Sensitive professions of medicine and the law

[Gotfreedom]

Does Ron Paul oppose occupational licensing requirements for medicine and the law?

Do many people think occupational licensing requirements such as these encourage cheating in college and lead to unethical people entering these respective fields? A clear barrier to entering a field may make someone want to satisfy the educational requirements through computer hacking or something like that. Could there be more gadflys and ethical people on the inside to drive sensitive work that attorneys and doctors do? Perhaps innovation is lacking and costs are artificially high with such requirements.

I'm really interested if anyone has seen anything written about the "dark figure of crime" for cheating. I think unreported cheating is common. This could have very harmful effects to society. Occupational licensing and regulation for these sensitive fields seems to be well-accepted and few would openly oppose deregulating these fields. I'm curious if Dr. Paul has specifically written about the idea of eliminating the licensing requirements.

Do other people see that ambitious people like the idea of public school chiefly because of occupational licensing?

 

[Travlyr]

Ask Ron Paul don't ask us. Ask Ron Paul a Question!

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Sensitive people demand a lot of government intervention.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure what Ron Paul's position is, but as for me, I'm certainly opposed...

I suspect the free market would demand some type of standards for doctors, but there is no justification for government enforcing such on those who might want to hire a doctor who has lower qualifications (Probably because his services are cheaper.) Of course, you have the right to sue someone if they defraud you (Say, if I were to lie and say I was certified as an MD and then you paid me for medical services) but you don't have a right to preemptively demand that EVERYONE only hire certified doctors.

As for the law, I really don't see what would be so complicated about it in anything resembling a free society, even a minarchy or near-minarchy. I'm not sure why people couldn't just represent themselves. the concept of a "law degree" is a product of an unnecessarily complicated legal system, IMO.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Does Ron Paul oppose occupational licensing requirements for medicine and the law?

Do many people think occupational licensing requirements such as these encourage cheating in college and lead to unethical people entering these respective fields? A clear barrier to entering a field may make someone want to satisfy the educational requirements through computer hacking or something like that. Could there be more gadflys and ethical people on the inside to drive sensitive work that attorneys and doctors do? Perhaps innovation is lacking and costs are artificially high with such requirements.

I'm really interested if anyone has seen anything written about the "dark figure of crime" for cheating. I think unreported cheating is common. This could have very harmful effects to society. Occupational licensing and regulation for these sensitive fields seems to be well-accepted and few would openly oppose deregulating these fields. I'm curious if Dr. Paul has specifically written about the idea of eliminating the licensing requirements.

Do other people see that ambitious people like the idea of public school chiefly because of occupational licensing?

I would imagine Dr. Paul is opposed to many of the licensing requirements. After all, he personally had to go through what I can only sum up as, "their bullshit." Me personally, I get annoyed at the DMV. I could only imagine having to jump through the hoops one must jump through. If you accept that, you are accepting a large part as to why the prices of medical care are so high.

Me personally, I am against it. Then again, I am against having to have a permission slip to obtain medicine. I am reminded of this godawful medical care at least once a year. I know what I need, yet I am still required to pay a middleman. I see no reason why in a free society, advice couldn't be offered by professionals. And with the advent of the internet, much of it is unneeded.

With regards to the monopolization of lawyers, it is ridiculous. Anyone should be able to defend anyone else. And frankly the same with regards to medical care. If two people consent to a voluntary contract, who am I to object? Rather, who is the state to object? It largely pays homage to the notion that the people are too stupid to conduct their own lives.

As far as cheating is concerned, I never really considered that aspect of it. Ethically that's a problem, but depending on what they are "cheating" on, I really couldn't definitively say (whether or not it is a problem for the consumer). If they fraudulently obtained a license, having not a full grasp of what said license says they know, yeah, that could be an issue. When they are required so many courses that have nothing to do with the field, I really couldn't care less if they cheated from a consumer standpoint. Ethically it may still be questionable, but who the hell cares if they used someone else's work to describe planetary alignments, for instance (or whatever bullshit they are forced to needlessly learn).

Perhaps I'm missing your point?

In any case, while it may be phrased differently depending on the freedom loving person, they probably would subscribe generally to what I am saying. (with the rest who don't being as a result of my lack of properly conveying what I'm speaking of) Ron Paul is anti-regulation, if that somewhat answers your question.

 

[Gotfreedom]

I think that if many people cheat to meet the occupational licensing requirements, then those people have something unethical in common. The occupationally licensed field could be guarded by unethical people: those who cheated.

 

[Philhelm]

I work as a paralegal for a law firm specializing in immigration law. I work on my assigned cases from start to finish, and I essentially hand everything to the attorney on a silver platter. He drives an Aston Martin James Bond car and I drive a Mazda 3. In a free market, without licensure requirements, I could provide the same level of service for a much lower cost, introducing increased competition, and increasing the public's access to legal services as attorney charge outrageous fees. If I were to do that now I would be slapped with Unlicensed Practice of Law.

Of course, as had been stated already, the need for legal services is a symptom of a nebulous legal system.

 

[Working Poor]

I as a person who holds several certifications but gave up their lisensures I can tell you I gave them all up because I got tired of the recertification qualifications which mostly involved spending more and more money and having less time to meet the qualifications. I think once a health care or other professional is licensed they should not have to keep relicenscing themselves unless there is some kind of provable misconduct or harm caused. I cannot legally practice my arts and that makes me really sad. But I had a lot of charity cases and I could not afford to eat and license myself over and over again not to mention the continuing ed kept getting to be more and more hours with less time to complete before relicensing and then the liability insurance for each certificate just got to be too much. For several certificates I had to have national, state and local licensure it became too much for me.

 

[donnay]

It's just more extortion and indoctrination.