Thursday, April 16, 2009
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 3
I have been listing the constitutional amendments Milton Freedman advocated. This is his one on Occupational Licensure
I must admit the idea of just anybody being able to set up as a doctor is disconcerting. On the other hand he does use them as an example. The AMA (& BMA here) certainly severely restrict the number of people who can train as doctor setting the numbers trained on criteria other than need for doctors or even the educational ability of this year's intake. This is clear method of pushing up their earnings. It does have the result of increasing the number of chiropractors & other unofficial doctors.
He assumes & I generally do to, that existing or new professional bodies would still be able to licence & that the public would pay great attention to such licencing, at least until such a body screwed up. I have previously written about how childcare costs are grossly inflated by government regulation & our government say it intends to fight child poverty by ensuring everybody licenced to look after kids has an A level on the subject. That will clearly not reduce costs.
Being a bit wishy washy in my libertarianism I am not sure about getting rid of all such regulation (or at least would like to see somebody else trying it first) but would like a ban on any new laws combined with a duty by the government to provide a cost benefit analysis of existing laws & remove them if they fall short.
No state shall make or impose any law which shall abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to follow any occupation or profession of his choice
I must admit the idea of just anybody being able to set up as a doctor is disconcerting. On the other hand he does use them as an example. The AMA (& BMA here) certainly severely restrict the number of people who can train as doctor setting the numbers trained on criteria other than need for doctors or even the educational ability of this year's intake. This is clear method of pushing up their earnings. It does have the result of increasing the number of chiropractors & other unofficial doctors.
He assumes & I generally do to, that existing or new professional bodies would still be able to licence & that the public would pay great attention to such licencing, at least until such a body screwed up. I have previously written about how childcare costs are grossly inflated by government regulation & our government say it intends to fight child poverty by ensuring everybody licenced to look after kids has an A level on the subject. That will clearly not reduce costs.
Being a bit wishy washy in my libertarianism I am not sure about getting rid of all such regulation (or at least would like to see somebody else trying it first) but would like a ban on any new laws combined with a duty by the government to provide a cost benefit analysis of existing laws & remove them if they fall short.
Comments:
<< Home
but would like a ban on any new laws combined with a duty by the government to provide a cost benefit analysis of existing laws & remove them if they fall short.Barry Goldwater (from my state) proposed that there be an economic impact statement for any new law or regulation almost 40 years ago. Him and the conservative movement have been waging a fighting retreat at best since he said that and have basically lost the government and their country.
You should consider making more radical proposals. If you fail and achieve nothing government will comprise 75% of Scotland's economy, a Laborite will be squandering all the money Britain can borrow and the West will be in decline. If you succeed the gov will at least be cut down to 50% or maybe even less. If your current proposal succeeds, nothing may happen at all.
I suggest you list each Scottish department, what it costs and whether it should be eliminated. Looking at an organizational chart for your gov can certainly be illuminating.
You should consider making more radical proposals. If you fail and achieve nothing government will comprise 75% of Scotland's economy, a Laborite will be squandering all the money Britain can borrow and the West will be in decline. If you succeed the gov will at least be cut down to 50% or maybe even less. If your current proposal succeeds, nothing may happen at all.
I suggest you list each Scottish department, what it costs and whether it should be eliminated. Looking at an organizational chart for your gov can certainly be illuminating.
# posted by 
: April 17, 2009
: April 17, 2009
If that rule was adopted the amount of regulation would gradually decrease both because rules which clearly were economically damaging would be removed, usually, & because new unregulated professions are always appearing. A small long term push in a particular direction can, as with spacecraft, produce quite a lot of movement & the point of constitutional rules is that they are supposed to steer the state even after the voters have have put the idiots back in charge.
...the point of constitutional rules is that they are supposed to steer the state even after the voters have have put the idiots back in charge.In fairness to the voters of Scotland the church, the media (BBC) and the schools are all arms of the state. A voter is born in a government hospital, is educated in government schools and is often employed by the state as well. When he decides to worship God, he does so in the official state church. Essentially everything he is surrounded by is telling him that the state is the solution to the problems of Scotland.
The lesson is that government breeds more government. Even when the voters are vaguely dissatisfied with the direction of the state they and their leaders continue the same actions out of inertia.
Part of the reason that so much of America's Right is centered in its churches is that they are organized and funded outside of the state. If a national network of churches can be organized without any input from the state then so much more can be done without the state as well.
The lesson is that government breeds more government. Even when the voters are vaguely dissatisfied with the direction of the state they and their leaders continue the same actions out of inertia.
Part of the reason that so much of America's Right is centered in its churches is that they are organized and funded outside of the state. If a national network of churches can be organized without any input from the state then so much more can be done without the state as well.
# posted by : April 18, 2009
: April 18, 2009
The Church of England is very much the the established church in England. Scots Presbyterianism is much less so & really only became established in Scotland because if it hadn't at the Union the C of E would inevitably have become dominat everywhere. The C of E was once described as "the Conservative Party at prayer" & among the laity still is but the Scots kirk was always more radical & much of the histroy of it is of endless splits & reunions partly on doctrine but more on claims that the main church was too obedient to government. I think the present political correctness among ministers is more a matter of the pervading social background. I did blog before about the failure of the Catholic church to "get its vote out" & think the Protestant churches have even less ability to do so. You may well be right that a strong independent church is a beneficial counterweight to the state on the other hand you know my religious views.
The C of E was once described as "the Conservative Party at prayer" & among the laity still is...I take it the leadership of the CoE has completely given itself over to liberalism and homosexuality. Given time the CoE will eventually merge with the Roman church and form a unified church.
Is there a disestablishment movement or organization in Scotland? An established church in a democracy is an attempt by the state to tell voters how they should vote and think and should be abolished.
The independent churches of the US work as an example of individual action solving a problem without any government involvement.
Post a Comment
Is there a disestablishment movement or organization in Scotland? An established church in a democracy is an attempt by the state to tell voters how they should vote and think and should be abolished.
The independent churches of the US work as an example of individual action solving a problem without any government involvement.
# posted by : April 18, 2009
: April 18, 2009 << Home
