Republicans tax plan

[AbyssalMage]

Guess what else California is doing?

They are putting up speed traps with cameras on all the freeways now.
With no media coverage. I wont say secretly, because they are just right there out in the open for all to see. But surreptitiously, ya.

They are spending hard earned money, your money, now.
One day in the future they will just turn them on.
And start ticketing you, you are a franchise and revenue source.
For doing something that causes no harm.

We are incrementally moving to an Orwellian nightmare, and the rest of you love it.
I will be dead by the time you start strapping the ratcages to your collective faces. Good riddance.

I would argue that speeding "...causes no harm"...but I know your point is that most motorists (and cops) speed a small percentage over the speed limit and that is why they are seen as a "tax" and not a safety feature. You should be more careful in the future

Until the public realizes that "Public Spaces" shouldn't give the government an open license to spy on us, this will continue. You are correct, it is only a matter of time before every city looks like New York and Europe

[Tudamorf]

If you see licenses as some flaw in my Libertarianism, then explain your argument.

Why should the State be the one who decides who is qualified and who isn't?

Isn't that the consumer's decision?

If I'm expertly qualified as a doctor, but I don't have a license, why should it be illegal for me to work as one? Why not just let the patient decide whether to have me treat him?

Since licenses take away the choice from the consumer, and put it in the hands of the State, I would think that Libertarians, anarchists, etc. would hate the idea.

[erianaiel]

If you see licenses as some flaw in my Libertarianism, then explain your argument.

Why should the State be the one who decides who is qualified and who isn't?

Isn't that the consumer's decision?

I am somewhat surprised that I even have to point this out.
The reason that licenses exist is not because of a sinister desire to tax specialists (the amount of money that flows into the state budget is minute, if it is even positive!), nor is there a grand conspiracy.
It is simply because most specialist jobs are so, well, specialised that only other experts can determine the level of professionalism. The license basically says that a panel of experts (or peers since over in the USA you are so fond of juries) has examined the professional and found that he or she is qualified to do the job.

I am trained as an architect so I have some ability to judge if a contractor is going to be able to do a good job. But I can not begin to separate a good lawyer from a bad one, nor a good surgeon from a self proclaimed hack. And I would rather have that aeroplane inspector is qualified -before- I board that flight, instead of trusting on word of mouth pushing him out of his job. After all failure in that case means half a dozen plains he checked fall out of the sky and kill thousands of people. I really rather not be part of the collective learning experience.

And as to why the state, we have all seen what happens if the state defers testing of safety to the companies involved. A long string of drugs that have been rushed through (because the FDA no longer has the laboratories and expertise to do the testing and instead has to trust the CEO of the pharmaceutical company that those test reports are fact and not fiction). Or millions of barrels of oil spilled into the gulf of mexico because the USA government was convinced that the companies would do the safety testing themselves even if nobody forced them to or checked their work.
If the state were not handling the licensing we would be forced to trust the companies employing the laywers or the engineers or the surgeons that their personel is competent and adequately trained. And we all know that companies never ever lie, not even when it helps them in the race to a better bottom line.


Eri

[Palarran]

I don't think Tudamorf actually disagrees with licensing.
I think he is trying to get Fyyr to concede that the list of things where government involvement is beneficial is larger than previously claimed.

[Tudamorf]

It is simply because most specialist jobs are so, well, specialised that only other experts can determine the level of professionalism. The license basically says that a panel of experts (or peers since over in the USA you are so fond of juries) has examined the professional and found that he or she is qualified to do the job.

But that's no reason to give that job to the State, since the State itself has no particular expertise in the area. (Unless you're talking about licenses to become a bureaucrat or politician, which is an interesting idea in and of itself.)

It also doesn't explain why the consumer can't be allowed to decide otherwise. Licenses generally aren't advisory, but mandatory. Meaning you are forced, at gunpoint, to get one if you want to do a certain job. Why not let consumers decide for themselves?

I can not begin to separate a good lawyer from a bad one, nor a good surgeon from a self proclaimed hack. And I would rather have that aeroplane inspector is qualified -before- I board that flight, instead of trusting on word of mouth pushing him out of his job. After all failure in that case means half a dozen plains he checked fall out of the sky and kill thousands of people. I really rather not be part of the collective learning experience.

Well certainly, there are limited situations where a third party needs to make the call.

If you're wheeled into the emergency room unconscious, you're in no position to choose your doctor.

But it doesn't have to be the State making that call. And those situations are very limited.

If the state were not handling the licensing we would be forced to trust the companies employing the laywers or the engineers or the surgeons that their personel is competent and adequately trained. And we all know that companies never ever lie, not even when it helps them in the race to a better bottom line.

But that's what we do with licenses.

The State itself doesn't evaluate licensees, it outsources that function to educational institutions, exam writers, and workers in the industry.

So in effect, the State is just asking the industry to make the evaluation, and collecting a yearly tax.

Why can't the consumer be the one who makes that choice?

[Fyyr]

I don't think Tudamorf actually disagrees with licensing.
I think he is trying to get Fyyr to concede that the list of things where government involvement is beneficial is larger than previously claimed.

Professional licensing, because it entails no force, can easily be done by professional organizations. And is in some cases.
Professional licensing is one of the few things that government does relatively well though.


Tudamorf is free to continue with his licensing does not prevent or punish fraud; therefore Libertarianism is bad argument. His premise is wrong, his conclusion is silly.

[Fyyr]

Libertarians, anarchists.

You think anarchists are Libertarian, and Libertarians are anarchists.
You are wrong.

[Tudamorf]

You think anarchists are Libertarian, and Libertarians are anarchists.
You are wrong.

What's the difference?

[Tudamorf]

Professional licensing, because it entails no force, can easily be done by professional organizations.

Of course it entails force.

What do you think would happen to you if you tried to practice as a doctor without a license?

Tudamorf is free to continue with his licensing does not prevent or punish fraud;

It doesn't.

therefore Libertarianism is bad argument.

Libertarianism is bad, but not for that reason.

Really, I just wanted the libertarian justification for, on the one hand, hating centralized government and, on the other hand, embracing licenses.

[Fyyr]

You think anarchists are Libertarian, and Libertarians are anarchists.
You are wrong.

What's the difference?

You don't know the difference?