It would also be nice if those who oppose licensing suggested credible alternatives.
As your anecdote suggested, licenses are typically implemented for a reason. Quite often those reasons deal with people who are taking advantage of a situation, with little regard to the interests of others or even the legality of their actions. I will admit that licenses can be problematic, but I honestly cannot think of a good alternative so I support licensing as the best option we have available at present.
Complaining about licensing does not always/usually represent a serious objection to licenses that are reasonably available to all who are capable of doing the work, and which are actually going to be revoked if someone proves unfit for the industry. These do not so much limit your freedom to work in the industry, as the manner in which you'll conduct yourself in the industry.
I object to licensing as a means to protect incumbents by deterring (or outright capping the number of) new entrants, where the quality-control angle isn't really there, and it's just an extra tax/filter on having that job.
I'm curious - have you been burned by issues with licenses in the past? I've never had licensing affect me in any tangible way and so they are really more of a vague theoretical, and thus low priority, concern for me. But I am vaguely aware that this is theoretically the wrong position to have while yours is the right one.
No. Blanket rejection of the existence of licenses – "There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence" – is not useful at all. There are, objectively, justifications for requiring a license.
> anyone who was planning to do that won't be discouraged by a restrictive license.
They might not be discouraged, but a restrictive license would provide recourse to stop them - with a less restrictive license they'd be fully allowed to do that.
I agree on the downsides, but I believe licensing is a good forcing function to get others to 1) gain knowledge and 2) standardize training for a base level of competence.
Do you have any links to such arguments and rebuttals to them? I dare say it's not obvious to everyone why a licensing program would not improve outcomes.
My argument, at least, is that absent licensing, there are plenty of people either desperate, or foolish enough to sign such a document. Not most people, or even a large minority, but enough.
I'm not making anything up. Certification/licensing is the way it's done in most developed countries and for good reason.
Nothing irrational for pushing for it either. Plenty of advantages. It's mostly irrational cranks arguing against it because they think they will lose some degree of freedom.
As I said though, it will happen eventually, and inevitably.
I would be open to an attempt at uniform licensing agreements, or some kind of regulatory approval on the licensing arrangements with comparative licenses considered.
As your anecdote suggested, licenses are typically implemented for a reason. Quite often those reasons deal with people who are taking advantage of a situation, with little regard to the interests of others or even the legality of their actions. I will admit that licenses can be problematic, but I honestly cannot think of a good alternative so I support licensing as the best option we have available at present.
reply