At 08:06 AM 7/11/97 EDT, dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) wrote:
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
These "guilds" are an interesting case of self-policing where there is no option for opting out. (I don't believe it is possible to practice law or medicine without approval/licensing from these kinds of organizations/guilds.)
It is a CRIME is most jurisdictions.
Licensing in general is something I think is getting out of hand.
Actually, licensing is a neat idea that leads to more efficient markets. E.g., New York State licenses plumbers, contractors, barbers, etc; if you enter into a contract with an unlicensed party for one of these services, it won't be enforced by the state court. E.g. you can't sue the unlicensed bricklayer for laying your bricks crooked, and he can't sue you for not paying. :-) Here the state just says, if you want our jurisdiction, you play by our rules and you pay a fee.
How does this make for a more "efficient" market? All I see is increased costs of doing business (paying for the licensing), and increased costs to the consumer (hiring a licensed contractor). The benefit? You're allowed to invite the government into disputes. Don't get me wrong, I understand the theory behind licensing. It implies that the licenseholder is proficient at his or her task (or at least was when the license was granted.) This can be important to public safety, in that a shoddy electrician could cause a fire that could burn an entire block, or that a hygenically-challenged barber could transmit nasty virii via unsterilized scissors. Public Safety is therefore served. But where does the efficiency come from? -- The self-policing guilds Tim mentions above exist because even the law recognizes that it is unable to adequately define the boundaries within which a physician must operate. (You'd think lawyers would be able to get it down legally on paper, but then there'd be no more need for congress (spit) and they'd be out of jobs...) They take on the function of an electrician's license, since there's no "National Physicians Code" to measure them by. Let's apply it to us. Take the case of a programmer who writes the code for an electronic defibrillator. Obviously, the code needs to be "perfect", or else the machine might deliver a lethal shock. Who should write it? A "licensed" programmer? A member of the ACM? A graduate of MIT? J Random StreetPerson? Let's say it fails in operation, killing a patient. It's shown that faulty code is responsible. Do we yank the programmer's license, or his membership in the ACM? Contact MIT and revoke his diploma? Sue MIT for granting him one in the first place? Put him back on the streets? What if it's the fault of the VisualSnozz++ compiler? Can we go back and pull Microsoft's coder's ACM membership? Take away his license to code? Pull the original coder's license for failing to use a compiler written by an ACM certified professional? Put Bill Gates in jail for selling it? Would membership in the ACM be "proof" to an employer that this person would produce "bug-free" software? Would they bond and insure their code, etc.? The big questions, then, are: Does regulation fit our industry? If so, where? Will I be kicked out of the ACM for writing non-GAKked encryption software? ...for posting to cypherpunks in support of non-GAKked software? ...for having an incorrect political viewpoint? A conviction for thoughtcrime? John -- J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code. Think of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in ActiveX sauce'." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work) mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of: | | Subject: get pgp key | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+