4 ms·

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

by 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.

by imgabe 17y ago

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.