Licenses

Schumpeter: Rules for fools | The Economist

Good article. Milton Friedman, in his Book "Capitalism and Freedom," makes an argument for the abolition of licensing laws for all jobs, even for doctors and lawyers and dentists.

This would allow people without the time and money to enter the field and provide services inexpensively. The government and schools are just using licensure laws to make money, win over special interest voters, and control more aspects of public life and business to increase and perpetuate their own power.

The argument against de-licensure is that people would be harmed by people who have no idea what they are doing, but such a rebuttal is short-sighted and ignorant of the common sense of people. Would you go to a Doctor if they did not have a Diploma from a medical school hanging on their office wall? Would you have your cancer treated by such a person? Just because a person does not need a license to enter a field, does not mean the inherent value and insurance instilled in the customer, afforded by a diploma, will disappear or become meaningless. Furthermore, this would allow for certain functions to be performed much more cheaply, for instance some aspects of a profession requiring licensure are completely detached and meaningless for certain roles performed, such as discovery in the legal field.

If licensing requirements were abolished, schools exorbitant prices, often acting as obstructions from practicing, will be diminished as their monopoly power as an institution would be destroyed. People will be able to make knowledgeable decisions in regards to the services they want done. Services would be more affordable. I personally would have cancer treated by the best doctor I could find, and I can assure you he would likely have a diploma from a medical school, but I would go to a cheap "doctor" without a diploma/license to check my throat for strep throat (a blotchy paint splatter on the back of the throat is difficult to miss).

Furthermore, allowing people to practice without license will not mean they are immune from the laws of negligence and medical malpractice. It will not mean that a person's credentials will be secretive. The rules of justice and disclosure are separate from the issue of licensure.

Get the government, special interest groups, and the education institution out of the business of creating roadblocks to a free market of fair, affordable, exchange between consenting individuals.

From the article:

-- 30% of US occupations require a license

-- Florida requires hair-braiders and interior decorators to get a license!


NOTE:
Law School, the ABA, and the legal institution as a whole purposely perpetuate their field. Obstacles are abundant to enter law school. It is elitism and drives up the prices of legal services. It is unneeded. Law school makes this all the more apparent. (I hate the Bluebook!)