No restrictions are necessary or proper
Reader comment on: Uber Boston
in response to reader comment: But some restrictions are necessary
Submitted by Harry Binswanger (United States), Aug 18, 2012 21:23
To Lyle: I beg to differ. The only proper (and practical) guides here are: 1. one's own rational judgment, 2. the laws against fraud. Licensing physicians, in particular, is an outrageous violation of individual rights, sacrificing the wise and judicious to the "needs" of the foolish and intemperate (those who would patronize quacks). (I co-authored an article on this about 20 years ago in the journal Private Practice.)
Just because the Shirely Maclaines would patronize voo-doo healers is no justification for you and me to be disallowed from buying the services of someone we think is qualified. Or even to subject that doctor to the waste of time involved in studying for and taking some government administered test. Government is a police function; it does not belong in science or medicine.
In general, there can be no moral justification for intervening between a willing seller of services and a willing buyer of those services. (Even cases of actual fraud have to be pursued after the fact--we can't require people to prove a negative: that they won't defraud someone (where there's no specific evidence that they would).
Either individual rights are absolute or "the public good" takes precedence, and rights are turned into mere permissions granted by the state.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item