Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:42:15 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
	<1992Jul27.193041.5055@ornl.gov>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 27-Jul-92 Re: Andre Marrou
on Larry King Dave Sill@ORNL.GOV (3115)

> >Not so; the codes are often "sold" to ensure safety, but their real purpose
> >is to drive up costs, and hence profits of those who meet state licensure.

> You have proof of this national conspiracy?  Or even convincing
> circumstantial evidence?  Don't confuse their purpose with their possibly
> flawed implementation or abusive manipulation by those with vested interests.

Yes, perhaps the phrase "their real purpose is..." evokes images of some
sinister conspiracy, but in fact there's no need for conspiracy theories
at all.  Clearly there is no national conspiracy, or if there is it
hasn't worked all that well, since some areas *do* allow the use of
plastic plumbing and haven't adopted other ridiculous "keep carpenters
employed" or "100% safety at any cost" regulations.  It's a combination
of well-meaning but short-sighted individuals using the power of
government for what they think will benefit others, and self-interested
individuals using the power of government to benefit themselves.  It
doesn't take a conspiracy for separate plumbers in separate towns
individually to see that they would suffer financially if people were
allowed to use cheap, simple-to-install plastic plumbing in their houses.

Also your "flawed implementation" sentence contains more ideological
certainty than most Libertarian arguments.  WHENEVER you give the
government certain powers, some people will seek to manipulate them to
their own benefit.  It's nice to say "we've just got to work harder to
keep that kind of stuff from happenning" and sometimes a real "good
government" person can stem the tide for a little while, but in the long
run it's inevitable.

> >As for the costs, they could be reduced by far more than 30%; an
> extreme example
> >would be along the lines of some inexpensive Japanese hotels, where a "room"
> >is 4'x8', and 4' high.  Cramped?  Yes.  Better than living on a steam grate,
> >in a refrigerator box, or in an open shelter?  Definitely!

> If they're safe, they ought to be legal.  If they were safe and cheap, some
> homeless people would, doubtless, take advantage of them.  I'm not aware of
> any federal restriction against such accomodations.

I doubt they would be "federal" regulations, since most of these things
are state and local building codes.  I know that some cities do regulate
sizes of hotel rooms, specifying things like minimum square footage and
minimum private bathroom facilities.  I suspect (though I'm not sure of
this) that there are separate regulations for things like homeless
shelters or shelter for the poor, but probably one requirement of being
classified this way is that the rooms be free, thus essentially
outlwaing the operations suggested above.

> >...  We would eliminate the heavy regulation of medicine, allowing for
> >cost-effective treatment for the poor.

> No doubt a conspiracy by the AMA and drug makers to keep themselves rich
> under the pretense of patient safety, right?  Sorry, I don't buy it.

Again, you like to accuse others of using conspiracy theories where none
are needed.  Again, it's simply individuals using the force of
government to benefit themselves.  The AMA regulates how many of what
sort of doctors get licensed, in some states directly (i.e. the state
*gives* the AMA that power) and in some states indirectly (the state
accredidation board basically rubber-stamps AMA decisions).  They are
supposed to determine how many of what specialists they think the state
or country will need, and only allow that many into medical schools. 
Why not just let the market decide how many of each specialty we need,
like it does for computer programmers or lawyers or auto mechanics? 
Well, if you were a podiatrist who sat on the AMA board that decided how
many podiatrists to allow, would you take the chance of licensing too
many podiatrists, thereby possibly reducing your business?  I'm not
saying you think only of yourself, but don't you think you'd be more
likely to err on the conservative side, i.e. too few podiatrists, than
to allow too many?  Again, no conspiracy is necessary.  It's simply
individuals using government power to their own advantage.

Of course, there may be *some* conspiracy, if you want to call it that. 
After all, the AMA specifically deems it "unethical" for doctors to
complete on the basis of price, and can censure its members that do,
possibly forcing them to lose their license.  Imagine the uproar if auto
mechanics did that!

Oh yeah...
What level of regulation would you support?  Be specific.
(I should state, for the record, that I'm not really a Libertarian - I'm
a free market proponent and supporter of civil rights as defined in the
Constitution, which makes me share a lot of views with Libertarians, but
perhaps not all.) I support regulations which require people to be open
and honest in their dealings, and to present all the information they
have.  For example, a law requiring doctors to publish and present
individually to each patient their prices, evidence of success or
failure of their proposed treatment, possible side-effects, etc. would
be fine in my books (I don't know if Libs agree with this or not.) 
However, a law which says "even when the doctor and patient are fully
informed of the consequences, you can't do x" is wrong.  The government
shouldn't interfere with what two informed, consenting adults do in the
bedroom - nor should it interfere with what two informed, consenting
adults do on the operating table.

--Conrad
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:149 alt.politics.elections:9041