Comment by ZachPruckowski | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZachPruckowski | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The role of government is to protect the liberty and general welfare of the American public[1]. This involves trade-offs.

For instance, I give up the right to drive over 65 miles per hour on the highway in order to protect the safety of everyone else on or near that highway. It sucks that I can't drive as fast as I want to, and it's an affront to my liberty that's enforced with violence (cops will throw me in jail if I drive recklessly or persistently speed), but the government decided that that loss of liberty is less important than the damage to the general welfare if everyone can go as fast as they want (more car crashes and deaths).

Sometimes, the trade goes the other way. If we banned fast food, the general welfare would improve greatly. But the government (and ultimately the people who elected the government) decided that the resulting loss in liberty would be too great to justify.

In this instance, people lose liberty when they're restricted from holding certain professions[2] without licenses. But the general welfare is improved because now people can trust that their doctors and lawyers meet a certain level of quality[3] as determined by the state. The government weighed the lost liberty and the gained welfare, and made a judgment call. If we don't like that judgment call, we can vote for candidates who see things the other way (or donate to legislators who agree with your position, or start a grassroots organization and convince people).

[1] - There's also "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence", but those aren't in conflict in these examples. Government policy still regularly makes trade-offs between them. [2] - strictly speaking, you can own a law firm or doctor's office without a license, you just can't practice law/medicine. [3] - whether licensing tests are great reflections of ability or knowledge is beyond the scope of this comment.

Ironically, your speed limit example is exactly a case of government interference that doesn't cause the intended positive result. See the Montana no posted speed limits study (TLDR--no speed limit = decrease in fatalities): http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/montana-no-speed...

The author's point is not that the role of government isn't to protect liberty and the general welfare of the American public. He is simply saying that licensing doesn't do a good job of that, and in fact causes the exact opposite effect through lack of competition (bad for prices and quality, and thus bad for consumers) while really doing nothing to ensure quality. In order to protect the liberty and general welfare of the public, the government would be best to stop requiring licensing.

I agree with the general idea but there's an important distinction that needs to be made.

I have no problem with speed limits or licensing of doctors. If you want a group of people to dictate how does someone qualifies to be a doctor that's fine by me. When one does that in specific situations it's necessary that everybody follows the same rules, like in your example of the speed limit. I find no problem with that too.

A group of people should be able to determine rules for their property, the problem is when you start forcing others to do the same. This could be confusing in cases when compliance from everyone is needed like with speed limits, so I'll take my time explaining it.

Lets say we want quality control in dentistry. You like the government quality control the government gives and would like your dentists to count with their approval. I, on the other hand, think it's requirements are excessive. Most of what my dentist does is find black spots in my teeth, drill them out, and then fill the hole. This does not require 4 years of study. If I ever get to need a root canal I would need someone with more studies but until then I'd me happy with someone with less studies, maybe a certification given by the manufacturer of the equipment, I don't know.

This requirement drains the wallets of the poor. It's fine if you want to comply with the state regulation but I don't see the need for imposing it on everyone else.

There are different cases, like with speed limits, where everyone needs to comply for you to benefit from the regulation.

the Canandian Hockey federation used to lack reglamentation concerning helmets. Players would have benefited from using helmets but didn't because if someone didn't use one they had an advantage over the others. So the federation started demanding helmets and everyone benefited.

This is different than speed limits. If it where like speed limits the hockey federation would have made illegal all over Canada to play without helmets. It would be illegal to start a hockey federation without that rule and it would land you in jail to do so. There would be violence involved. Instead in the voluntary system you can participate in games without helmets just next to one with helmets and nobody will throw you in jail.

In the speed limits scenario I think you should be able to drive any street you want, but you can't force me to build one with the regulation you want. If I build a street, and someone wants to use it then it's their call.

If I want to go to a dentist or doctor without governmental accreditation that's my choice, and I wouldn't like to be imprisoned or fined (which without compliance ends in imprisonment) because of it.

I understand it sound chaotic if you are not familiar with the ideas. I don't know if this is the medium to discuss this.

You give up the right to drive 65 miles per hour on a public highway. If own a large enough tract of pavement, you can drive as fast as you want on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com