|
Post by Optimus on Apr 27, 2017 15:16:46 GMT -5
Don will love this one: In some cases, licenses are stupid and simply an absurd way for the government to extort collect money. If a person is involved in healthcare or law, I can see the rationale behind requiring certification of some sort, in order to protect people's well-being from charlatans and scam artists. A doctor needs to be licensed as do clinical psychologists and even lawyers. But, if you have a degree in engineering, and you work as an engineer, you're a freaking engineer and you should be able to call yourself that. Just like if you went to cosmetology school to become a hair dresser, you should be able to call yourself a hair dresser/cosmetologist without having to also apply for and pay for a license (Oh, yes. You have to be licensed to cut someone's fucking hair for $10 at Supercuts). Anyway, so the guy is suing for violating his freedom of speech and I hope he wins. The Oregon State Board is being petty and childish and their actions seem like nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate that they're relevant and not a mostly toothless extortion racket. Full story: ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenges-oregon-law-prohibiting-mathematical-criticism-without-license/
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 27, 2017 16:06:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I love that story, but let's not conflate certification and licensing. I think certification is a great idea. I think that lots of competing organizations should issue certifications, because those statements of competency are useful in selecting service providers or products that have undergone particular testing regimes, just like the USDA certifies meat and the UL Laboratories certify electrical products. If government limited itself to certifying competency, I'd be a much happier camper.
Licensing, OTOH, has been used far too often to prevent consumer choice, as this example illustrates. Hair-braiding has been another one in the news lately, and a significant number of states now license occupations like interior design, blocking anyone who doesn't have access to the appropriate Laputian climenole out of work.
Let the consumers decide whose certifications they trust and whose they don't. I know I'd much rather have alternative sources of certification for products from Big Pharma than a government agency that was long ago bought and paid for.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 27, 2017 16:24:01 GMT -5
What good is a certification if you still have figure out whether to trust it or not?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 27, 2017 19:10:41 GMT -5
What good is a certification if you still have figure out whether to trust it or not? Are you implying that licensing from a government agency is proof that the license-holder is automatically trustworthy, but a certification from a third party would not be? I'm more willing to put my trust in an organization whose revenue stream depends on properly vetting the performance of products and service providers than in an organization whose reward for poor performance is likely to be an increase in their budget and scope of operation in the next budget cycle. That's why I subscribe to Consumer Reports and look for UL-certified appliances. That's why FDA approval isn't sufficient for me to trust that a particular drug or food is good for me. YMMV, although the logic escapes me.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 27, 2017 19:26:38 GMT -5
What good is a certification if you still have figure out whether to trust it or not? Are you implying that licensing from a government agency is proof that the license-holder is automatically trustworthy, but a certification from a third party would not be? Uhhh.... no. I didn't mention licensing by a government agency at all. You said: Let the consumers decide whose certifications they trust and whose they don't. Yeah, the profit motive practically ensures trustworthiness. Why bother subscribing to Consumer Reports at all? The fact that some company made a product means they made it well because they want you as a lifelong customer.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 28, 2017 1:25:56 GMT -5
Are you implying that licensing from a government agency is proof that the license-holder is automatically trustworthy, but a certification from a third party would not be? Uhhh.... no. I didn't mention licensing by a government agency at all. You said: Let the consumers decide whose certifications they trust and whose they don't. Yeah, the profit motive practically ensures trustworthiness. Why bother subscribing to Consumer Reports at all? The fact that some company made a product means they made it well because they want you as a lifelong customer. All heat and no light is the way to burn things down, but it won't illuminate a way forward. So what's your solution? The status quo is obviously not working. You apparently think that increasing people's choices and removing monopoly gatekeepers from the system won't improve things, so what will? More stringent Economic Design? I guess we're back to "we just don't elect the right angels."
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 28, 2017 6:50:47 GMT -5
Uhhh.... no. I didn't mention licensing by a government agency at all. You said: Yeah, the profit motive practically ensures trustworthiness. Why bother subscribing to Consumer Reports at all? The fact that some company made a product means they made it well because they want you as a lifelong customer. All heat and no light is the way to burn things down, but it won't illuminate a way forward. So what's your solution? The status quo is obviously not working. You apparently think that increasing people's choices and removing monopoly gatekeepers from the system won't improve things, so what will? More stringent Economic Design? I guess we're back to "we just don't elect the right angels." I don't need to have a solution to point out the fallacies in yours. I don't need to be pro-government everything to object to your pro-free market everything approach. People are people, whether they're in government or free enterprise. My problem with most of your theories is that you tend to make angels out of those operating in the free market and demons out of those operating in government. Oh, and Consumer Reports is a nonprofit entity. So you can thank government for bestowing that special tax-free status on your trustworthy entity.(I took a look at their balance sheet - they have approximately $300 million parked in investment funds.) Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 28, 2017 7:27:18 GMT -5
I don't need to have a solution to point out the fallacies in yours. I don't need to be pro-government everything to object to your pro-free market everything approach. People are people, whether they're in government or free enterprise. My problem with most of your theories is that you tend to make angels out of those operating in the free market and demons out of those operating in government. Carry on. People are people, indeed. Handing some of them coercive control over others, the power to create monopolies, and the ability to dodge responsibility for their actions (as either a government agent or one protected by corporate privilege) is not going to turn them into infallible angels. They're the same people they were before, but with tremendous power they could not obtain voluntarily over people. It's specifically because I don't believe in ANY angels, government or free-market employed, that I think monopolies, government-restricted choices and the use of force to control people are bad things. Look, Herbert Spencer, one of the real, original liberals, explained all this over 150 years ago; of course, he doesn't get much play in the Economic Design classes these days. (Bolding mine) You can go on believing that demons anointed with government power suddenly become angels. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 28, 2017 7:41:06 GMT -5
Looky looky. Consumer Reports receives government grants, too.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 28, 2017 7:41:14 GMT -5
People are people, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 28, 2017 7:44:23 GMT -5
I don't need to have a solution to point out the fallacies in yours. I don't need to be pro-government everything to object to your pro-free market everything approach. People are people, whether they're in government or free enterprise. My problem with most of your theories is that you tend to make angels out of those operating in the free market and demons out of those operating in government. Carry on. People are people, indeed. Handing some of them coercive control over others, the power to create monopolies, and the ability to dodge responsibility for their actions (as either a government agent or one protected by corporate privilege) is not going to turn them into infallible angels. They're the same people they were before, but with tremendous power they could not obtain voluntarily over people. It's specifically because I don't believe in ANY angels, government or free-market employed, that I think monopolies, government-restricted choices and the use of force to control people are bad things. Look, Herbert Spencer, one of the real, original liberals, explained all this over 150 years ago; of course, he doesn't get much play in the Economic Design classes these days. (Bolding mine) You can go on believing that demons anointed with government power suddenly become angels. Good luck with that. Except, I never said that. And you specifically ignored part of my post. Feel free to ignore my second one, too. It will help your cognitive dissonance go away faster.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 28, 2017 11:10:33 GMT -5
I'm afraid you've lost me. I'm lost about what it was you never said, what I ignored, and which second one I should ignore.
Could you be a bit more specific?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 28, 2017 13:32:24 GMT -5
I'm afraid you've lost me. I'm lost about what it was you never said, what I ignored, and which second one I should ignore. Could you be a bit more specific? Sure thing. What it was I never said: You can go on believing that demons anointed with government power suddenly become angels. Good luck with that. What you ignored: Oh, and Consumer Reports is a nonprofit entity. So you can thank government for bestowing that special tax-free status on your trustworthy entity.(I took a look at their balance sheet - they have approximately $300 million parked in investment funds.) What you'll need to ignore: Looky looky. Consumer Reports receives government grants, too. You see, that entity, Consumer Reports, that you championed at the beginning of the conversation? They are recipients of the government privilege you rail about, and they are in part funded with money stolen from the American people at gunpoint. So, I dunno, you might want to cancel your subscription.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 28, 2017 14:34:20 GMT -5
So what? Who's not a recipient of some form of government privilege these days? Does that mean that I approve of government privilege? Does that negate any of the arguments made here? Does it make forced licensing good, and voluntary certification bad, or vice-versa? Does it make ordinary people good when they work for the government and evil when they work for themselves, or vice-versa? Does it negate Spencer's description, or the fact that bad people who get their hands on power over others are apt to abuse it?
What is it you think this proves?
It strikes me as a neener-neener, "so's your momma" argument.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 28, 2017 20:33:13 GMT -5
So what? Who's not a recipient of some form of government privilege these days? Lots of people? Apparently you are willing to overlook it in this case. Yes, specifically the one where you claimed that you put your faith in Consumer Reports, because they are operating under the free-market approach. I never compared the two. You did. I would like some of what you're smoking. I never claimed that bad people don't abuse power. No one ever argues that, FFS. That you're willing to ignore stuff you said a mere two weeks ago about nonprofit entities. (By the way, I tried to research the salary of the CEO of Consumer Reports. I couldn't find a number. But I read that they have a staff of around 600. Their total salaries in 2016 (including taxes and employee benefits) were $93 million. That comes out to $155k per employee. I wonder if more of that isn't concentrated at the top?) I don't have a problem with nonprofits, or government grants. You do. I provided you with information about your beloved "free market" alternative to government programs like the FDA, and all the above is how you respond. Classic reaction to cognitive dissonance. That you call pointing out facts "neener neener" is adorable.
|
|