While reflecting on an important event that led to our country's
valued liberty - the Boston Tea Party - I was surprised to find
many comparisons that could be applied to the current push for
interior design regulation.
Like Great Britain of old, ASID is large, powerful and militant.
Both chose to serve as the partner to select businesses and
groups useful to accomplishing their purposes. Both dismiss
the injustices they create as collateral damage for the "public
good," while refusing to acknowledge the destruction of lives
they leave in their wake.
Great Britain's Tea Act was supposed to solve problems, not inflame them. But passing
the Tea Act granted exclusive marketing privileges and created a monopoly. It was a
violation of freedom, and resulted in the mobilization of large segments of merchants,
traders and activists.
Interior Design Practice/Title Acts create a similar negative environment. They have the
capacity to put hundreds of thousands of designers out of business or place them at an
unfair competitive disadvantage. These laws serve to create a monopoly in which only a
small handful of elitist insiders would have control of all the business. Such laws are
anti-competitive. Plainly put, they are un-American.
INTERIOR DESIGN PROTECTION COUNCIL
The only national organization exclusively dedicated to protecting designers' rights
Principal, Juxtapose Design
Adjunct faculty, New Hampshire Institute of Art
Author, Getting Grassroots Galvanized
Certified, Designer Society of America #105105
Board of Directors - Designer Society of America
V.P. Government Relations, NKBA NE
Professional Member - Association of Design Education
Board of Directors - Alumni Council, New Hampshire Institute of Art
Concord, NH 03301 603.228.8550 www.IDPCinfo.org