Letters to the Editor
-
@ Mona
I don't think homeopaths, fortune tellers etc should be included, provided they make sufficient disclosure so that the consumer can said to have given truly informed consent.
Ummm, why?
You might claim that no (obvious) damage is done, in the sense that the marks aren't physically hurt by what they get (unless, ferinstance, the homeopath tells the person not to see a regular doctor; chiropractors OTOH have been known to cause actual damage [albeit a lot of "relief" despite their 'theoretical' hokamamie about "subluxations", etc.).
But the damage is also present simply in the money that is paid.
Agreed, education and ridicule (ala Johnny Carson, James Randi, et al.) might be the gentlest way of dealing with such, but I have yet to be shown that such is the most efficient. Should efficiency be a metric?
I'm not going to demand, FWIW, that horoscopes be taken out of newspapers; I'm not that hardcore. I think that there is a role for gummint when the abuse goes beyond the pale, and that it involves more than "education" and "informed consent" (and apparently, so do you, Mona, in extolling Consumer Fraud departments).
Cheers,
-
@ Mona
And yes, a feminist group from my youth was called "Bread and Roses," so I know what it means.
Good for you. Care to explain to anyone that doesn't recognise it where the phrase came from? A teaser for those that haven't seen it before: It involved demands for rights from organisations that (most) libertarians consider superfluous if not downright Satanic....
Cheers,
-
@ KB4Hire
I can't tell if you're being serious or funny here.
Seriously funny and not pulling it off?
-
@KB4Hire
I have to wonder if Mr. Klassen has some weird OCD-based fetish of some sort?
Right libertarianism is an OCD.
Arne,
Mona thinks Scientology is a legitimate religion. She defends it on a first amendment basis when it is obvious that Scientology is a an actual threat to the first amendment. This is a prime example of an OCD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._Touretzky#Criticism_of_Scientology
-
bucky1 & How am I Hurting him?
Why? Please tell me how it hurts you in any way if I go to an unlicensed medical man.
Of course it does not hurt me! But, just as plainly, this one specific instance can not be generalized to build a society upon.
I am pretty sure it is legal (in most places! wink!) in this society to go to anyone you want and have them stick their finger up your [ahem! grin!] if you want them to. It is likely still legal if you then ask them if they think you have colon cancer. So, AFAICT, your freedoms in this case are not being infringed on by our society. In fact, it would probably be fine if you and 49 other people moved to the Idaho mountains and started your own proctological commune (as long as you refrained from doing anything too egregious to children, you would likely be left alone). What is, and ought not be, legal is for anyone to be able to put up a shingle advertising themselves as a MD proctologist.
In the abstract, regulating medical professionals, does not -- to the first-order, eg. directly -- impinge on your freedom(s). The freedom of people that we are talking about limiting is to advertise themselves as a "professional", hence presenting oneself as a trustworthy source of expert medical knowledge. This, technically, does not infringe on your freedoms, or does so only in the second-order assuming you are unable to convince anyone to determine you colon condition digitally! (hahaha! man i crack myself up!)
So, to summarize/re-word: Your freedoms are not directly being limited and once we bring in a second person because you have no inherent right to be free to obtain anything you want from them because no one is free -- in a specialized society -- to present themselves as a "professional" (because doing so implies implicit trust of expertise). If you and they wish to come to some specific agreement at a specific moment in time fine, but no one can just declare themselves a "professional".
-
An example that hits home for me
I lift weights and take supplements. Recently, there has been rumors and concerns about government regulating the supplement industry. I am all for it.
I want to be able to choose any type of supplement I want. But, I do not want just anyone to be able to offer and advertise any supplement without some government regulation. Specifically, I want labeling detailing the ingredients. If I want to take horse steroids (which I do not and would not) I should be able to -- but I want it listed on the label. I also want an inspection routine which verifies that the supplement contains only and exactly what it says it does. Does it have the stated amount of whatever? Only what is listed on the label (nothing missing or added)? And I want the company to be forced to offer data-sheets on the latest medical research into the ingredients they use in their products.
So, I want people limited in what they can offer to others; but I want to be free to be able to take whatever I want. So, I am "libertarian" with regard to actions that I can take that only impact myself, but I am absolutely not "libertarian" in that I should be free to do whatever and leave the responsibility up to everyone else to fend for themselves -- that is just not a community.
Is this really a liberty/freedom limiting philosophy?
-
Arne Langsetmo ...
o, you don't. I really don't care a whole lot about what people do to themselves. People are creative and unique, quite capable of making stoopid decisions (from my POV; ones that perhaps I would never make, or ones that I pretend I'd never make when I think I'm a better and smarter person than I am).
It would be beyond human understanding for you to ever realize just how wrong you are in the above statements. I believe in free will, voluntary cooperation that arises naturally in society when government officials with guns are not standing in the way.
Will people make mistakes? Of course they will; will you take away their very humanity to prevent that? Even the ineffable one allows humanity to live in error.
I see people talk about what 'we' should do for the (insert needy of your choice here] but I never see those people at the food drive or handing out food at out downtown park in violation of the law. (our city hates the "transients")
I will offer this; no one I know ever checks out the tradesman any more, because they all have a state licenses that tells us that they are 'great'. Perhaps without the seal of government approval some of the folks out there would realize that it is their responsibility to proceed with due cation and check out 'word of mouth' reports. (I do)