they're not making them themselves out of shipping crates then that's silly.

Anyways, I don't think anyone on here is suggesting that licensing is always good. It's just that it's not always motivated by union conspiracies either. Somethings that might benefit from licensing are probably still best left to inspection alone. Some things are important enough to warrant both. Others still are so far out of the rational public interest as to beg the question "Who the hell came up with licensing that?!"

^^^^ Some states, cities, and counties do subsidize a lot of licensing and inspection. The fees associated vary widely from place to place. As I mentioned, a restaurant in Denver would only have to pay about 160 a year to help cover the cost of health inspections. That doesn't seem too bad. Requiring 7k+ for licensing of hair-dressers and blue-collar positions? Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous and if there was a health need then it should be either subsidized or free like it is in many cities. Still, there is a material benefit to the person seeking the certification/license just as there is a public interest in providing it. It is not entirely unreasonable to expect that those seeking licensing for high paying jobs such as a doctor or a lawyer pay at least some of the significantly larger costs associated with them. This is espescially true when the those certifications/licensing processes are handled by professional groups.

I do agree that the primary effect of the licensing or inspection of any profession or business should never be a barrier to entry- except to those whose entry would be dangerous. The funeral director's license mentioned above is ridiculous and the people who passed it should be slapped with the arm of someone's dead grandmother.

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 2:04 AM. Reason : ]

10/19/2008 1:56:55 AM

^I wasn't really pointing a finger at you, per se - but the majority of people in this thread seem to blow off the idea that licensing can and frequently is used as a racket to protect incumbent players. (Again, if you don't believe this, look who pushes for state-mandated licensing in the first place, and fights tooth and nail to keep it in place.) This doesn't have to be unions, either - but just look at the tests, as you point out. The barriers to entry are clearly being made artificially high - well beyond simply keeping out rogue or unqualified entrants.

I think you hit upon the idea of establishing the right balance - licensing vs. inspections. A nominal inspection fee can pay for the cost of actually maintaining an inspector who enforces public health/safety standards while still keeping the barriers to entry low. Places where a service is performed at a fixed site using fixed equipment - like hairdressers, etc. - easily lend themselves to inspections, and in the end, inspections probably would do more in these cases to root out bad practices than licensing would.

In that sense, it's better policy all around - better for customers, better for new entrants to the field.

10/19/2008 2:04:39 AM

Licenses are sort of absurd. There's no reason for the government to do this when private entities do as good a job or better already. If you are aware of how UL, ANSI, etc. work you'd know what I mean. Allow whoever wants to do something to do it, hold them legally culpable for foul ups, and let private entities certify them.

No one in their right mind would buy an oven that isn't UL certified, and I'm sure in time no one would go to a doctor who wasn't certified by the AMA, but that's no reason for the government to get involved. Any time you put the government into things you are essentially allowing people to vote on what they think the qualifications should be, this is a bad idea since the majority usually has no fucking clue how something should operate.

10/19/2008 2:05:21 AM

^ We're not arguing for government RUN licensing. Like you, I agree that the AMA handles things well (now at least) and should keep on doing so. Other professional organizations do as well.

So yes, I agree- keep letting the professional organizations administer and handle the licensing when practicable. Also, as you suggested in referencing the AMA, some things obviously should require the license by law. Isn't it the FSMB that handles medical licensing for most doctors though?

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 2:16 AM. Reason : ah yeah, AMA site simply references the FSMB as far as licensing (private non-profit prof assoc.) ]

10/19/2008 2:09:36 AM

Quote :

"but the majority of people in this thread seem to blow off the idea that licensing can and frequently is used as a racket to protect incumbent players."

I don't think anybody denies this, but its not really the licensing that is the racket, it is a racket when the hoops you have to jump through are unreasonable or when the means to jump through those hoops are artificially kept in short supply. For example, look at dentists in NC. You have to go to dental school to be a dentist. Dentists control the dental school and limit supply so that it doesn't meet demand.

However, this arguement belongs in a separate thread. This doesn't diminish the fact that Joe was a fake. I guess this was supposed to "wake up" the middle class. Since they are all worried about buying businesses and making over 250k

10/19/2008 10:08:02 AM

Quote :

"Would you say our politicians are good at doing this? "

No, that's why I'm giving the Republicans a pink slip.

10/19/2008 10:09:41 AM

Quote :

"There's a difference between a stupid decision that puts yourself at risk vs. a stupid decision that puts everyone around you at risk. While this is more obvious (as I said) with someone like an electrician where stupidity can result in deadly fires, it is slightly less so with plumbers."

The problem is that licenses from the government impart an assumption of competency to the individual you are hiring when you would be much better off using word of mouth or otherwise checking up on the individual. But, they have a license from the government, as such that natural instinct to challenge is short-circuited. As such, a criminal with a fake license can burn down your house and all you can say is a piece of paper made you hire him. And as has been said, voluntary associations do exist to license professionals without government barring their competitors; some even guarantee the work of their professionals.

Quote :

"A licensed electrician gains something from their legitimacy that they would lose with a lost license. If their shoddy wiring job burns down a house then inspection records will have their information on file and they could lose their license and their legitimacy."

Back before licenses courts would bar individuals from performing professional activities in the future if they were found guilty of felonious misconduct (just as hackers are barred from owning a computer or touchtone telephone).

10/19/2008 10:59:31 AM

Quote :

"that's why I'm giving the Republicans a pink slip."

What makes you think democrats like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama are going to do any better? Regulatory corruption is not just a GOP problem.

10/19/2008 11:12:41 AM

Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but they deserve a shot. Allowing the Republicans to continue running the government would be crazy.

10/19/2008 9:25:17 PM

I disagree. The Democrats will not change much. What we need is an armed street revolt.

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 9:32 PM. Reason : j/k]

10/19/2008 9:31:57 PM

^Yep, same shit, different Taco Bell Value Meal.

10/19/2008 10:06:56 PM

We need a divided gov't.

Until we can figure some way to control politician's power-hungry ways.

10/20/2008 11:00:18 AM

Quote :

"The real goal primary unintended consequence of licensing is to create a professional cartel."

10/20/2008 11:23:46 AM

Because licensing florists produces the "unintended consequence" of protecting incumbent players.

Come on.

10/20/2008 11:36:00 AM

Please stop quoting (and reading) Lew Rockwell. The guy is a nutcase and an ideologue who gives libertarians a bad name.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 11:53 AM. Reason : 2]

10/20/2008 11:52:20 AM

Florist licensing is a bit of a strawman. This only exists in Louisiana. I agree that is is an example of licensing behaving badly. However, it is a strawman argument to compare licensing of florists in Louisiana to licensing of plumbers.

10/20/2008 12:05:14 PM

^I'm not making a direct comparison between florists and plumbers - I'm simply pointing out a clear, bright-line case that exists as proof that the phenomenon of rent-seeking through license regulation exists.

And the fact that it exists makes your whole claim of "strawman" ridiculous - a "strawman" would imply that nobody puts forward those kinds of regulations. They do, and therefore the argument is clearly valid.

If you read above, you'll notice that I even concede the need for some professional licensing in cases where serious harms to public well-being can come about.

But you're delusional if you think the example of florists is the only case where an innocuous profession is protected by a professional licensing racket - there are literally dozens of other examples. Or that the licensing regulatory structure is often put together in such a way to deter entry of new competitors.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 2:00:31 PM

I for one want to return to the days when my Pharmacist could prescribe me medication he brewed in the back.

It sure beats heading to DeVons house.

10/20/2008 2:04:21 PM