|
Posted by 3D Peruna on March 23, 2007, 5:06 pm
Pierre Levesque wrote:
> Sure. The article is on a subject that is continously debated.
>
> A) Some find it a valid arguement that licensing is required to protect the
> public from abuse and un-professional conduct and behaviour among other
> issues related to the industry itself .
> B) Others disagree and feel that the reason for licensing and certification
> exists to "protect" those who work in the industry.
>
> This article opines that the reason is much more B) than A)
>
> That reasoning is a purely political point of view given that it is
> published on a web site called relclearpolitics.com by a mostly political
> commentator named George Will.
Fair enough...but the reasoning comes from a philosophy that less
government is better...and by extension, less licensing, regulation,
etc. is better. So, yes, it's a political discussion.
And, in this case, I think he has a point. And he used an example
that's easy to see the potential absurdity of licensing law.
> My opinion is that those more qualified to have the debate and dialogue
> should be from the industry in question.
But before you have the debate and dialog about that particular
industry, you need to have the debate and dialog that the concept of
licensing/registration is required. This is the position he's
taking...that less is better. He was using the specific example to make
a general point.
>
> There... you happy?
You can't make me happy (only I can do that)...
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap