This argument is specious. To cite a pathologically extreme example, if I die on the the operating table from de facto criminal stupididy on the part of a unlicensed physician, it's not like I can go to God and get a my life back. On the other hand, licensure provides some assurance that the doctor in question at least has some knowledge of medicine. Obviously, this is hardly foolproof. But I've known people who go to quacks on the basis of Friedman's opinions in this area.
Whether the doctor was licensed or not you will still be dead. Credentials, reviews, and backgrounds of individuals can be easily found on the internet these days. I don't believe Friedman was advocating for quacks or unprofessional negligence, just arguing that people will notice those two traits far faster if they have to judge an individual and not just rely on a licensing system. I'm sure quacks and inadequate physicians still get licenses in some cases. Just my two cents.
@RonDukeSilverSwanson I did mention that in my hypothetical example, the physician in question is unlicenced, and that I know people who go to de facto quacks.
@upsilon054 People that go to quacks tend to do so when either modern medicine has no good solutions, or the solutions come with great risks and expenses OR there is little risk of the quack doing harm (homeopathy). When people choose to opt for quacks outside of these circumstnces, the results act as a warning to others. Capitalism is about giving the best results to the average, not protecting every individual. The removal of licenses,which may introduce opportunists,will hugely reduce costs
Milton Friedman. Thanks for being there - even if your efforts can't stop the tide of collectivism, they let people of like mind know that they are not alone, that logic is not dead.
This argument is specious. To cite a pathologically extreme example, if I die on the the operating table from de facto criminal stupididy on the part of a unlicensed physician, it's not like I can go to God and get a my life back. On the other hand, licensure provides some assurance that the doctor in question at least has some knowledge of medicine. Obviously, this is hardly foolproof. But I've known people who go to quacks on the basis of Friedman's opinions in this area.
upsilon054 1 year ago
@upsilon054
Whether the doctor was licensed or not you will still be dead. Credentials, reviews, and backgrounds of individuals can be easily found on the internet these days. I don't believe Friedman was advocating for quacks or unprofessional negligence, just arguing that people will notice those two traits far faster if they have to judge an individual and not just rely on a licensing system. I'm sure quacks and inadequate physicians still get licenses in some cases. Just my two cents.
RonDukeSilverSwanson 6 months ago 2
@RonDukeSilverSwanson I did mention that in my hypothetical example, the physician in question is unlicenced, and that I know people who go to de facto quacks.
upsilon054 6 months ago
@upsilon054 People that go to quacks tend to do so when either modern medicine has no good solutions, or the solutions come with great risks and expenses OR there is little risk of the quack doing harm (homeopathy). When people choose to opt for quacks outside of these circumstnces, the results act as a warning to others. Capitalism is about giving the best results to the average, not protecting every individual. The removal of licenses,which may introduce opportunists,will hugely reduce costs
dmg46664 5 months ago
Milton Friedman. Thanks for being there - even if your efforts can't stop the tide of collectivism, they let people of like mind know that they are not alone, that logic is not dead.
o88ooo88o 1 year ago