Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> The sort of person who was likely to earn more money was also the 
> sort of person likely to go to college, nothing more than that.

Money is measurable. Happiness is more elusive. Productivity does 
seem to contribute to happiness.

> . . . As far as the professions you mentioned, alas, you are asking a radical
> lunatic fringe libertarian.

Do you feel we should discount your view?

>   My view is that they should no be regulated or licensed at all by 
> the government and it should be a complete 'caveat emptor' way of 
> regulating the trades.

That is certainly radical. How would the first patients of an 
unlicensed surgeon decide she were competent to operate on their child?

I know the history of real estate transactions. If today real estate 
agents were unlicensed, our system of private property ownership 
would be a criminal activity. Caveat emptor favors the rich, the 
experienced, the ruthless. I see it creating a much more strongly 
classed society.

>  Therefore if the best way to being a physician was to go to 
> college, then fine, the market would dictate that.  But if self 
> study and apprenticeship and such worked better, then that's how it would be.

Apprenticeship is a sound method of producing competency. In the case 
of the licensed professions it would also train some to be ethical 
and some to be unethical, to just make the money.


> You probably know that in some states, Virginia is one, you can 
> become a lawyer by "reading the law", not literally, of course, it's 
> a sort of apprenticeship.

I know the process. I believe, however, that to sit for the Virginia 
bar exam, one must have graduated from an American Bar 
Association-approved college. Your position seems to be that lawyers 
should not be required to become licensed, therefore no need to pass 
the bar exam. If a lawyer is not licensed then she would not be 
allowed to argue a case before a judge. They might do mundane things 
like contracts and wills, but their practice would be curtailed. If 
that system were changed, then courts would become of questionable 
competency. How would disputes be settled?

> I have the embarassment of a number of degrees.  All a total waste 
> of time. College has got to be one of the most inefficient ways of 
> learning there is. I suspect that in time the internet will render it obsolete.

College study may well be inefficient. The Internet may well become a 
universal university. As for your degrees, perhaps yours are a waste 
of time because you chose a field of study that you now choose not to 
pursue. You did some teaching. That most likely required a degree. So 
you got something for it. And your range of knowledge contributes 
today to the shaping of your children, I expect.