I like Stossel, and I agree that licensing requirements exist for many professions where they are not needed. But he is going way too far if he thinks lawyers and especially physicians should not be licensed.
Once again, this points out one of the the differences between Libertarians and Conservatives.
Licensing of lawyers and doctors is not overly burdensome on those professionals, and greatly increases the chances of their clients receiving competent service. It saves lives and keeps innocent people from going to prison or losing their property.
If anyone, with little or no training could simply hang a shingle and call themselves a doctor or lawyer, the result would be chaos, not more freedom.
How do you determine which fields of service are “too critical” to allow people to practice without government approval?
And couldn’t those professions establish their own seal of approval, and let people decide for themselves if they care?
My favorite example is Kosher law, where Kosher is determined not by the state, but by the religious leaders. But the state provides trademark protection so others can’t falsely claim to be Kosher.
I contrast that with “Organic” foods, where it used to be private, but someone got Government to pass a federal regulation defining Organic. Now multi-national corporations lobby congress to fix the “Organic” definition to their liking, and the little folks who were the heart of the organic movement are priced out, and organic organizations spend all their time fighting against the changes in the definitions that they dislike.
So what if anyone hangs out a shingle? People can look at the past performance and make their own decision.
The license means that someone passed a test and has done work for x number of years, not that they are good or competent.
Costs for licensure are more than you think; initial cost plus ongoing education costs add up.
If you have work done on your house and need a permit from the government, do you really think that the government does anything to insure that the work is good. No they really do not; they have no culpability in it. You pay the fee, they inspect but if it is not right they are held blameless. It is a cash stream for the government that is all it is.
Sure, that's the rational, but it doesn't work like that. Incompetent and lawyers, and those who regularly overcharge and cheat their clients, enjoy long and prosperous careers if they are in large firms, or have the right political connection. Not to believe that is like believing in the tooth fairy.
Unlicensed doctors and lawyers and pharmacists and home remodelers have the potential to kill maybe a dozen people if they are totally incompetent and perhaps damage for life hundreds more, either physically or financially, before the long arm of the law drags them before a judge.
They should expect to go to prison for their crimes, in addition to paying restitution to their victims, if they knowingly misrepresented themselves and violated the law.
But you know what? Unethical journalists -- reporters, editors, commentators, TV anchors -- have been known to defame patriotic Americans, smear conservatives, and even start wars in which thousands of Americans and others have died.
Isn't it about time these people start getting licensed?
After all, their idea of competition is whoever can make up the most outrageous stories and get away with it, to get market share and Emmy awards.
So if libertarian concepts don't cut the mustard in other professions, why not license news people to protect the public from abuse? Isn't that equally important?
I can see having the state acknowledge someone has attended an accredited school and passed the required course, but I can NOT see having to pay a fee every year, going to required yearly courses and whatnot just to 'maintain' a license.
It's PURE revenue generation so the State can use us like living ATMs.
Once again you aren’t paying attention. NO “profession” needs to have government “approval” to exist and no practitioner thereof needs some piece of government wastepaper to tell him he’s allowed to do that thing. If you read up on the history of this nation, you’ll learn that such “permissions” were not considered necessary by the Founders and for good reason. Good practitioners thrived; bad ones were driven out by the marketplace. Then BOGUS practitioners got the government to limit entry and grandfather in the bad seeds and stifle competition. These lawyers then became politicians and judges and gave us what we have today.
In a nutshell, anyone who favors any form of licensing is, in my never to be humble opinion, a statist idiot studying to become a marxist cretin. Because priorly, anyone who wanted to DID hang out a shingle and practiced law or medicine. Mostly after reading law and clerking for someone, but always with more common sense than today’s crew, thanks to the law, a self-serving condition, or studying medicine either for a doctor or at a medical school, when they were available. And we survived and thrived. So there goes your theory. Sorry. (not)