Are you telling me you get a diploma without taking a test? It’s even more f’d than I thought.
I did?
I never see a doctor is what.
People here are taking their time (I know I have) to respond to you in an intelligent and polite manner, so it would only be only fair for you to consider and respond to what people have already pointed out to you.
Honestly, that is what I am trying do (respond politely and to the points made)… maybe not very effectively, but there have been some replies to me that have ignored my original reason for posting which was NOT to say that the current system is not broken and in need of repair (or maybe junking it as you seem to hold), but to point out a bad apology for the argument.
pointed out to you that “no standard” is a rather straw man
With true anarchy there is no standard at least not an objective one - each man it to himself to set a standard… Even if the market “sets a standard” that standard will change… jurisprudence needs to be set on a definite and objective standard… I don’t see how “the market” can set that (and please don’t tell me again that just because I “don’t see how” doesn’t mean that it can’t… unless we have a historical example of how it does then your assertion that it can is just as weak as me saying I don’t see how - I am here to be educated so give me the example and I will try to learn but don’t just tell me it can)… this is the basis for my question concerning malpractice… a minimum competency test of some sort sets a standard. Yes, I understand that the test will only be as good as those that make it up…
Also, so far, no one has bothered to reply to my idea that the bottleneck is not in the licensing but in the requirement of certain educational credentials for taking the licensing exam.
I’d say you’re now making an assertion that is completely baseless…
Actually I was trying to include in my statement that I really do not know what has been mandated as far as safety measures for cars (I’m pretty sure seatbelts are) and was not trying to make a dogmatic statement in that particular case…
rejecting the government monopoly over such standards
Well, I am sympathetic to rejecting government control over lots (most) areas - especially at the Federal level where it should be mostly nonexistent, the States have more right to be the primary governing body of the people therein, and the local level is where 90% of the government power should be held… however, it sounds - from the rhetoric - that when you say “government” you are not just talking Federal - but ALL… which brings us back to anarchy and the lack there of of objective standards
Are you telling me you get a diploma without taking a test? It’s even more f’d than I thought.
I’m sorry to break this to you but no, the current “education” system is not about learning knowledge but about “passing the test”. It is designed to spit out slaves for the corporate (or academic) system that do not think for themselves. Unless things have changes a lot for the better since my days at AU, getting a passing grade on a test did NOT necessarily mean that you actually knew the material - case in point, grading on a curve.
Did you have to take a test that showed that you actually learned AND REMEMBERED and can APPLY all the knowledge that you supposedly acquired during undergrad (or high school or whatever?)? No. Most just memorize for the test then junk it. Some classes did not even have cumulative testing at all. But that is what a licensing/board test actually does. It tests you on the accumulated knowledge of 4+ years AND makes you apply that knowledge correctly. Diplomas do not do that.
Also, the assertion that diplomas are equivalent to certifications throws the ball back into the academic court and says that academic testing is necessary (or at least good) and I again put forth that it is at the academic level (or the requirement of a diploma) that the loss of liberty has occurred.
I did?
I read you to say that the diploma was as good as the license as if it should suffice and the implication was that having the diploma was good and necessary… if that’s not what you meant, then sorry, I misunderstood you.
I never see a doctor is what.
One day when you are in enough pain… you’ll likely want to see one.
I appreciate this discussion. I hope that I have not offended anyone… that was not my intention.
What I heard the more level headed replies saying is that you just want to leave it up to the market and that if the market deems it best then there will be some sort of certification, while if it does not it will not.
I guess that my concern is in the way this might be done. If the restrictions were just suddenly done away with I believe that there would be a rough transition with may people falling prey to bad “docs” and resulting in much pain and suffering and some even dying. I agree that there would probably be some sort of certifying that resulted and that there would be some people that would go to sellers of snake-oil simply because they were cheaper… they would get what they paid for. This might even have the result result of a knee-jerk reaction back to a anti-libertarian system.
As I see the situation, it appears that we could make a substantial improvement on the current system - without scraping it all together - to simply make the licensing tests available to a whomever wants to take it… if someone can gain the knowledge that they need without going to med. school and still pass the testing then they should earn the privilege to practice medicine. Would this not accomplish the same thing and open the doors to more to enter the field and still preserve a safety margin? It would also likely lead to the development of private centers of education for those that did not want to go the “traditional” route. Both seem to lead to more liberty.
Like I said in an earlier post, I am for more liberty. I am not an anarchist because my theology does not allow antinomianism. I believe in first and foremost self-government. However, given the inherent nature of man to choose primarily for himself this alone will always lead to tyranny. Therefore it is necessary for limited government and that is best applied at the local and State level. That said, liberty is best preserved when governments are restrained to their appointed jurisdictions. As such I want to see good apologetics spoken for more liberty. This post began as simply an effort to point out a flaw I saw in an apology so that it might be addressed and improved.
Thank you for your time.
I don’t mind that the AMA licenses physicians. I do mind that no one else is allowed to do the same. It is the same problem as the state.
This monopoly makes the AMA a form of mini-state operating solely within the sphere of medicine.
To recognize that the system of government is an anti-social institution has absolutely nothing to do with theology.
You don’t have to be for anarchy to understand that the things you are concerned about can and are achieved by voluntary means, that is, the free market.
I’ll go as far as to claim that it can only be efficiently achieved by voluntary means.
That’s sort of like the myth that the unhampered market will lead to one big monopoly that will eventually enslave us all. Do you believe that?
There is no flaw. You are embarking on a common economic fallacy. You fail to realize that the licensing, standards, or whatever are commodities. They require scarce resources and as such, they have costs. They are economic goods and they are subject to the same laws and principles that everything that is scarce in this world is subject to. Therefore, it makes no sense to advocate for central planning in licensing or standards, but not for the supply of everything else; doctors, medicine, beds, etc…
I would highly recommend this lecture by Rothbard, Government Licensing of Industry And Minimum Wage:
It has been a while since I listened to it, but if I remember correctly he uses arguments against barbers and taxi drivers. I forget if he talks about doctors (probably), but the same exact arguments are at play.
I wouldn’t know. I didn’t finish elementary or secondary. I do know that licensing tests only have to be taken once in a lifetime and don’t test much of anything important and the passing grade is low enough that you can pass without knowing much when you do take it, at least in my field. It occurs to me now that I should have known the answer to my own question because testing before the licensing test would be pointless as you couldn’t practice before getting the license anyway.
It can be as good theoretically. In the absence of a central licensing bureau like the MA each school would be able to carve an identity in its own certification. I would not say that anyone “MUST” have anything, though.
A “license” is permission to operate under a title, not certification that you know anything. A “license” is the monopoly.