LOCKSMITH'S GUILD WANTS L

Thu Jan 26 21:07:00 PST 1995

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

"James A. Donald" <jamesd at netcom.com> wrote:

> This assumes that governments have the necessary wisdom to tell a bad
> architect from a good architect.   This does not seem very plausible.
>
> [snip]
>
> While universities often issue or refrain from issuing certificates for
> corrupt and improper reasons, government supervision on this matter is
> unlikely to keep them honest

I think you misunderstand the licensing process.  The standards for a
profession are set by the profession itself.  They decide what is an
adequate curriculum, for example, and what is an adequate amount of
continuing education.  They literally write the questions for the
licensing exam.

They also privately accredit the schools, which is more than adequate to
"keep them honest."

Then the government administers the exam and issues licenses.  The
professional associations could do this themselves, making it an
entirely private affair, but there remains one function that only
government can exert:  the government forbids someone without a license
from functioning as a professional.

In other words, licensing isn't a process of government interference in
professions.  It's a process of professions seeking governmental
imprimateur for their own credentialing process, arguably in the public
interest.

(YMMV; there may be exceptional professions that just hated the whole
idea and were dragged into it kicking and screaming, of which I am
unaware.)

ObCrypto:  It's certainly true that crypto will make it easier to
function as a professional without having the credentials.  "On the
Internet, nobody knows you're a quack."  I just see it as something to
endure, rather than something to applaud.

______________________________________________________________________
Don Doumakes             Finger doumakes at netcom.com for PGP public key

Foxpro databases built to your specifications.  Email me for details.