i have long suspected that the very rich and powerful love authority and regulatory structures because they tend toward status quo and when you’re at the top, that’s good for you. and the rules probably don’t apply to you anyhow. but this is not really the interesting part of mark’s day.that came when he took exception to some comments by long time gatopal™ and rational ground grounding rod justin hart.let me make that easy for you:yes.they serve only to raise prices, protect guild systems, stifle innovation, limit freedom, and limit choice.any credential/skill that is truly important will be demanded by the market anyway.let the customer decide, not the bureaucracy.make all commerce, association, and interaction voluntary and consensual.what should med or law school look like?let the market decide not some technocrat in a regulatory agency who has much to gain by promoting scarcity and lack of choice.you would not accept this rationale in most aspects of your life. imagine a “marriage panel” the decided who you were allowed to consider wedding. lots of people seem to get it wrong. for many, it’s very expensive. so should “experts” be in charge?the ethical basis of mandatory credentialing is just as bad.it’s just taking choice away from you and calling it “public good.”hardly a practice with a laudable history.it’s deeply ironic to see a guy who got rich helping to disintermediate over-regulated and ossified media now weigh in in favor of ossification. ...no one is saying “hey, just trust any old person do to heart surgery or fly your airplane.”to claim so a silly grandstanding move.everyone will seek out qualified people.that is not the issue.the issue is “who gets to decide what constitutes “qualified”?”and mark does not seem to want it to be you.i mean, really stop and think about this: do you trust just anyone with an MD or a JD?if you care about "credentials," great, patronize those who decide to get them. if you don't, don't.make it all voluntary and then, like iso-9000, if people care, it will be supplied. in the absence of regulation, accreditation, and other such interference and restrictions on consensual commerce, what the market demands the market gets.and that is a VERY powerful idea.licensing lawyers is no different than having a produce czar decide who can grow vegetables, under what conditions, and how many of which they should produce.it’s trade restriction.and trade restriction always creates a net deadweight loss for society.you might have some idea of “how trained a doctor should be” and i might have one too. and they might be different. but in a free market, each of us can satisfy our desires and offerings can evolve to suit demand.in a market captured by guilds, we cannot. there is only one answer and it provides a high hurdle and a built in system of grift and apprenticeship where it costs people huge money to become a doctor and then they have to work for peanuts for years in “residency” that’s basically medieval style guild apprenticeship.such a system does not innovate. it does not allow in ideas like AI (that is already outperforming doctors on many tasks including diagnosis) or ideas like “maybe a doctor who is just going to perform lasik does not need a full MD” or “maybe we should be teaching a different curriculum more based in critical thought and assessment rather than rote regurgitation” or “maybe we need more pharmacology and less physiology. or maybe the obverse.” you’re not even really getting “one size fits none.” you’re getting “one size fits guild needs.”such a system will always seek to over-price access and then constrain supply because that is what maximizes oligopolistic/monopolistic profits.and this is EXACTLY what they have done. med school and residency batter the hell out of students, push rote learning over critical thought, and leave graduates beholden to boards and credentials and generally in nasty debt.the schools thrive, the hospitals thrive, the regulators thrive, and if once they manage to milk enough “dues paying” out of you, so too might an aspiring doctor one day but not until they have extracted massive guild profits from you and never without continuing to be under their thumb. california’s new foray into overt medical censorship by holding credentials hostage shows just how powerful and intrusive this can get. ...this whole notion is just more “expert worship” and the core socialist fallacy of “we just need smarter guys to make top down planning work next time!”no, we don’tthat never works.it breaks choice and constrains supply according to what an industry wants rather than what its customers do.it’s a recipe for stultification and profiteering. it’s a recipe for perpetual guild domination where innovation should be.medicine in particular is predominantly a technology field. it should be dropping in price, not exploding and the fact that it is not speaks to market breakage.guilds are market breakage.giving someone else the power to determine for what and under what conditions you can hire the services of another person is market breakagethe only reason to require such things to sustain a non-market equilibrium.it’s really that simple.it’s clear why so much “big business” wants that.but why do you want that?you don’t. it’s being sold as illusory safety.you are surrendering freedom and consumer sovereignty for a cage built by profiteers.and we all know how that goes…
Comments 1 - 21 of 21 Search
It isn't perfect, but it's better than anarchy dominated by commercial interest
these “alpha-rubes” live in a world that is all appeal to authority stacked like turtles all the way down.so what happens if this source of validation is corrupt?you get the worst of all worlds:a scheming, unaccountable grand vizier and a useful idiot king on the mistaken moral crusade upon which his advisors have set him.do yo think ANY of these people understand climate science or pandemic management or even basic statistics, economics, or logic beyond what the people around them are telling them?can they tell a good expert from a liar with a model?no.and worse, the selection is adverse.they choose flash, profession of certainty, and whatever allows them to do what they wanted. so they gravitate to the liars and simplifiers who are telling it like it ain’t with sensational claims that lack foundation.if you cannot tell an expert from a credentialed con-man, you go with what works for you. you go with the answer that lets you do what you want. and politicians want power.and this is, of course, precisely why we should not grant it to them. this is “sorcerer’s apprentice” level debacle in process with 20 more on deck. then they will call you crazy and gaslight you for claiming otherwise.this is how the basic nature of “democratically elected” government becomes a puppetshow with the strings held by a few unelected and near perpetual puppetmasters.who is declaring “the crises”?who is deciding upon “the solutions”?because it sure ain’t anyone you voted for.
Surrendering a bad or corrupted system for an anarchic system isn't really the answer.
What's the worst thing that happens if someone can call themself a doctor without any licensing or education? Stupid people who don't do their research die. Isn't this Darwin's theory in action? It always surprises me how people who deny God still cling to him, just in the form of weak, corrupt man. If you desire authority in your life to keep you safe, you are really looking for God. Don't accept cheap imitations. But God does for those who can do for themselves. He's big on personal responsibility, but it's what's best for you.
This credentialism is a recent phenomenon which has only come to dominate from the early 20th century. Before then, anyone could be a doctor - it was more of an apprenticeship under "recognized" physicians.
What was medicine like before the AMA? Pretty much a whole bunch of people trying to figure out the practice of medicine.
Where is the BAR association given any powers over who gets to be a lawyer in the Constitution?
Is redemption possible for the sins of expertness? The only one I know that works requires the systematic retirement of experts. To be sure, many of them are sucked into chairs, deanships, vice presidencies, and other black holes in which they are unlikely to influence the progress of science or anything else for that matter. Surely a lot more people could retire from their fields and turn their intelligence, imagination, and methodological acumen to new problem areas where, having shed most of their prestige and with no prior personal pronouncements to defend, they could enjoy the liberty to argue new evidence and ideas on the latter's merits.But there are still far more experts around than is healthy for the advancement of science. Because their voluntary retirement does not seem to be any more frequent in 2000 than it was in 1980, I repeat my proposal that the retirement of experts be made compulsory at the point of their academic promotion and tenure.
Is redemption possible for the sins of expertness? The only one I know that works requires the systematic retirement of experts. To be sure, many of them are sucked into chairs, deanships, vice presidencies, and other black holes in which they are unlikely to influence the progress of science or anything else for that matter.