4 ms·

This is an interesting argument. Do you have an alternative method in mind for aiding people to figure out who might be qualified to perform certain types of sk

by joeyo 17y ago

This is an interesting argument. Do you have an alternative method in mind for aiding people to figure out who might be qualified to perform certain types of skilled labor? For example, imagine that universities can no longer confer the noble title of medical doctor. How shall I determine who to select to remove my gallbladder?

johnnybgoode 17y ago
Yes, and I'm sure others will, too. For example, perhaps, after the barriers have been removed, a new school has popped up which has a better way of training doctors. They are allowed to teach in ways that were not allowed before. Doctors from this school go on to perform exceptionally well and have a proven track record. You hear about them from satisfied patients and ratings organizations (like Consumer Reports). Their medical procedures are insured by a company that also highly recommends them. You select one of them. Or, perhaps you prefer some sort of alternative medicine. Using whatever criteria you choose, you are allowed to have a procedure done regardless of whether or not your doctor has a title. After all, the majority is wrong sometimes.
- joeyo 17y ago
  It seems that all that this does is shift the effective grant of title of nobility from the university to Consumer Reports or to the insurance company or to Yelp-for-doctors.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    No, there are some very significant differences. First, there isn't any reason there would only be one ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp-for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the rating of any person or organization, and so would everyone else. Second (but related to the first difference), the main problem with a title of nobility is that it grants legal privileges, thereby erecting legal barriers for others. That doesn't happen in this scenario.
    - joeyo 17y ago
      > First, there isn't any reason there would only be one > ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp > for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the > rating of any person or organization, and so would > everyone else. This is true--at least at first. I suspect that whatever ratings mechanisms develop to fill the void, they would eventually coalesce into a single entity (or maybe a couple of entities with geographic specialties) that would, with time, come to enjoy de facto government sanction. This is one instance where I think most people don't actually want variety and choice. 100+ ratings organizations are useless if none of them have any data on the doctor in question (to continue with the physician example). So whichever ratings systems get an early lead would quickly dominate. And once they have achieved monopoly status they can shut out anyone who doesn't want to play ball with them. The general public can of course ignore these ratings, but they would do so at their own peril. (It's worth noting that you can already ignore the "ratings" of physicians and go see unlicensed doctors right now). Now, as for your point about eliminating the legal barriers to practice-- ie anyone can practice medicine-- while removing licensing would eliminate direct legal action (ie no going to jail for practicing medicine without a license) I think it would instead lead to increased civil suits. Consider: right now if a licensed physician is prone to malpractice or has other deficiencies they are forbidden from practicing. This can happen without anyone being actually harmed. On the other hand, if a physician gets bad ratings from yelp-for-doctors then they just need to find uninformed consumers or at least people who chose to disregard those ratings. When members of the public are inevitably harmed by poor doctoring they will have no legal recourse but to sue the doctor. True, they could avoid going to that particular doctor again, but the damage is already done. I'm not sure if we actually want more lawsuits to be brought against professionals-- it may end up making the cost of their services even more expensive than they are now, wiping out any cost savings from them not having to go to school and become licensed. I guess my point is that there is no free lunch: guilds and professional societies are ancient institutions and they enjoy legal status in recognition for the useful role that they have in serving society. It may be fun to speculate what would happen if they vanished but don't be surprised if the institutions that arise to replace them necessarily gain the properties of the original institutions.
      - 17y ago

by joeyo 17y ago

johnnybgoode 17y ago

Yes, and I'm sure others will, too. For example, perhaps, after the barriers have been removed, a new school has popped up which has a better way of training doctors. They are allowed to teach in ways that were not allowed before. Doctors from this school go on to perform exceptionally well and have a proven track record. You hear about them from satisfied patients and ratings organizations (like Consumer Reports). Their medical procedures are insured by a company that also highly recommends them. You select one of them. Or, perhaps you prefer some sort of alternative medicine. Using whatever criteria you choose, you are allowed to have a procedure done regardless of whether or not your doctor has a title. After all, the majority is wrong sometimes.

joeyo 17y ago
It seems that all that this does is shift the effective grant of title of nobility from the university to Consumer Reports or to the insurance company or to Yelp-for-doctors.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  No, there are some very significant differences. First, there isn't any reason there would only be one ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp-for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the rating of any person or organization, and so would everyone else. Second (but related to the first difference), the main problem with a title of nobility is that it grants legal privileges, thereby erecting legal barriers for others. That doesn't happen in this scenario.
  - joeyo 17y ago
    > First, there isn't any reason there would only be one > ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp > for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the > rating of any person or organization, and so would > everyone else. This is true--at least at first. I suspect that whatever ratings mechanisms develop to fill the void, they would eventually coalesce into a single entity (or maybe a couple of entities with geographic specialties) that would, with time, come to enjoy de facto government sanction. This is one instance where I think most people don't actually want variety and choice. 100+ ratings organizations are useless if none of them have any data on the doctor in question (to continue with the physician example). So whichever ratings systems get an early lead would quickly dominate. And once they have achieved monopoly status they can shut out anyone who doesn't want to play ball with them. The general public can of course ignore these ratings, but they would do so at their own peril. (It's worth noting that you can already ignore the "ratings" of physicians and go see unlicensed doctors right now). Now, as for your point about eliminating the legal barriers to practice-- ie anyone can practice medicine-- while removing licensing would eliminate direct legal action (ie no going to jail for practicing medicine without a license) I think it would instead lead to increased civil suits. Consider: right now if a licensed physician is prone to malpractice or has other deficiencies they are forbidden from practicing. This can happen without anyone being actually harmed. On the other hand, if a physician gets bad ratings from yelp-for-doctors then they just need to find uninformed consumers or at least people who chose to disregard those ratings. When members of the public are inevitably harmed by poor doctoring they will have no legal recourse but to sue the doctor. True, they could avoid going to that particular doctor again, but the damage is already done. I'm not sure if we actually want more lawsuits to be brought against professionals-- it may end up making the cost of their services even more expensive than they are now, wiping out any cost savings from them not having to go to school and become licensed. I guess my point is that there is no free lunch: guilds and professional societies are ancient institutions and they enjoy legal status in recognition for the useful role that they have in serving society. It may be fun to speculate what would happen if they vanished but don't be surprised if the institutions that arise to replace them necessarily gain the properties of the original institutions.
    - 17y ago