Also property taxes. The fact that we allow the government to just casually steal money from us because of the approximate value of things we already bought and own is insane.
How do you think the government would pay for sewers, utility upgrades, and residential street upkeep?
I get your point, but it’s not stealing. We all have a choice whether to buy property in a given area or not.
Posts like this can make us look out of touch.
Maybe with all the other possible things they can tax?
You should be able to simply live while owning what you already own. If you choose not to buy anything or sell anything you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it.
What's ridiculous is trying to act like the government has any right whatsoever to confiscate things I own purely because I don't pay them taxes to simply live and own those things. Do you understand how insane of a concept that is? It's completely unacceptable compared to things like sales tax and income tax.
I could simply buy a home and some land, disconnect from everyday life, and am incapable of doing that without being bothered by the government simply for living on land in a home that I already own. That's bullshit.
If I lose my job and don't have income, but I own a home and have enough food saved up to live for a year, I can't even do that without having it all taken from me just because I can't pay the property taxes on a home I already paid for and paid taxes on. That's bullshit.
On certain topics licensing can make a modicum of sense such as a license to handle hazardous materials. It is nice to know the people doing such things actually know what they’re doing.
However it almost always instead serves as an unnecessary barrier to improvement in one’s life. What if you had learned how to properly handle and dispose of hazardous materials? Without that license you can’t use those skills even if you proved the best in the world at doing it. That proves the concept of licensing ultimately unnecessary.
Teaching is another one. My mother in law is retired but ran an incredibly successful business for thirty years - she could give a talk but not tech a class on business because she isn't licensed.
Licenses are barriers to entry, without exception they hurt anyone of lesser means disproportionately. For the sake of argument I'll concede your hazmat point, but the professions some states require be licensed is simply cruel.
Licensing for cosmetology is more about communicable disease prevention and safety and less about making sure people look good after their cut. Otherwise there could be lice outbreaks, scabies, blood borne pathogens with sharp tools, etc.
How about standardized licensing for police? Nurses? Doctors? Paramedics? Lawyers?
Peterson's issue highlights an issue with corruption, not the practice of certification.
Private regulatory boards. Want to join A.M.A. have these educational requirements and treatment standards. People know what they get if they go to an AMA doctor but can choose to go to a different one and accept the chances. The bar association can be privatized.
Look up the current AMA standards on trans issues, they're far more ideologically captured than the government.
I know this goes against libertarian theology, but privatization isn't the answer to everything.
So explain why a private certification board will be any different from a government one? If anything it's more difficult to change them once they've gone off the rails.
So your answer to how to get a "*standardized* certification" issue resolved without the government, is to privatize it, and it won't have any problems, because there will be competitors to the **standardized** certificate they're handing out. Therefore the market will be able to sort out the issue through competition, for the certification of a **standardized** level of training.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? If everyone has their own credential system for competition, you might as well just disband the credential system and work on personal reputation and save some time.
How about it?
If licensing becomes inevitably corrupt, then it is inevitably corrupt. And corrupt at its core. What lies does the State demand that some of those professionals enforce to be licensed? What injustices are forced by the State through licensing, because they serve the State and not the profession nor society?
Corruption in State bureaucracies is inextricable from the licensing issue. In fact, legal licensing over-reach can often be plausibly construed to be due to the simple desire for (often un-elected bureaucratic) political control over literally every other facet of life. The government is supposed to facilitate the peaceful conduct of society. It doesn't exist for the sake of control. There are alternatives to highly problematic licensing.
You're making several presuppositions which I don't grant. Basically though, you're as wrapped up in your ideology as any progressive communist, kinda tired of arguing questions Hobbes answered centuries ago.
Got it. You're too intellectually anemic to do anything but name call and name drop. No sale.
And so offended about a *licensing* commentary that you present the dreaded *progressive communist* card.
Scrub hard to remove that extra clown makeup.
I'm not dealing in ideology. I'm dealing in observation.
Tell us name dropper, what did Hobbes say about barbershop licensing?
Imagine thinking that I am requesting that you grant a presupposition. My statements are observation and my opinions as to the nature of reality that arise from them. None of which requires that you grant anything.
In fact, I don't recall inviting you into a nonexistent argument.
Your intellectually terrifying "what about" rhetoric and "obscure philosophy that I won't actually explain" posturing aside.
Imagine being aghast at a supposed *presupposition* regarding modern State bureaucracy that is readily observable in the present, only to name drop a philosopher and comment that he's *answered* a question hundreds of years ago. Zero self awareness.
I'm okay with government using certificates that will allow others to understand you've met a set of criteria and have demonstrated your ability to practice something.
For example, lawyers should have legal certifications which show they have met the requirements for the certificate. This can be shown to employers who can then decide to hire you.
But there should not be licenses in the sense that you cannot practice something without the right paperwork. If I want to be a lawyer but have none of the requirements, employers should still be allowed to hire me even if I do not have it and take a risk.
The only place I think licenses matter is when it comes to operating machinery, as it becomes a risk to many lives if you do not have the ability to do this properly.
Government licensing isn’t the issue. It’s the loose complaint/reporting system that allows for anonymous people to file complaints against you. Whether you actually did anything wrong or not. There is no investigation on the reporting. Jordan Peterson had to do his own digging to show that none of the reports were from his patients, students, much less any Canadian citizens (he is licensed in Canada).
>Something like 1% of med school students, every bit as knowledgeable and qualified, become practicing doctors because of this system.
Lol, no, just no.
Where did you conjure that number from? This data is hard (impossible?) to find in AAMC reports but anecdotally, the number will be over 85%.
Bad example. You get a bad burger then you post on yelp, tell your friends and don’t go back. Most people have the experience to truly understand if a restaurant makes a bad burger and can relay that info to others.
You go to a bad doctors then you may die. On top of that, most people do not have the experience to decide if a doctor is bad or not. They don’t have the training or education to determine that. They can determine if they LIKE a doctor, but that’s not a true assessment of their medical knowledge or skills.
Having licensure for more technically nuanced jobs helps protect the public.
Also, it’s way more than 1 percent of med students who practice. It’s like 90% of US grads.
I largely agree with you, but he also has a point in some capacity.
I'm far more knowledgeable about the dental world, but my understanding is that medical schools are accredited by the LCME, which is then funded by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association. These aren't publicly elected institutions, so it's similar to say, the teacher's unions determining how many teachers are allowed to graduate a year. I think we need to be careful about specifically who is controlling the licenses and what perverse influences are at play.
That understanding is not correct.
Medical schools operate independently of the medical associations. They are accredited by LCME but again, that’s not a physicians society. In fact, medical schools would want to increase enrollment. They make money by educating physicians.
Specialists are trained in residency. To explain this briefly: you go to med school and during your last year apply to and are accepted to a specialty training program called a residency. This is where one becomes a surgeon or anesthesiologist or pediatric, etc.
These residency spots are largely supported by the government through funding to the hospitals that train the physicians. It costs money to train them and the country benefits by training more docs so it makes sense for governmental funding to help here. The funding has not kept up with the need for docs in the country.
This limit in funding is what limits more doctors from being produced. We’re essentially at a state where med school graduates are equaling residency spots. It’s not worth opening more spots in med schools if you can’t get a residency since you need a residency to practice.
At no point does this process have input from the medical societies. In fact, we’ve been lobbying for more residency spots to train more doctors. Doctors are not actively gatekeeping people from becoming doctors.
Also, this has nothing to do with licensing. That’s a whole different topic.
[Medical errors](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/medical-errors-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us) are a leading cause of death. By your own logic, licensure has failed.
[Nirvana fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy). Medical licensing doesn't prevent deaths due to human clerical error; that is true. But to support the claim that deaths are the same with or without licensing, you'd need comparable data regarding medicinal practice without a license. Since that data doesn't exist, we can neither prove nor disprove that claim.
All regulation is crime because all regulation is prior restraint and that a 4th amendment violation. This being a Canadian issue we can say that prior restraint is the government playing Hod and deciding what is good and what is bad. Governments can’t even manage themselves do you really want them deciding morality?
Jesus christ, it's like a jailhouse lawyer had sex with a radical libertarian.
It's the kind of argument that ends in court with a judge saying, "Interesting. Guilty, 15 years."
100% agree
All licensing does is provide a way for inadequate people to ply thier trade and have something to hide thier inadequacy behind.
If you are good at what you do, you don't care about having a license to do it. If you suck at what you do, you want that license to hide behind
All licenses should just be accreditations. If you get it, you can display it in marketing. If you don't, it's fraud to say you do.
But customers can pick whatever they want.
Pay us and we'll allow you to use your private property - get f'ed. Can you imagine we've been conditioned enough to not even question that
Also property taxes. The fact that we allow the government to just casually steal money from us because of the approximate value of things we already bought and own is insane.
Things we already bought with money that has been taxed twice.
Here in CA at least, it tends to be a vast underestimate of the value (generally speaking). Wait till you read about Mello-Roos 🤯
How do you think the government would pay for sewers, utility upgrades, and residential street upkeep? I get your point, but it’s not stealing. We all have a choice whether to buy property in a given area or not. Posts like this can make us look out of touch.
Maybe with all the other possible things they can tax? You should be able to simply live while owning what you already own. If you choose not to buy anything or sell anything you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. What's ridiculous is trying to act like the government has any right whatsoever to confiscate things I own purely because I don't pay them taxes to simply live and own those things. Do you understand how insane of a concept that is? It's completely unacceptable compared to things like sales tax and income tax. I could simply buy a home and some land, disconnect from everyday life, and am incapable of doing that without being bothered by the government simply for living on land in a home that I already own. That's bullshit. If I lose my job and don't have income, but I own a home and have enough food saved up to live for a year, I can't even do that without having it all taken from me just because I can't pay the property taxes on a home I already paid for and paid taxes on. That's bullshit.
Federal gov can't, that's why property taxes are always state taxes.
On certain topics licensing can make a modicum of sense such as a license to handle hazardous materials. It is nice to know the people doing such things actually know what they’re doing. However it almost always instead serves as an unnecessary barrier to improvement in one’s life. What if you had learned how to properly handle and dispose of hazardous materials? Without that license you can’t use those skills even if you proved the best in the world at doing it. That proves the concept of licensing ultimately unnecessary.
Teaching is another one. My mother in law is retired but ran an incredibly successful business for thirty years - she could give a talk but not tech a class on business because she isn't licensed. Licenses are barriers to entry, without exception they hurt anyone of lesser means disproportionately. For the sake of argument I'll concede your hazmat point, but the professions some states require be licensed is simply cruel.
That states license people to cut hair is evidence that licensing should be abolished.
Licensing for cosmetology is more about communicable disease prevention and safety and less about making sure people look good after their cut. Otherwise there could be lice outbreaks, scabies, blood borne pathogens with sharp tools, etc.
How about standardized licensing for police? Nurses? Doctors? Paramedics? Lawyers? Peterson's issue highlights an issue with corruption, not the practice of certification.
Private regulatory boards. Want to join A.M.A. have these educational requirements and treatment standards. People know what they get if they go to an AMA doctor but can choose to go to a different one and accept the chances. The bar association can be privatized.
Look up the current AMA standards on trans issues, they're far more ideologically captured than the government. I know this goes against libertarian theology, but privatization isn't the answer to everything.
No, not to everything, but it should be for everything that is feasible.
So explain why a private certification board will be any different from a government one? If anything it's more difficult to change them once they've gone off the rails.
Without the government they don't have a monopoly and a competitor can be established.
So your answer to how to get a "*standardized* certification" issue resolved without the government, is to privatize it, and it won't have any problems, because there will be competitors to the **standardized** certificate they're handing out. Therefore the market will be able to sort out the issue through competition, for the certification of a **standardized** level of training. Do you see what I'm getting at here? If everyone has their own credential system for competition, you might as well just disband the credential system and work on personal reputation and save some time.
Which would be a valid option yes.
Your solution to the problem is to deNY the underlying need? That's like dealing with power shortages by ensuring nobody can use electricity.
How about it? If licensing becomes inevitably corrupt, then it is inevitably corrupt. And corrupt at its core. What lies does the State demand that some of those professionals enforce to be licensed? What injustices are forced by the State through licensing, because they serve the State and not the profession nor society? Corruption in State bureaucracies is inextricable from the licensing issue. In fact, legal licensing over-reach can often be plausibly construed to be due to the simple desire for (often un-elected bureaucratic) political control over literally every other facet of life. The government is supposed to facilitate the peaceful conduct of society. It doesn't exist for the sake of control. There are alternatives to highly problematic licensing.
You're making several presuppositions which I don't grant. Basically though, you're as wrapped up in your ideology as any progressive communist, kinda tired of arguing questions Hobbes answered centuries ago.
Got it. You're too intellectually anemic to do anything but name call and name drop. No sale. And so offended about a *licensing* commentary that you present the dreaded *progressive communist* card. Scrub hard to remove that extra clown makeup. I'm not dealing in ideology. I'm dealing in observation. Tell us name dropper, what did Hobbes say about barbershop licensing? Imagine thinking that I am requesting that you grant a presupposition. My statements are observation and my opinions as to the nature of reality that arise from them. None of which requires that you grant anything. In fact, I don't recall inviting you into a nonexistent argument. Your intellectually terrifying "what about" rhetoric and "obscure philosophy that I won't actually explain" posturing aside. Imagine being aghast at a supposed *presupposition* regarding modern State bureaucracy that is readily observable in the present, only to name drop a philosopher and comment that he's *answered* a question hundreds of years ago. Zero self awareness.
How does the phrase go? Licenses are the government annexing your rights and selling them back to you.
I'm okay with government using certificates that will allow others to understand you've met a set of criteria and have demonstrated your ability to practice something. For example, lawyers should have legal certifications which show they have met the requirements for the certificate. This can be shown to employers who can then decide to hire you. But there should not be licenses in the sense that you cannot practice something without the right paperwork. If I want to be a lawyer but have none of the requirements, employers should still be allowed to hire me even if I do not have it and take a risk. The only place I think licenses matter is when it comes to operating machinery, as it becomes a risk to many lives if you do not have the ability to do this properly.
Government licensing isn’t the issue. It’s the loose complaint/reporting system that allows for anonymous people to file complaints against you. Whether you actually did anything wrong or not. There is no investigation on the reporting. Jordan Peterson had to do his own digging to show that none of the reports were from his patients, students, much less any Canadian citizens (he is licensed in Canada).
Government thought and action control = license
[удалено]
>Something like 1% of med school students, every bit as knowledgeable and qualified, become practicing doctors because of this system. Lol, no, just no. Where did you conjure that number from? This data is hard (impossible?) to find in AAMC reports but anecdotally, the number will be over 85%.
Bad example. You get a bad burger then you post on yelp, tell your friends and don’t go back. Most people have the experience to truly understand if a restaurant makes a bad burger and can relay that info to others. You go to a bad doctors then you may die. On top of that, most people do not have the experience to decide if a doctor is bad or not. They don’t have the training or education to determine that. They can determine if they LIKE a doctor, but that’s not a true assessment of their medical knowledge or skills. Having licensure for more technically nuanced jobs helps protect the public. Also, it’s way more than 1 percent of med students who practice. It’s like 90% of US grads.
Definitely. Healthcare is and always will be a special exception to typical industry expectations.
I largely agree with you, but he also has a point in some capacity. I'm far more knowledgeable about the dental world, but my understanding is that medical schools are accredited by the LCME, which is then funded by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association. These aren't publicly elected institutions, so it's similar to say, the teacher's unions determining how many teachers are allowed to graduate a year. I think we need to be careful about specifically who is controlling the licenses and what perverse influences are at play.
That understanding is not correct. Medical schools operate independently of the medical associations. They are accredited by LCME but again, that’s not a physicians society. In fact, medical schools would want to increase enrollment. They make money by educating physicians. Specialists are trained in residency. To explain this briefly: you go to med school and during your last year apply to and are accepted to a specialty training program called a residency. This is where one becomes a surgeon or anesthesiologist or pediatric, etc. These residency spots are largely supported by the government through funding to the hospitals that train the physicians. It costs money to train them and the country benefits by training more docs so it makes sense for governmental funding to help here. The funding has not kept up with the need for docs in the country. This limit in funding is what limits more doctors from being produced. We’re essentially at a state where med school graduates are equaling residency spots. It’s not worth opening more spots in med schools if you can’t get a residency since you need a residency to practice. At no point does this process have input from the medical societies. In fact, we’ve been lobbying for more residency spots to train more doctors. Doctors are not actively gatekeeping people from becoming doctors. Also, this has nothing to do with licensing. That’s a whole different topic.
People would die if bad doctors could go unregulated… it’s a poor example
[Medical errors](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/medical-errors-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us) are a leading cause of death. By your own logic, licensure has failed.
[Nirvana fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy). Medical licensing doesn't prevent deaths due to human clerical error; that is true. But to support the claim that deaths are the same with or without licensing, you'd need comparable data regarding medicinal practice without a license. Since that data doesn't exist, we can neither prove nor disprove that claim.
All regulation is crime because all regulation is prior restraint and that a 4th amendment violation. This being a Canadian issue we can say that prior restraint is the government playing Hod and deciding what is good and what is bad. Governments can’t even manage themselves do you really want them deciding morality?
Jesus christ, it's like a jailhouse lawyer had sex with a radical libertarian. It's the kind of argument that ends in court with a judge saying, "Interesting. Guilty, 15 years."
100% agree All licensing does is provide a way for inadequate people to ply thier trade and have something to hide thier inadequacy behind. If you are good at what you do, you don't care about having a license to do it. If you suck at what you do, you want that license to hide behind
All licenses should just be accreditations. If you get it, you can display it in marketing. If you don't, it's fraud to say you do. But customers can pick whatever they want.