from Hacker News

How 38 Monks Took on the Funeral Cartel and Won

by YetAnotherAlias on 7/22/11, 7:13 PM with 28 comments

  • by DCoder on 7/23/11, 6:13 AM

    There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

    R. A. Heinlein, "Life-Line", 1939

  • by skrebbel on 7/23/11, 9:19 AM

    I'm rather impressed that US states can, apparently, really make the case that protecting particular businesses against competing businesses is a "state function". What the hell? Shouldn't the exact opposite be a state function?

    Is this common in the US? (governments openly and clearly admitting to favouring A over B, because people high up like A better) It sounds like the direct opposite of a free market to me, and isn't that what the US is supposed to be all about?

    I mean, here in the Netherlands, we'd call that corruption and a scandal would ensue (which doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it just means that governments wouldn't admit such practices so openly).

    Note: I don't mean to judge; I just genuinely wonder how these things are viewed by common Americans.

  • by ranqet on 7/22/11, 11:12 PM

    This isn't so much about the funeral industry in Louisiana. It's the precedence it could set for anyone else out there who wants to challenge another state regulated cartel (think of car dealerships for example).

    From the article: "'defendants moved to dismiss based on the legal issue of whether protecting a discrete interest group from economic competition constitutes a sufficient legitimate government purpose.' Put more simply, it's as if they said, Our purpose here is to protect profits in the funeral industry, these regulations are a rational way to do that, and we're allowed to pick market winners and losers if we so desire -- after all, its only intrastate commerce we're talking about."

  • by pessimizer on 7/23/11, 1:10 AM

    May I recommend "The American Way of Death" by Jessica Mitford (the entirely human Mitford sister)?

    The basic story is that the funeral industry completely captured the regulating of the disposal of dead people a long, long time ago.

  • by tantalor on 7/22/11, 9:58 PM

  • by beaker on 7/23/11, 1:32 AM

    It seems like there is a market opportunity here for anyone motivated enough to take on the old guard in this industry. It's not the most glamorous subject, but there is a lot of money sitting on the table. If someone applied to YC with something like "Funera.ly: the app that makes funeral preparations simple, fairly-priced, and dignified", well I wouldn't be surprised if they got accepted...

  • by koops on 7/22/11, 10:42 PM

    Just because we are bereaved does not make us saps!

  • by smokeyj on 7/23/11, 1:58 AM

    Further evidence "regulation" is just legal favoritism.

  • by rorrr on 7/22/11, 10:45 PM

    It's amazing that it's even an issue.