| | Under the Articles Discussion in a thread entitled "Indians and Finance Reform," Robert Davison quoted excerpts from Bob Bidinotto's critique of anarchism, which were very good. Unfortunately, an anti-anarchist argument was made there that I think is incorrect. I'm not sure who made the argument, because in certain sections of Davison's post, involving dialogue between Bidinotto and anarchist respondents, it was unclear who the speaker was. At one point, it appeared that Davison was expressing his own views, because Bidinotto was referred to in the third person, but no distinction was made between these remarks and Bidinotto's. At any rate, here is the argument, by Davison or Bidinotto, with which I disagree.
First you object to licensing, so anyone with any degree of experience or lack of it can be a protection agency; all they need is the start up capital.
Second, would you not want licensed Doctors? Who would license them? A private agency is your answer. Which private agency, and how could they earn a living doing it? The first person or investigative reporter who purchased the information would disseminate it. It would be available in the public library, no profit there. The only people who could make a living promoting such a licensing agency would be doctors themselves. They would probably form a guild that would put a stamp of approval on physicians, and exclude those doctors who chose not to pay their ‘dues’. The guild would, of course, be coercive, a closed shop, just as labor unions are. Some doctors would resist and you would have unlicensed Doctors practicing, especially among the poor, at a reduced rate, but you would have no measure of their competence. By virtue of their poverty the poor would be disadvantaged, and don’t kid yourself "the poor will always be with us".
This argument is fallacious, even by Objectivist standards. For a refutation of it, see Alan Greenspan's article, "Assault on Integrity" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. See also Markets Don't Fail by Objectivist economist Brian Simpson (which is available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore). A passage from Simpson's book is worth quoting in this context:
In essence, licensing laws prevent many trades form taking place that otherwise would have taken place without the initiation of physical force or fraud. This is true because anyone who can do a competent job in a given field but is unable to meet the minimum requirements set by the government will not be able to legally provide the service. This is true even if the person barely misses achieving the minimum requirements, and even if the person could get people to purchase his services voluntarily, with full knowledge of the skill level involved. Thus, many beneficial trades will not occur that would have otherwise taken place.... Without regulation, it will not be the case that anyone will be able to enter and compete in any field he wants to regardless of his skills. Barbers and butchers will not be able to become doctors under capitalism. Without regulation, competition will establish education and performance requirements. Those who provide services will have to get people to buy their services voluntarily and thus will have to provide a level of quality that is acceptable to their customers. If they cannot get people to buy their services they will not be able to succeed in the field. However, if regulation did not exist there would be many more people, in probably every field, who could enter and successfully compete by providing acceptable services.
For instance, without licensing laws for doctors, there are many nurses, physicians assistants, and paramedics who could be competent doctors. They may not be the doctors with the greatest skills, but they could easily deal with basic medical cases and make referrals to more talented doctors in difficult cases. The existence of a greater number of doctors would help make healthcare much more affordable, all while maintaining an adequate level of quality--a level of quality that healthcare users would help to determine through their own voluntary choices concerning which doctors to see.... Some might think that, without regulation, people will be able to easily enter an industry by committing an act of fraud (such as by someone pretending to be a doctor). However, this is not true. Fraud...is an indirect form of the initiation of physical force--a violation of individual rights--and would be illegal under capitalism. (pp. 102-104)
- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 1/14, 1:49pm)
|
|
