4 ms·

I think you're overlooking the cost of regulation and safety-first thinking on society as a whole. Especially as we have a wealth of recent examples as to why t

by donw 6y ago

I think you're overlooking the cost of regulation and safety-first thinking on society as a whole. Especially as we have a wealth of recent examples as to why the American regulatory regime has failed. Candidly, this attitude is precisely is how we got into the regulatory hell where we are now. In principle, I love the idea of licensing. I really do. Take a standardized, state-provided exam to show competence in some area where there is a compelling public interest for regulation, and this grants you the legal ability to exercise that skill. Want to practice medicine? Exam, plus some number of hours of supervised practice before you can treat patients independently. Note the complete lack of a schooling requirement -- if you can demonstrate the knowledge during examination, you should be permitted to apprentice under a licensed physician. In practice... this doesn't work, at least not right now. Americans as a whole no longer have any confidence in our regulatory frameworks, and rightly so, because they inevitably become weaponized against the very people they are supposed to safeguard, due to the combination of corporate lobbying, and a law enforcement system that rewards "finding and harshly punishing transgressions" over "serving the public interest" Imagine you want to open a restaurant. The way it should be is: take an exam to show that you understand how to safely prepare and serve food; have your kitchen, which could be in your home, inspected before you start operations; and at truly random intervals, an inspector will pop by to check in on things. The way it is: wade through months, if not years, of chasing down permits; buy expensive equipment mandated by constantly-changing laws pushed by massive corporate entities that can afford the compliance game; and deal with very-much-not-random inspection regime which can (practically) shut down your livelihood if you look at them funny. Until we fix oversight and our culture of punishment, we should be looking to remove regulations, not add more.

labster 6y ago
I like how you say we should remove regulations while at the same time proposing a new test, creating new methods for qualifying for a trade, and a different inspection regime. This is a good sign, though. What we really want is the right balance of regulations for safety that don’t favor large businesses too much but are easy for small business to follow. Apprenticing under a physician is a particularly poor example, given how much medical science changes in 20 years. Not to mention it makes it easier for quacks to reproduce. Instead, aim lower: cosmetology licensing. I think we can all agree that you don’t need months of training to cut someone’s hair. This is simply a protectionist guild.
- donw 6y ago
  > This is a good sign, though. What we really want is the right balance of regulations for safety that don’t favor large businesses too much but are easy for small business to follow. And individuals, but yes, exactly. > Apprenticing under a physician is a particularly poor example, given how much medical science changes in 20 years. Perhaps, but I think buried in there is a call for greater granularity. Imagine that you could easily train up to be a neighborhood medic for a small community. You'd be able to handle, say, 70% of common medical needs: run bloodwork, provide immediate trauma care, dispense prescriptions, etc., but can escalate via telepresence to a higher-ranked medical professional when you need to. And, with experience, you can move up the skill ladder. That's kind of where I was going. > I think we can all agree that you don’t need months of training to cut someone’s hair. Maybe? I'd want to know that whomever is cutting my hair is aware of head lice, and knows how to sterilize their equipment. Probably also some basic first aid training if they slip up and cut me. Months of training shouldn't be a requirement to get started, but there is a reasonable call for a base level of know-how. Definitely demands more thinking. :)
- duskwuff 6y ago
  > Instead, aim lower: cosmetology licensing. I think we can all agree that you don’t need months of training to cut someone’s hair. This is simply a protectionist guild. Maybe I'm just weird, but I'd rather that the person who's going to use a bunch of sharp instruments around my head to irrecoverably change my appearance for the next few months have some training on how to do that properly. That probably goes double for the people who are going to have them using a bunch of chemicals on their hair as well (hair dyes and bleaching, permanent wave, etc).

by donw 6y ago

labster 6y ago

I like how you say we should remove regulations while at the same time proposing a new test, creating new methods for qualifying for a trade, and a different inspection regime. This is a good sign, though. What we really want is the right balance of regulations for safety that don’t favor large businesses too much but are easy for small business to follow. Apprenticing under a physician is a particularly poor example, given how much medical science changes in 20 years. Not to mention it makes it easier for quacks to reproduce. Instead, aim lower: cosmetology licensing. I think we can all agree that you don’t need months of training to cut someone’s hair. This is simply a protectionist guild.

donw 6y ago
> This is a good sign, though. What we really want is the right balance of regulations for safety that don’t favor large businesses too much but are easy for small business to follow. And individuals, but yes, exactly. > Apprenticing under a physician is a particularly poor example, given how much medical science changes in 20 years. Perhaps, but I think buried in there is a call for greater granularity. Imagine that you could easily train up to be a neighborhood medic for a small community. You'd be able to handle, say, 70% of common medical needs: run bloodwork, provide immediate trauma care, dispense prescriptions, etc., but can escalate via telepresence to a higher-ranked medical professional when you need to. And, with experience, you can move up the skill ladder. That's kind of where I was going. > I think we can all agree that you don’t need months of training to cut someone’s hair. Maybe? I'd want to know that whomever is cutting my hair is aware of head lice, and knows how to sterilize their equipment. Probably also some basic first aid training if they slip up and cut me. Months of training shouldn't be a requirement to get started, but there is a reasonable call for a base level of know-how. Definitely demands more thinking. :)
duskwuff 6y ago
> Instead, aim lower: cosmetology licensing. I think we can all agree that you don’t need months of training to cut someone’s hair. This is simply a protectionist guild. Maybe I'm just weird, but I'd rather that the person who's going to use a bunch of sharp instruments around my head to irrecoverably change my appearance for the next few months have some training on how to do that properly. That probably goes double for the people who are going to have them using a bunch of chemicals on their hair as well (hair dyes and bleaching, permanent wave, etc).