- - The original note follows - -
From: john@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AIA discussion
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 21:03:24 GMT
In article <2jn5rk$f26@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> tedwards@xxxxxxxxxxx (Thomas Grant
Edwards) writes:
>In article <CKxH3r.IGn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> eafaust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andrew
Faust) writes:
>>while i'm at it, why don't i just drop the other shoe...what gives
>>the government the right to say who can and cannot be an architect?
>
>Licensing is a statist way of limiting the free market. In many countries,
>it has been used to the utter detriment of ethnic minorities. Even in
>situations where licensing is imposed "to keep quacks out of the business,"
>it really is used as a way to keep the status quo.
>
>The concept of licensing an Architect is absurd to me. It's like
>licensing an artist. I can see where people can argue for licensing
>of builders or engineers, but I think one will find that even those
>situations do not truly require licensing by the government.
No, No, No... It is NOT "like licensing an artist". Who do you
think coordinates the structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing,
and so on? Have you ever heard of law-suits involving injury and
code issues? Do you know anything about legal requirements
involving essential services buildings such as hospitals
and fire stations? There is just too much to cover here.
One of the reasons licensing is a legal requirement, is to help
insure architects will protect the "public health, safety,
and welfare". From the naivete often expressed in this news
group, I'd say it's a generally positive thing that someone
is pushing minimum standards of competency.
--
Deathrace 2000 DoD#1179
From: john@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AIA discussion
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 21:03:24 GMT
In article <2jn5rk$f26@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> tedwards@xxxxxxxxxxx (Thomas Grant
Edwards) writes:
>In article <CKxH3r.IGn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> eafaust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andrew
Faust) writes:
>>while i'm at it, why don't i just drop the other shoe...what gives
>>the government the right to say who can and cannot be an architect?
>
>Licensing is a statist way of limiting the free market. In many countries,
>it has been used to the utter detriment of ethnic minorities. Even in
>situations where licensing is imposed "to keep quacks out of the business,"
>it really is used as a way to keep the status quo.
>
>The concept of licensing an Architect is absurd to me. It's like
>licensing an artist. I can see where people can argue for licensing
>of builders or engineers, but I think one will find that even those
>situations do not truly require licensing by the government.
No, No, No... It is NOT "like licensing an artist". Who do you
think coordinates the structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing,
and so on? Have you ever heard of law-suits involving injury and
code issues? Do you know anything about legal requirements
involving essential services buildings such as hospitals
and fire stations? There is just too much to cover here.
One of the reasons licensing is a legal requirement, is to help
insure architects will protect the "public health, safety,
and welfare". From the naivete often expressed in this news
group, I'd say it's a generally positive thing that someone
is pushing minimum standards of competency.
--
Deathrace 2000 DoD#1179