I had lunch with an old friend the other day. Among our musings, which ranged from family to cars, we engaged in some political discussions (imagine that, me talking politics). We hit the subject of government licensing and certifications and he, being a professional in the medical field, shared an anecdote that drove home a point that I believe most of us very rarely contemplate.
Occupational licensing is a common target of libertarians and other small-government folk. Despite it being sold as something the government does to protect the public, there’s a mountain of evidence that supports the conclusion that occupational licensing is first and foremost about protecting those in the licensed professions and industries from competition. Occupational licenses and certifications are often massive entry barriers, erected by politicians in conjunction with lobbyists for the affected fields. An example I’ve cited many times is that of Saint Joseph Abbey in Louisiana. The monks at the abbey hand craft caskets for sale to the public. However, Louisiana state law required that anyone who wanted to sell “funeral merchandise” needed to be a licensed funeral director. Obtaining that license required a one year apprenticeship, learning a range of skills unrelated to building caskets, taking a test (likely written by the funeral industry – more on that in a moment), and constructing an embalming room and installing embalming equipment. The monks sued and with the help of the Institute for Justice, had those onerous and irrelevant restrictions thrown out. The protected interests haven’t yet given up, and the Supreme Court has been asked to take the case.
This is a broad and far-reaching issue that goes to the heart of the conflict between statism and liberty, but today I want to address a very specific element of this issue – the faith and trust we put in the licensers and certifiers. We can find countless examples of licensing over-reach, but those aren’t sufficient to obviate the basic premise of occupational licensing and certification i.e. using the expertise of a few to benefit many. Some argue that it’s beyond the abilities of the average citizen to judge the competence of the countless specialists he interacts with as he lives his life. Does that hairstylist know what she is doing with those dyes and treatments? Is that restaurant operator engaged in safe food handling procedures? Does that brake mechanic know how to fix the car safely? Is that attorney competent to close title on a house? Does that doctor have the necessary skills to safely do a procedure? Many times every day, we interact with people who, if they lack skills they claim to have, could cause us financial or physical harm. Specialization and division of labor are the tools that have advanced society in so many ways – why not apply them to the issue of judging the competence of tradespeople and professionals?
The problem is one that we encounter so often when discussing libertarian politics – the false conflation of “it would be good if this existed” with “it would be good if the government made this exist.” It is certainly not difficult to imagine the existence of organizations that put their stamp of approval on goods and services. Pick up your night-table alarm clock, look at the bottom. You will see a little UL logo there. UL stands for Underwriters Laboratories, an independent non-profit that tests and certifies all sorts of products. While a big part of what they do is ensure that products comply with the myriad rules and codes the government has established, and they are in a symbiotic relationship with the government, the organization is just one of many that do this sort of stuff. Another example is the Snell Memorial Foundation, which certifies helmets for motor sports, cycling, etc. If you see a Snell sticker on a helmet, you know that Snell has staked its reputation on the quality of that helmet. And, that reputation in a competitive marketplace where multiple ratings organizations compete is a powerful motivator towards quality and integrity.
But, what if you take away the competitive pressure of the marketplace? What if only one entity got to do the testing and approving? And what if that entity’s approval was required by law? Now, you have nothing but the hope that the people doing the approving have good and uncorrupted intentions – AND – you have nothing but the hope that the people do the approving know their business.
Which brings us back to my friend’s anecdote. He recently took a recertification exam, wherein he encountered some multiple choice questions where none of the offered answers were correct. This is a bit unsettling – I don’t think most people ever think to question the competence of the certifiers. But, why shouldn’t we? In this particular instance, the certifiers aren’t “government,” but such entities almost invariably use government to protect their market positions, monopolies or oligopolies. Why are boards like the AMA, the ABA et al and other professional organizations so intertwined with the government that someone in medicine or law has no choice but to seek their approval?
We are currently witnessing a truly epic demonstration of government incompetence with the rollout of ObamaCare. This is the president’s signature achievement, the legislation he has devoted so much political capital to. Obama has dug his heels in hard against any effort to alter, delay, defund, or undermine his baby. It’s his crowning glory, he has ignored countless other issues in favor of it, he has thrown great heaping mountains of resources at it. Yet even Democratic apologists are acknowledging that it’s a train wreck. Late night comedians who have been good and loyal Gunga Dins for Obama and his policies are taking their shots. How can something of such great importance and historic significance, both to the nation and to a self-admittedly egotistical president be such a hot mess?
We all know the reason – government incompetence – a redundant phrase if ever there was one. I’m sure that the ObamaCare people mean well. I’m sure they want this to work. But, If wishes were horses, beggars would ride and if wishes were fishes, the seas would be full. Good intentions do not ensure success.
Keep this in mind next time you hear someone defending government licensing and certification as protection for the public. Absent market pressures, the only things that “validate” the judgment of the licensers and certifiers are good intentions and wishful thinking.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters