[H-GEN] Free Trade (was Re: Selections from RISKS DIGEST 19.57)

[Raymond Smith]

On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Frank Brand wrote:
> I can see the logic in one way but increasing regulation is flying in
> the face of what most governments are hoping to achieve. Governments are
> pretty lousy regulators of most areas of activity and that goes twice
> for highly technical areas. The trend is away from Government regulation
> to self-regulation.

I imagine that self-regulation will be the driving force. Much like the
regulation of solictors through the Law Societies, and Barristers through
the Barristers Board. The societies will set codes of conduct and
professional ethics, and government regulation will play a role in so far
as it will empower the socity(ies) to apply effective penalties for
breaches of the codes.

Perhaps more importantly, Government will encorage accreditation through
its purchasing policies and the setting of standards.

*Tries desperately to resist replying to rest of post. Fails.*

What follows is not meant to dissuade you, Frank, or anyone else from your
views. Rather it is to present to others on the list the opposing
arguements.
 
> Governments add layers of bureuacracy (ie translate as cost and
> generalinefficiency) and add little in value. Government regulation is,
> in general retrospective in action. The police catch a criminal after
> the crime - didn't stop it happening, the damage is done, the fact that
> the guilty are caught is not great consolation to the injured. ASC
> regulations did not stop Skase and Bond.

Laws (regulations are subordinate leglislation) are like locks, they keep
honest people honest. They do not prevent those bent on theft and
destruction. However, providing a punishment (an imposed cost) which
excedes the gain (or profit) of a crime is the only way we can dissuade
the criminal mind. People should also remember that punishment is not
meant to compensate the victim, but to "reward" the perpertrator.

One important crime is that of misleading another. It is interesting that
a good portion of the Manga Carta was spent on the definition of weights
and measures to ensure fair dealing by King and subject alike in matters
of trade and taxation. This document of freedom and rights recognised the
need to regulate trade to encourage honesty by both parties.

Just so, there should be fair dealing in the skills that labour provides
employer and customer. Because people do mis-represent skills, we need to
define similiar standards to judge skills on offer. Degrees from
University are a part of this, membership of professional socities is
another, and formal definition of the profession is even more important.
IMNSHO.

> Some people love regulation as it is an barrier to entry (eg. Kerry
> Packer and television). Imagine how Bill Gates would enjoy holding up
> opposition developments long enough to get his products to market by
> entangling companies in court cases about whether the programmers were
> qualified.

Imagine how wonderful it would be to be able to stop Bill Gates'
development in its tracks. Not only is this a double edged sword but,
unless a competitor mislead MS about the skills of its staff there would
be no case to answer.

This is an arguement advanced by Milton Friedman and his ilk.
"Professional Societies and Unions are bad because they restrict the
entry of new labour into the market place". The answer to this is simple:
when a person goes to a professional they expect that person to have met
standards set by the colleagues and the community. A Medical Doctor is
expected to have a Medical Degree. Just so, a Tax Account is expected to
hold the qualifications that show he has mastered the relevant body of
knowledge. It is a matter of honest trading.

Of course should you prefer a faith-healer to a medical doctor this is
your own look-out and you should be allowed to do so.  One can extend this
arguement to: Good Programmers will get work, Bad ones won't. However,
this is no consolation to the dead when a mission critical system fails,
or the poor when their bank collapses under the weight of a computer
error. In the case of mission critical systems, we desire more than a code
Monkey or clever hacker. We desire a professional.
 
> Come to think of it, would Linux ver. 0.01 have qualified - wasn't he
> programmer an unqualified nobody from Scandinavia.

This is specious. You will notice that Linus went on to attain his
professional qualifications before seeking work. Talent may be expressed
without qualifications. However, qualifications make it harder for the
talentless to hide.

Regards,

Raymond
---
raymond at humbug.org.au

----------------------- HUMBUG General List --------------------------------
echo "unsubscribe general" | mail majordomo at humbug.org.au # To Unsubscribe