3 ms·

The Right to Work

27 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

wendroid 17y ago
Full employment is a threat, not a promise.
- idoh 17y ago
  What does that mean?
  - dazzawazza 17y ago
    When threatened it means labour camps, when promised it is (unfortunately) a lie?
imgabe 17y ago
So, in this brave new license-less world, how would we ever get any new doctors? Who is going to recommend a doctor he's never used before? If a charlatan sets himself up as a doctor, how many people have to die under is care before word gets around that he's really no good? Maybe florists are taking it a bit far, but it's easy to see a yoga instructor could cause someone serious injury if they didn't know what they were doing. Even interior designers have to know about things like egress paths or they could end up creating a space that becomes a deathtrap in the event of a fire.
- genki 17y ago
  I notice the article didn't mention anything about engineers, either. Licensing doesn't make sense in every industry, but when people's lives depend on someone doing their job right, I think it's fair to require that someone demonstrate a minimum level of skill.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Engineering is mostly critical because it is optimized for cost. If cost wouldn't be such a major factor in construction then 'rule of thumb' and 'overkill' would be valid ways to get around having the knowledge to get an exact answer. In olden times it was customary for the designer of an arch to stand under the arch when the construction scaffolding was removed. This quickly eliminated those that were not capable of constructing stuff that held up, even if it led to some constructions that were probably more solid than they had to be for their designed use. On the other hand, that's why we can still marvel at some of this stuff today.
- wooster 17y ago
  Funny you should mention that, as the doctor shortage in the US is at least partially caused by lobbying by the AMA: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shorta...
- SamAtt 17y ago
  I don't think he ever called for a "license-free" world he simply pointed out that skilled people who don't have them shouldn't be prohibited from working in a field if someone wants to hire them. I don't endorse a world without licenses either but I'd point out that the world got by just fine without them for centuries using apprenticeships and if my doctor retired and told me "I trained this person and he's who I'd suggest you go to" I'd take that recommendation a lot more seriously than I'd take a medical license.
- jeffcoat 17y ago
  Presumably, people would bootstrap themselves into careers in pretty much the same way they do now. Of the top of my head ... 1) Working with (or interning with) someone reputable, and getting their public stamp of approval. 2) Certification agencies won't suddenly cease to exist; they just wouldn't have any force of law. Nothing would stop you from refusing to see a dentist who isn't certified by the ADA, just like nothing stops you today from buying a toaster that's not certified by Underwriters Labs. 3) Speaking of underwriting, insurance companies have an enormous incentive to only insure competent people. etc.
- bobbin 17y ago
  it's not about a system without licenses, the problem is the violence involved in them. If someone wants to give flower licenses that's fine. The problem starts when they start to claim the right to take your business from you if you don't have it. Or give you a fine. Or lock you in a cage if you don't pay the fine. Of course the issue is more complex in cases of life and death, or just injury. My point is that it's necessary to consider what does a licensing monopoly entail. It entrails a group of people claiming the right to administer punishment backed by violence. I know there are a lot of good objections to what I wrote, so many I can't address them all. I wanted it to point out the monopolistic and violent nature of government enforced licensing, not because it closes the issue, but because it's essential to understand this when speaking about the issue and contrasting that with voluntary, non coercive forms of licensing and quality control.
  - ZachPruckowski 17y ago
    The role of government is to protect the liberty and general welfare of the American public[1]. This involves trade-offs. For instance, I give up the right to drive over 65 miles per hour on the highway in order to protect the safety of everyone else on or near that highway. It sucks that I can't drive as fast as I want to, and it's an affront to my liberty that's enforced with violence (cops will throw me in jail if I drive recklessly or persistently speed), but the government decided that that loss of liberty is less important than the damage to the general welfare if everyone can go as fast as they want (more car crashes and deaths). Sometimes, the trade goes the other way. If we banned fast food, the general welfare would improve greatly. But the government (and ultimately the people who elected the government) decided that the resulting loss in liberty would be too great to justify. In this instance, people lose liberty when they're restricted from holding certain professions[2] without licenses. But the general welfare is improved because now people can trust that their doctors and lawyers meet a certain level of quality[3] as determined by the state. The government weighed the lost liberty and the gained welfare, and made a judgment call. If we don't like that judgment call, we can vote for candidates who see things the other way (or donate to legislators who agree with your position, or start a grassroots organization and convince people). [1] - There's also "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence", but those aren't in conflict in these examples. Government policy still regularly makes trade-offs between them. [2] - strictly speaking, you can own a law firm or doctor's office without a license, you just can't practice law/medicine. [3] - whether licensing tests are great reflections of ability or knowledge is beyond the scope of this comment.
wooster 17y ago
I feel like I've read this article in Reason before. http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/09/flower-power http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/09/flower-power
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Nothing's actually changed since then.
ZachPruckowski 17y ago
In the absence of state licenses, how does one prevent license mills? Right now, there are "colleges" (Diploma/Degree Mills) that will hand you a B.A. or B.S. or Associate's degree based on "life experiences". You write them a nice letter about why you think you deserve the degree, wrap it around a $1000 check, and you get your diploma in 6-8 weeks. If we abandon state-run license boards for professions like doctors, lawyers, or architects, then within a few months anyone will be able to pay a few grand to hang up a "Joe Schmoe, Attorney at Law" shingle in front of his office. The end result will be a lot of confusion for consumers, because unless a consumer's able to do hours of research, determining which licensure boards have sufficiently rigorous standards will be an impossible task.
- marshallp 17y ago
  By things such as group purchases or consumer reports. There's no accredition board telling you which stock to buy, must people just let their mutual fund decide.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - marshallp 17y ago
      I think mutual funds shouldn't be licenses either, it just introduces friction in the system. Even then, they're not licensed in the same way. It only takes a small exam, not years of graduate school.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
- bobbin 17y ago
  Let's say there are no state licenses, and you need a doctor, so you go to a hospital. Would you be concerned about the quality of the doctor? Would you be the only one to feel that way? Would a hospital who is capable of addressing those concerns be more successful than one incapable of doing so? Would you as a training doctor be concerned of the public prestige of your license? Would you as a doctor be willing to work in a place who hasn't justified or proved its quality to the public? of course these questions don't answer your main concern, but you post assumes in the absence of a government monopoly in licensing, people would be incapable of creating quality control. There's a tendency to imagine a transition period and think it would be unsolvable because you can't think how it could be solved.
dwiel 17y ago
This reminds me of a friend of mine who has worked in the city department for years and spends his free time reading law. Despite that experience, he can't be a lawyer in Indiana and advise based on this knowledge without going to college first, no matter if he can pass the Bar exam or not.
detcader 17y ago
"John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network." I was willing to humor Reason, but I won't humor Rupert.
- AngryParsley 17y ago
  "The world's greatest fool may say the Sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out." -- Robert Pirsig
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Understandable reaction, but Stossel is at least an alternative to the red-meat GOP partisans in the Fox news media. I was sad when they got rid of Radley Balko awhile back - he used his time working for Fox writing about misuse of force by the police and the failings of the drug war and thus explaining them to people who wouldn't have come across those realities.
owinebarger 17y ago
I expected an article decrying unions, but found one decrying the licensing of doctors and lawyers. To use the case of florist licensing to condemn all licensing is an egregious leap. In general I believe it is sound policy to license professions where the ordinary consumer of their services cannot be expected to know how to judge their quality. Highly specialized professions dealing with the general public such as doctors and lawyers are obvious candidates. For the actuarial profession, you might argue that the hiring companies should be sufficiently sophisticated to judge their competence without formal credentialing. The hidden consumer in this case are the insurance regulators and the public relying on them. And, in fact, companies don't always require credentials in actuarial roles, but regulators won't accept annual statements without a supporting statement from a properly credentialed actuary. I think lawyers are a problematic case. With most professions you can go to court if the designated gatekeepers are acting in an illegal or unethical fashion. The state Bar association, on the other hand, is going to be nearly impossible to fight for anyone who plans on making a living as an attorney. So, while I do support the goal of ensuring a base level of competence for a professional that may be the only thing standing between you and a jail cell, I am deeply concerned about the current mechanism for achieving that goal. The completely free market leaves too much blood on the floor for my taste to be worth considering as a solution.

The Right to Work

27 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

wendroid 17y ago

Full employment is a threat, not a promise.

idoh 17y ago
What does that mean?
- dazzawazza 17y ago
  When threatened it means labour camps, when promised it is (unfortunately) a lie?

imgabe 17y ago

So, in this brave new license-less world, how would we ever get any new doctors? Who is going to recommend a doctor he's never used before? If a charlatan sets himself up as a doctor, how many people have to die under is care before word gets around that he's really no good? Maybe florists are taking it a bit far, but it's easy to see a yoga instructor could cause someone serious injury if they didn't know what they were doing. Even interior designers have to know about things like egress paths or they could end up creating a space that becomes a deathtrap in the event of a fire.

genki 17y ago
I notice the article didn't mention anything about engineers, either. Licensing doesn't make sense in every industry, but when people's lives depend on someone doing their job right, I think it's fair to require that someone demonstrate a minimum level of skill.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Engineering is mostly critical because it is optimized for cost. If cost wouldn't be such a major factor in construction then 'rule of thumb' and 'overkill' would be valid ways to get around having the knowledge to get an exact answer. In olden times it was customary for the designer of an arch to stand under the arch when the construction scaffolding was removed. This quickly eliminated those that were not capable of constructing stuff that held up, even if it led to some constructions that were probably more solid than they had to be for their designed use. On the other hand, that's why we can still marvel at some of this stuff today.
wooster 17y ago
Funny you should mention that, as the doctor shortage in the US is at least partially caused by lobbying by the AMA: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shorta...
SamAtt 17y ago
I don't think he ever called for a "license-free" world he simply pointed out that skilled people who don't have them shouldn't be prohibited from working in a field if someone wants to hire them. I don't endorse a world without licenses either but I'd point out that the world got by just fine without them for centuries using apprenticeships and if my doctor retired and told me "I trained this person and he's who I'd suggest you go to" I'd take that recommendation a lot more seriously than I'd take a medical license.
jeffcoat 17y ago
Presumably, people would bootstrap themselves into careers in pretty much the same way they do now. Of the top of my head ... 1) Working with (or interning with) someone reputable, and getting their public stamp of approval. 2) Certification agencies won't suddenly cease to exist; they just wouldn't have any force of law. Nothing would stop you from refusing to see a dentist who isn't certified by the ADA, just like nothing stops you today from buying a toaster that's not certified by Underwriters Labs. 3) Speaking of underwriting, insurance companies have an enormous incentive to only insure competent people. etc.
bobbin 17y ago
it's not about a system without licenses, the problem is the violence involved in them. If someone wants to give flower licenses that's fine. The problem starts when they start to claim the right to take your business from you if you don't have it. Or give you a fine. Or lock you in a cage if you don't pay the fine. Of course the issue is more complex in cases of life and death, or just injury. My point is that it's necessary to consider what does a licensing monopoly entail. It entrails a group of people claiming the right to administer punishment backed by violence. I know there are a lot of good objections to what I wrote, so many I can't address them all. I wanted it to point out the monopolistic and violent nature of government enforced licensing, not because it closes the issue, but because it's essential to understand this when speaking about the issue and contrasting that with voluntary, non coercive forms of licensing and quality control.
- ZachPruckowski 17y ago
  The role of government is to protect the liberty and general welfare of the American public[1]. This involves trade-offs. For instance, I give up the right to drive over 65 miles per hour on the highway in order to protect the safety of everyone else on or near that highway. It sucks that I can't drive as fast as I want to, and it's an affront to my liberty that's enforced with violence (cops will throw me in jail if I drive recklessly or persistently speed), but the government decided that that loss of liberty is less important than the damage to the general welfare if everyone can go as fast as they want (more car crashes and deaths). Sometimes, the trade goes the other way. If we banned fast food, the general welfare would improve greatly. But the government (and ultimately the people who elected the government) decided that the resulting loss in liberty would be too great to justify. In this instance, people lose liberty when they're restricted from holding certain professions[2] without licenses. But the general welfare is improved because now people can trust that their doctors and lawyers meet a certain level of quality[3] as determined by the state. The government weighed the lost liberty and the gained welfare, and made a judgment call. If we don't like that judgment call, we can vote for candidates who see things the other way (or donate to legislators who agree with your position, or start a grassroots organization and convince people). [1] - There's also "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence", but those aren't in conflict in these examples. Government policy still regularly makes trade-offs between them. [2] - strictly speaking, you can own a law firm or doctor's office without a license, you just can't practice law/medicine. [3] - whether licensing tests are great reflections of ability or knowledge is beyond the scope of this comment.

wooster 17y ago

I feel like I've read this article in Reason before. http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/09/flower-power http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/09/flower-power

Semiapies 17y ago
Nothing's actually changed since then.

ZachPruckowski 17y ago

In the absence of state licenses, how does one prevent license mills? Right now, there are "colleges" (Diploma/Degree Mills) that will hand you a B.A. or B.S. or Associate's degree based on "life experiences". You write them a nice letter about why you think you deserve the degree, wrap it around a $1000 check, and you get your diploma in 6-8 weeks. If we abandon state-run license boards for professions like doctors, lawyers, or architects, then within a few months anyone will be able to pay a few grand to hang up a "Joe Schmoe, Attorney at Law" shingle in front of his office. The end result will be a lot of confusion for consumers, because unless a consumer's able to do hours of research, determining which licensure boards have sufficiently rigorous standards will be an impossible task.

marshallp 17y ago
By things such as group purchases or consumer reports. There's no accredition board telling you which stock to buy, must people just let their mutual fund decide.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - marshallp 17y ago
    I think mutual funds shouldn't be licenses either, it just introduces friction in the system. Even then, they're not licensed in the same way. It only takes a small exam, not years of graduate school.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
bobbin 17y ago
Let's say there are no state licenses, and you need a doctor, so you go to a hospital. Would you be concerned about the quality of the doctor? Would you be the only one to feel that way? Would a hospital who is capable of addressing those concerns be more successful than one incapable of doing so? Would you as a training doctor be concerned of the public prestige of your license? Would you as a doctor be willing to work in a place who hasn't justified or proved its quality to the public? of course these questions don't answer your main concern, but you post assumes in the absence of a government monopoly in licensing, people would be incapable of creating quality control. There's a tendency to imagine a transition period and think it would be unsolvable because you can't think how it could be solved.

dwiel 17y ago

This reminds me of a friend of mine who has worked in the city department for years and spends his free time reading law. Despite that experience, he can't be a lawyer in Indiana and advise based on this knowledge without going to college first, no matter if he can pass the Bar exam or not.

detcader 17y ago

"John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network." I was willing to humor Reason, but I won't humor Rupert.

AngryParsley 17y ago
"The world's greatest fool may say the Sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out." -- Robert Pirsig
Semiapies 17y ago
Understandable reaction, but Stossel is at least an alternative to the red-meat GOP partisans in the Fox news media. I was sad when they got rid of Radley Balko awhile back - he used his time working for Fox writing about misuse of force by the police and the failings of the drug war and thus explaining them to people who wouldn't have come across those realities.

owinebarger 17y ago

I expected an article decrying unions, but found one decrying the licensing of doctors and lawyers. To use the case of florist licensing to condemn all licensing is an egregious leap. In general I believe it is sound policy to license professions where the ordinary consumer of their services cannot be expected to know how to judge their quality. Highly specialized professions dealing with the general public such as doctors and lawyers are obvious candidates. For the actuarial profession, you might argue that the hiring companies should be sufficiently sophisticated to judge their competence without formal credentialing. The hidden consumer in this case are the insurance regulators and the public relying on them. And, in fact, companies don't always require credentials in actuarial roles, but regulators won't accept annual statements without a supporting statement from a properly credentialed actuary. I think lawyers are a problematic case. With most professions you can go to court if the designated gatekeepers are acting in an illegal or unethical fashion. The state Bar association, on the other hand, is going to be nearly impossible to fight for anyone who plans on making a living as an attorney. So, while I do support the goal of ensuring a base level of competence for a professional that may be the only thing standing between you and a jail cell, I am deeply concerned about the current mechanism for achieving that goal. The completely free market leaves too much blood on the floor for my taste to be worth considering as a solution.