|
Post by Don on Apr 28, 2017 21:24:37 GMT -5
So we're not really discussing the relative merits of licensing vs. certification then. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 29, 2017 4:35:55 GMT -5
Christine Your "debate" in this thread has essentially consisted of snarky questions, phrased neutrally but loaded with innuendo; What good is a certification if you still have figure out whether to trust it or not? strawman responses; Example 1: 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. 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. Example 2: 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. 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. your own admission that your interest is not in debating licensing vs certification, but to attack what you perceive as my underlying philosophy instead. 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. and, finally, some sort of effort to prove that because some particular certifying organization I mentioned is, under the current regime, the recipient of government privilege of which I disapprove, that negates the entire discussion, and also somehow proves that I am morally inconsistent. Nowhere that I see have you seriously engaged the topic of certification vs. licensing that I raised in the post to which you originally responded. Of course, I'm and old white man, and my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be, so if I missed it, feel free to point it out to me. This form of argumentation seems popular on college campuses these days, but I'm not a big fan. I thought the idea was to attack the argument, not the debater. My bad, apparently. You want to take a crack at why I'm wrong about certification vs. licensing, or are we done here?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 29, 2017 8:40:35 GMT -5
Don, you seem upset. I'm sorry if my snark was over the top, or if it felt like I was attacking you personally. But yes, I do believe that, when presented with evidence that your free-market approach to certification isn't all that free marketish, you ignored, then minimized, then dismissed my addressing it by basically calling me a meanie mcmeanie. I pointed out a problem with your premise, and instead of just noting it, you responded the way you did. But who cares. You're allowed to do that. And, after watching Opty's link to Rubin and Prof Turner again this morning, I am re-thinking the way I "debate." Turner talked about arguing in good faith, with the belief that your "opponent" is arguing in good faith, and with the idea that both people are open-minded enough to change their views if presented with evidence. I presented you with evidence, but to be fair, I really didn't think I would change your view on nonprofits. Hence, my "snarky" delivery. (And to be fair to myself, since I "met" you in 2011, you've never changed your mind on anything that I can recall. ) Anyhoo, I'm not opposed to state licensing, by and large. The OP case is ridiculous, of course. As is hair-braiding. But with many professions, there does need to be consistency and uniformity. For example, when people hear "CPA," it's good that they don't have to ask, "Yes, but what kind of CPA? Who certified them? Is that an agency I can trust?" To me, in these situations, a profit motive held by a certification agency doesn't strike me as "better." Choice in certifying agencies doesn't strike me as inherently "better." The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and the Florida Board of Accountancy, in my personal experience, are rigorous in their duty to ensure that CPAs are professional, knowledgeable, compliant with CPE, auditing standards, and a whole host of other things. And yeah, sometimes? I've wanted to scream from experiencing how rigorous they are. But I understand the reasoning behind it. There need to be standards, and they need to be upheld, and not everyone does this voluntarily. All that said, neither licensing nor certification is a guarantee of anything. People still sort of suck sometimes. Alas. In my experience (some of it very recent) a personal recommendation is well advised.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 29, 2017 8:44:37 GMT -5
Y'all are still arguing about this "who said what" bullshit?
It's really that upsetting?
Both of you need a hug.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 29, 2017 8:52:48 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure everything each of us said on page 1 has been re-quoted, and most of that was also on page 1.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 29, 2017 9:11:00 GMT -5
(And to be fair to myself, since I "met" you in 2011, you've never changed your mind on anything that I can recall. ) To be fair, I've changed my mind on a hell of a lot of things since 2011. Back then I still believed that political activism might make a difference. I had not yet made the connection between statism and other forms of religion. I still believed that good politicians could make the system work, although I bemoaned the dearth of good politicians. I knew very little about public choice theory, had only passing acquaintance with Bastiat, Spooner, Spencer and the like, and while I cast myself a libertarian, I had far more faith in "good" authority than I do now. I've also studied economics a lot in those years, and come to recognize the massive damage that forced misallocation of resources causes, both to our environment and to the standard of living. I called myself neither an atheist nor an anarchist six years ago. This book would have completely blown my mind six years ago. Like most people, I would have considered that heresy six years ago. I've changed a hell of a lot in the last six years; perhaps just not in the direction you would have preferred.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 29, 2017 9:42:01 GMT -5
I already hate my new resolution to debate in good faith.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 30, 2017 9:57:46 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 10:23:54 GMT -5
Y'all are still arguing about this "who said what" bullshit? It's really that upsetting? Both of you need a hug. *bookmarks to requote in every thread*
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 6, 2020 9:46:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 6, 2020 16:27:54 GMT -5
If they were claiming to be licensed contractors, then I don't see a problem with this. But, if you have to be licensed to paint a room, that's pretty stupid. Does that mean that every time I paint my bedroom or install a new light fixture, I'm engaging in illegal activity? I get that it's for liability issues, but some of these requirements are a bit ridiculous (I still think the math example in the original post is by far the worst example of this I've seen).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 6, 2020 16:35:16 GMT -5
From what I understand, a good chunk of them were simply "handymen" who were asked to do additional stuff beyond what they were initially hired to do, stuff that would require a licensed worker (electrical, plumbing, etc.). That's pretty cheesy on the part of the cops, imo.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 28, 2021 8:24:36 GMT -5
|
|