• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blogger Giving Advice Resists State’s: Get a License

Arbo said:
I like this idea, if it would be applied to politicians. Imagine all the great lawsuits for incompetence. A good way to finally get some accountability in them.
Click to expand...

Licensed politicians would be hard to get
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
For many sectors I like the idea of having licenses in place, that way people who wish to use a licensed individual should have the reasonable expectation of competence, and the ability to sue for a job done poorly
Click to expand...
Why should license status have any bearing on the right to sue for a job done poorly?
 
radcen said:
Why should license status have any bearing on the right to sue for a job done poorly?
Click to expand...


I should clarify on what I mean by done poorly

You hire a licensed eletrician and you have an expectation that it will pass the inspection. You hire the local handyman to do the same job, the expectation that it would pass inspection is not at the same level. In this case it is caveat preemptor

In the first case you have a teasonable expectation of a job well done, in the second, you are taking chances
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In some areas that is true, yet do you REALLY want "Homey the Handyman" to be able to tie into the power grid after wiring your new addition with recycled lamp cord? I agree that certification of the person doing the work is a LAZY way out for the gov't, and much prefer gov't inspection (for a reasonable fee) to ensure code compliance. Using only words may still cause harm if the advice given is dangerous or useless (if a fee is charged for it). Example: I advertise on the web a "guaranteed cure for stuttering" in exchange for $50, in return I then Email you the suggested cure as "keep your mouth shut and never talk". ;-)
Click to expand...


Homey's not a handyman, he's a clown. And he don't play dat.

Homeydontplay.gif
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I should clarify on what I mean by done poorly

You hire a licensed eletrician and you have an expectation that it will pass the inspection. You hire the local handyman to do the same job, the expectation that it would pass inspection is not at the same level. In this case it is caveat preemptor

In the first case you have a teasonable expectation of a job well done, in the second, you are taking chances
Click to expand...
Got'cha. Thanks for the clarification.
 
I think this delves into the interesting question, and one that hasn't been touched on by the courts in quite some time, of what the threshold is for fraud vs. free speech. Is it my right to lie and claim I am an attorney or a doctor by asserting my right to free speech? Am I infringing on the rights of the American Bar Association or the American Medical Association by doing so? How did they acquire the right to define what is a lawyer and a doctor, and furthermore why do I need their approval to perform any of the aforementioned jobs if I can find someone willing to accept my services? This can go on and on. I don't necessarily agree with even one point raised, but I think it is an interesting line of reasoning and questioning that is a good exercise in determining if there even should be limits on free speech.
 
Sherman123 said:
How did they acquire the right to define what is a lawyer and a doctor, and furthermore why do I need their approval to perform any of the aforementioned jobs if I can find someone willing to accept my services?
Click to expand...

It's not quite that cut and dry, but I think you hit the nail on the head. The answer has much to do with the fascist/crony-capitalist system of laws which regulate these industries. However, most people will claim professionals need licenses "to protect us".
 
muciti said:
I dont understand the issue. If someone is taking medical advice from a blog rather than a dr for a serious medical condition chances are they too stupid to make good choices whether this blog exists or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we now live in a nanny state, where the gubmint gets to tell us what's good for us and what isn't.
 
TNAR said:
Again, I'm not suggesting an end to occupational licensing. I simply allege that government licensing is generally counterproductive and arbitrary. Pilots get a commercial license with only 250 hours of flight experience. As far as the government is concerned, these pilots are qualified to fly people around for compensation. No company in its right mind would hire a pilot with only 250 hours experience and put him in a command position. It is the industry which self-regulates.
Click to expand...

Bull**** it does. Lots of people get hired at 250. Airlines are not the only employers of pilots.
 
Deuce said:
Bull**** it does. Lots of people get hired at 250. Airlines are not the only employers of pilots.
Click to expand...

Notice I said "command position", implying any position in a Part 119 or 135 or similar field. 250 hour pilots get hired as an instructor (how scary is that) or an ag pilot or perhaps a government position.
 
Sherman123 said:
I think this delves into the interesting question, and one that hasn't been touched on by the courts in quite some time, of what the threshold is for fraud vs. free speech. Is it my right to lie and claim I am an attorney or a doctor by asserting my right to free speech? Am I infringing on the rights of the American Bar Association or the American Medical Association by doing so? How did they acquire the right to define what is a lawyer and a doctor, and furthermore why do I need their approval to perform any of the aforementioned jobs if I can find someone willing to accept my services? This can go on and on. I don't necessarily agree with even one point raised, but I think it is an interesting line of reasoning and questioning that is a good exercise in determining if there even should be limits on free speech.
Click to expand...

Also, people give out medical advice all the time despite not being doctors. Is the act of doing so over the internet the key difference? I would say that the only time it should be illegal is when you're doing it for profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom