3 ms·

Then go to one that has some kind of recommendation or badge of acupuncture quality. Why should the government do that?

by Aerroon 5y ago

handrous 5y ago
Because then you need an acupuncture badge quality quality badge, and so on.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  That implies that we currently need QA organizations who rate government licensure schemes on their accuracy and informativeness. How often have you checked for those? You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme. I mean, the key difference is that with a market solution you're policing one market with another that's even harder for consumers to evaluate than the first one, and consumer choice is what (supposedly) keeps markets in check, so all you've accomplished is making the situation worse. At least using government changes the mechanism by which we apply pressure to the regulators, and their incentives, rather than presenting a worse version of the same thing, so it has the potential to be an improvement.
bastawhiz 5y ago
Because a private individual or organization has no incentive to create a certification that ensures my safety. Their incentive is profit. The whole point of a government is to have a group unmotivated by profit, whose interests are its citizens. You cannot hold someone accountable without a government, because otherwise there's no way to create consequences. Having a private certification authority only adds a layer of indirection.
_Nat_ 5y ago
> Why should the government do that? Free-market dynamics require a lot of intellectual overhead. For example, in a theoretical world with unbound computation and information-sharing, all stocks on the stock-market should be perfectly priced, and all doctors should be of known qualities. And all of those supplements in the pharmacy should be of known effect, and priced perfectly given that knowledge. But in more limited contexts, where folks don't have infinite free information and computation, centralized authorities can help provide standards. For example, if you go to a licensed medical-doctor, then you may not know their exact quality, but at least you can generally infer that they're competent enough that the state hasn't yanked their license. Ditto for most other licensed professions. Anyway, to answer your question: the government does it because it's too costly for everyone to do it themselves. When that changes -- this is, when consumers start to acquire a level of knowledge where they can make informed decisions and find government regulation stifling rather than helpful -- then they petition the government to change in response to such new circumstances.
- specialist 5y ago
  Yes and: > intellectual overhead aka transaction costs. Licensing, credentials, certification are just the cost of doing business. Open markets are built on transparency, accountability, fair rules, impartial referees, etc. Sure, it all sucks. The alternative is worse.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
I dunno, why does government do fire safety?

Then go to one that has some kind of recommendation or badge of acupuncture quality. Why should the government do that?

handrous 5y ago

Because then you need an acupuncture badge quality quality badge, and so on.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
That implies that we currently need QA organizations who rate government licensure schemes on their accuracy and informativeness. How often have you checked for those? You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme.
- handrous 5y ago
  > You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme. I mean, the key difference is that with a market solution you're policing one market with another that's even harder for consumers to evaluate than the first one, and consumer choice is what (supposedly) keeps markets in check, so all you've accomplished is making the situation worse. At least using government changes the mechanism by which we apply pressure to the regulators, and their incentives, rather than presenting a worse version of the same thing, so it has the potential to be an improvement.

bastawhiz 5y ago

Because a private individual or organization has no incentive to create a certification that ensures my safety. Their incentive is profit. The whole point of a government is to have a group unmotivated by profit, whose interests are its citizens. You cannot hold someone accountable without a government, because otherwise there's no way to create consequences. Having a private certification authority only adds a layer of indirection.

_Nat_ 5y ago

> Why should the government do that? Free-market dynamics require a lot of intellectual overhead. For example, in a theoretical world with unbound computation and information-sharing, all stocks on the stock-market should be perfectly priced, and all doctors should be of known qualities. And all of those supplements in the pharmacy should be of known effect, and priced perfectly given that knowledge. But in more limited contexts, where folks don't have infinite free information and computation, centralized authorities can help provide standards. For example, if you go to a licensed medical-doctor, then you may not know their exact quality, but at least you can generally infer that they're competent enough that the state hasn't yanked their license. Ditto for most other licensed professions. Anyway, to answer your question: the government does it because it's too costly for everyone to do it themselves. When that changes -- this is, when consumers start to acquire a level of knowledge where they can make informed decisions and find government regulation stifling rather than helpful -- then they petition the government to change in response to such new circumstances.

specialist 5y ago
Yes and: > intellectual overhead aka transaction costs. Licensing, credentials, certification are just the cost of doing business. Open markets are built on transparency, accountability, fair rules, impartial referees, etc. Sure, it all sucks. The alternative is worse.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

I dunno, why does government do fire safety?