Black Unicorn wrote,
On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Dar Scott wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote, [snip}
We seem to be having problems with the meanings of words. For example, I make a distinction between certification and licensing. Also, I see violence and coercion as being ultimately related to something physical. I'm not sure what "proper", "competent to practice"... mean. And I see a big difference in a market based monopoly and a government based monopoly. [snip]
Didn't I just say this above?
A centralized, or several centralized authorities.
I had assumed you meant by authority an agent of the state that is able to envoke or otherwise wield the physical force of the state. By a certifying entities I was refering to private organizations that had no similar power or to government organizations that had only the power to provide information. By a licensing entity I was refering to an organization that can coerce to prevent the unlicensed from doing the licensed behavior. By coercion I meant the threat of physical force or the force itself. Though one might think of physical force as applying to murder, kidnapping, slavery, assault, robbery, physical theft, I would also apply it to theft or damage of abstract property that has properties like physical property. I intend for these to apply to many actions of the state. Perhaps I erred in applying "certification" and "license" to these contrasting concepts, but I do think the distinction is important and the observation that there are fuzzy areas in between does not remove that. If I have a license from the local gang to sell drugs and the guy across the street does not, I could encourage the gang to do something and the guy might get shot. Similarly, if I was a PE and my competitor across the street was not, I could encourage the state to do something that--with several stages of his lack of cooperation--results in his finding a gun in his face or worse.
I guess the center of my question is, how can you apply Web of Trust to e.g. a university degree. Who cares what Bob and Alice think my degree is in, the client only wants to know from the institution.
It does not matter why people would trust a certifying entity. It might have a great earned reputation, it might "borrow" some reputation from bonding or audits, or it might have ties to the Real World.
Licensing can only be done by an
entity that can use physical force to prevent buying and selling legal services.
I believe you are incorrect, but I guess my main concern is your characterization of "Physical force." I am assuming you mean coercion, and not that you will be jailed or such (though this may be the case).
I would argue that as long as coercion exists (violence of any type, physical or not) you have a licensing authority. Take the hollywood blacklist. No one actually pushed around suspected pinko screenwriters (well, at least, if anyone did, it was incendential) but they certainly faced a great deal of persuasive motivation. Look at the committee as the licensing authority here. (Licensing you as a non-communist as it were).
It seems I am using coercion in a different sense. Unless blacklisting has physical force at its root enforcement mechanism it is not coercion and is very fragile.
If several governmental and private authorities were in the practice of certifing that Bob has a law degree from Tremont University, and that he is competent to practice in D.C., and given that the citizens of D.C. will look for these credentials, isn't this a license? Afterall, Bob has to pass some test or requirement to get the signatures. Isn't this coercion in your definition?
No. I apologize for any confusion.
Can't the multiple authorities set common or near common guidelines? Rather, don't they HAVE to in order to have their signatures worth the electrons they are transmitted with?
If you take the exteme position you seem to, there's an antitrust case here. I don't insist there has to be a variety. I only desire that coercion does not come into play in preventing it. As I said, if a natural monopoly
In general, No. Under many conditions market forces make services alike, but more often competing businesses find particular market niches. I would expect that different certs would cover different levels of expertise, different specializations and different breadths of specializations. Any lawyer might have a dozen certs. I would not expect there to be a single level of certification for all applications. I know of several companies in which the primary product designer has no engineering degree. forms at times, I am not worried.
Am I not "licensing" my key signature to people provided they pass my key signature criteria? Am I not doing violence by withholding my signature and the benefits it might convey for certain "terms?" [snip] This is the trap of the licensing argument.
I see a big difference in withholding a signature and sending gunmen. There is no violence in withholding a signature.
The evil is not licensing, which I think serves a real purpose, but created convenience fees, taxation through the withholding of licensing and the use of other government largess. I wrote a massive piece on this and sent it to the list about a year and a half ago. With interest I will repost it.
Even if no one else is interested, I'd like to see it.
The real question is how you decide what an authority to license is. Is it to be dictated by government? Or by market forces (i.e. the reputation of the licenser).
Yes, the government vs. market question is key, but I believe the answer is in that distinction I used in contrasting terms "certification" and "license". The "who" is tied up in what the instrument is.
I don't see how the net will eliminate the basic need for highly qualified professionals and the proof that they have credentials.
It won't. The needs might shift a little but they will be there.
Then why will lawyers, or a 'professional monopoly' be broken? The meaning of "qualified professional" and "credentials" will be market-based and multidimensional, not defined by the state or a group already "qualified" using the state for enforcement.
[snip] Concerning a market-based monopoly,
Not so bad if it happens, but much more honest, efficient and softer-edged than "licensed to practice".
I'm not so sure. There will be a tremendous amount of corporate power in these authorities, and if (as you seem to be saying a few paragraphs up) it is hard to break into the trusted certification business, there is a monopoly again. I don't really think this is a problem. It is the force-based monopoly and specifically the government-based monopoly I have a problem with.
[snip]
Like the several state Bars? The market advantage is slight.
[snip]
So you have estentially admitted that a central authority is required? Or will be more often used? Not required.
[snip]
If your defintion of license is simply who does the coercing, I think you should reconsider.
What ever the word used, I see the distinction between 1) the assertion of certain information and 2) the threat of force as being key. Perhaps, I could have use the phrases "non-coercion-based" licensing and "coercion-based" licensing, but I am not comfortable with these--trade licensing invokes too violent of an image. A note to all in government licensed trades: I recognize that licensing is part of the real world we live in. Often one has to be licensed to practice a favorite trade. I do not mean to describe the licensed themselves as violent. Dar =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott@aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc@swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html ===========================================================