Re: LOCKSMITH'S GUILD WANTS L

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) wrote:

> Again, I'm not claiming anything about PGP making conventional doctors
> obsolete. Just the increased freedom of a wide range of services to be
> negotiated electronically, without benefit of official guild approvals.
>
> (This is an actual concern the professional organizations have. They worry
> about online medical diagnoses, about "unlicensed" consultants, and about
> data bases over which they have no jurisdiction.)

I certainly agree with your implication, that professional groups can
and sometimes do use licensing to restrain trade, with an eye toward
feathering their own nests.

But I don't buy your other implication, that it is a Good Thing to
unleash the unlicensed.  Licensing serves, or should serve, a public
good under the following conditions:  (a) consumers don't have the
information necessary to make an informed choice between professionals,
and (b) it is pretty fucking important that the job be done right.
Doesn't make any sense to license those who program video games.  DOES
make sense to license those who design skyscrapers.

Now, there are ways to alleviate the consumer's lack of knowledge.  In
my former racket (professional nursing), there is a lot of talk about
benchmarking:  comparing patient outcomes at different hospitals and
publicizing the results.  Market forces could then react to a nice,
measurable reputation.  But what about new, untested, solo
practitioners?  What about the architect whose buildings are all going
to fall down, ten years from now?  Even with well-publicized
reputations, the consumer doesn't have the necessary information to keep
from getting hurt.  In those circumstances, it's useful to have
standards, and a trusted public agency that certifies a person meets the
standards.

- --
______________________________________________________________________
Don Doumakes             Finger doumakes@netcom.com for PGP public key

Foxpro databases built to your specifications.  Email me for details.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBLyWC1xtumcu2AjihAQGnRAP/UYqpg7gUpAyt7CMHgAUSApGHi9AFOJON
UPns4os25F2B7op0uCdOQibbTJTUO5cjcDnpZ1VoYD00dFVN64IhoL/vYasoI1LV
xm/grDW2bd4NKfOIYvbdYYwp8/BxtvCp9p8fGNksmHyWBPV017qieEo2rTHxuOWM
lLwwSQYPp4o=
=TW+P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Don Doumakes wrote:
 
> But I don't buy your other implication, that it is a Good Thing to
> unleash the unlicensed.  Licensing serves, or should serve, a public
> good under the following conditions:  (a) consumers don't have the
> information necessary to make an informed choice between professionals,
> and ....

This assumes that governments have the necessary wisdom
to tell a bad architect from a good architect.   This does
not seem very plausible.

What most people would do is look at the certificate issued by
various certifying organizations  -- for example the doctores
university.

While universities often issue or refrain from issuing certificates
for corrupt and improper reasons, government supervision on this 
matter is unlikely to keep them honest --- indeed it is more likely
to force them to be dishonest, or to force them to deny their own
sound judgment in favor of arbitrary and foolish criteria imposed
by some ignorant and arrogant bureaucrat.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          |  
We have the right to defend ourselves     |   http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind     |  
of animals that we are. True law          |   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the     |  
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.  |   jamesd@netcom.com

On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, James A. Donald wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Don Doumakes wrote:
>  
> > But I don't buy your other implication, that it is a Good Thing to
> > unleash the unlicensed.  Licensing serves, or should serve, a public
> > good under the following conditions:  (a) consumers don't have the
> > information necessary to make an informed choice between professionals,
> > and ....
> 
> This assumes that governments have the necessary wisdom
> to tell a bad architect from a good architect.   This does
> not seem very plausible.
> 
> What most people would do is look at the certificate issued by
> various certifying organizations  -- for example the doctores
> university.
> 
> While universities often issue or refrain from issuing certificates
> for corrupt and improper reasons, government supervision on this 
> matter is unlikely to keep them honest --- indeed it is more likely
> to force them to be dishonest, or to force them to deny their own
> sound judgment in favor of arbitrary and foolish criteria imposed
> by some ignorant and arrogant bureaucrat.
> 

So....once we get past what seems to be your utter refusal to consider 
the possibility that government could ever do anything right ....how do 
we ensure that those skyscrapers don't fall down on us?  That the surgeon 
who is going to open me up knows something about surgery?  That my money 
is at least somewhat safe in the bank?

If you are willing to trust your life to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', 
then good luck to you.  I prefer to see the hand out on the table.

Charles Bell

On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, James A. Donald wrote:
> > While universities often issue or refrain from issuing certificates
> > for corrupt and improper reasons, government supervision on this 
> > matter is unlikely to keep them honest --- indeed it is more likely
> > to force them to be dishonest, or to force them to deny their own
> > sound judgment in favor of arbitrary and foolish criteria imposed
> > by some ignorant and arrogant bureaucrat.

On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Charles Bell wrote:
> So....once we get past what seems to be your utter refusal to consider 
> the possibility that government could ever do anything right ....how do 
> we ensure that those skyscrapers don't fall down on us?  That the surgeon 
> who is going to open me up knows something about surgery?  That my money 
> is at least somewhat safe in the bank?

Why, we have the credentials and audits of these organizations and
individuals checked by a being of godlike wisdom far superior
to that of us ordinary mortals -- namely that god on earth,
the government.

What makes you assume that guns make people wise and virtuous?

Common sense and casual observation does not support this hypothesis.

I recommend you read the excellent book on free banking
sold by Laissez Faire:  I do not remember their web
site, but I have a pointer to them in my home page. (see sig)

It details the sorry tale of government supervision of banks --
which invariably had the effect of the state governments robbing
the banks, or protecting well connected crooks who robbed the
banks.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          |  
We have the right to defend ourselves     |   http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind     |  
of animals that we are. True law          |   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the     |  
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.  |   jamesd@netcom.com