“How do you determine which fields of service are “too critical†to allow people to practice without government approval?”
By exercising judgment, most of it common sense. I realize these concepts are offensive and frightening to many Libertarians, but they are not so bad when you give them a try.
For example:
Brain surgeons - Yes
Shoe shine boys - No
Lawyers - Yes
Walmart cashiers - No
You see, that wasn’t so hard. It didn’t hurt you a bit.
“Brain surgeons - Yes
Shoe shine boys - No”
So you want some bureaucrat deciding who can and cannot do your brain surgery.
Brilliant!
Hank
What is a “legal service”. Writing a will? Filling out your taxes? Is writing down who you want to have your money harder than determining the correct amount of tax to pay?
If we can make tax paperwork so that ordinary people can follow the tax code, one of the more complicated laws around, why can’t ordinary people do other simple paperwork without a lawyer?
People defend themselves in traffic court — why can’t people hire another non-lawyer who might have learned a thing or to do represent them in traffic court?
The issue isn’t whether you can name two professions for which you could think of cases that you would like licensing.
How about doctoring. Parents treat all sorts of illnesses for their own family at home, without ever calling a doctor. Doctors offices include physician’s assistants and nurses who increasingly provide medical care and consulting.
Why can’t a clinic be opened that could see people who think they are sick, but don’t want to pay huge sums of money to find out? There are people who do a lot of self-treatment because they are smart and can read the internet. Why not let others who aren’t so smart benefit from that resource?
And then, why do we need a state government license for the heart surgeon? Just require a medical degree, and have the hospital implement it’s own policy for making sure it’s workers are competent. If the hospital hires bad doctors, they will get a bad reputation.
Do we license sushi chefs? They could kill you. We license plumbers, even though most people can do their own plumbing.
In a lot of cases, we allow people to do their OWN lawyering, or plumbing, or electrical, or cut their own hair, but we won’t allow them to get another person to do it for them for money unless that other person is licenced. Since we let people do their own work, it obviously isn’t that we require competence. So it must be that the professions want to limit competition.
People can’t drive cars without government licenses. But people crash all the time — why would we ever think that government is competent to hand out licenses only to people who are worthy of them?
The private system *has* and *does* do a better job of licensing than the government.
Want a state and local tax expert? Go to a CPA . . . who is licensed to make sure he knows ACCOUNTING RULES and not tax laws. The only tax that is covered on the exam is federal tax, and it’s really basic stuff.
You want state and local taxes done correctly? Go to a CMI who is certified by IPT, a PRIVATE organization. Go to a licensed CPA for state and local tax issues and you may or may not get good advice. All you know is that the government has licensed him/her to say something about your financial statements.
This is true for many professions. Professional organizations do a much better job than governments of deciding who is and who is not an expert in a field.