Of course the point of a license is to help those who can get licensed at the expense of those who cannot. The ethical systems of licensing have a point, where society wants to favor those who can get a license. Driver's licenses are a good example of this - we as a society want to artificially restrict the supply of drivers to those who can pass examinations for vision, knowing the rules of the road, and ability to follow certain professional rules (eg, not driving drunk). Or electricians, where the cabal of people who know electrical code has a distinct advantage for society (that is, not burning down their buildings via faulty wiring).

Professional licensing exists to protect the public at large from fraud. Would you want a public building, say a sports stadium, designed by someone without the proper training? Engineering licenses add a layer of protection and assurance that the person performing the work is truly capable of performing the work.

We were told the same thing about Taxis -- or at least that part of that red tape was to ensure the safety of riders.

Yet this company comes along that very aggressively flies in the face of this licensing and the world flocks to it.

We can't equate the inexistence of mandated licensing to there not being feedback mechanism for quality, competence, etc. If we did not mandate licensing, don't you think those would emerge? And perhaps even be better?

I think you need to think of a better example. The stadium would be built by a major contractor, and they would be responsible for hiring capable people. In general, having a university degree in structural engineering means a person can design structures that don't fall down. In this instance, having a license would be just like an extra stamp on the university degree.

The contractor would be hired to build what the engineer designed. The contractor does not check the designs.

The university degree is only the first step toward becoming an engineer. In the US, to be a licensed engineer one must have a degree, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, work a cumulative 4 years under another professional engineer, and then pass the Professional Engineering exam for the discipline they wish to pursue. After that, continuing education credits are require to maintain the license. Additional testing may be needed depending on field and location. To say that the license is just a stamp on the degree is not correct.

A person with just a degree is not qualified to design large structures. Licensure requires several years of experience under the supervision and mentorship of a professional. Schools teach the theory, but there's lots of practical details that require experience to learn and understand. You're just required to work with others who know what they're doing for a while. Then you're allowed to do things alone.

Nope. Rent-seeking is A Thing but it's far from being the Only Thing as you assert.

I've gotta tell you that concluding your argument with 'Period' makes you sound exactly as convincing as Sean Spicer, ie not at all. Same thing with phrases like 'case closed!' and so on. Solid arguments don't need rhetorical flourishes like this.

This is one of the great unrecognized problems with the economy at the moment. I'm not so sure about engineering, but it's created all sorts of monopolies in health care that have nothing really to do with actual safety risks or any kind of rational approach to mitigating risk, and everything to do with protecting guild members.

License = union.

No. It's about public safety. Do you want anybody calling themselves Doctors and making surgery without proper training? How about civil engineers building bridge? How about software engineers that work on medical devices that can kill?

If you are building iOS apps you are probably a developer, not an engineer.

I actually do. Doctors with "proper training" still kill people and are grossly negligent. Like I replied to someone above, where I think I and you would sharply disagree on is the notion that without mandated professional licensing it would be a free for all. I don't think that is true at all. I think systems of accreditation, checking for competency, etc. would emerge, and likely even be better than the ones we have today.

It's not enough. I have a bachelor's degree and Ph.D. in Engineering, but I still cannot call myself either engineer (I'm not a member of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec) nor Doctor. And it is fine.

Professional orders can disbar you temporally and impose training for any competence or ethical shortcoming. Their role is solely to protect the public. This is the 'systems of accreditation, checking for competency' that many societies came up with. The idea that you can rely on self-regulation is ridiculous.

Most Doctors are not grossly negligent, but if you find one that is what are you gonna do? There is no one to complain to without professional orders.

> Most Doctors are not grossly negligent, but if you find one that is what are you gonna do? There is no one to complain to without professional orders.

Um, the legal system? Have you honestly never heard of the legal concept of malpractice? "Gross negligence" is very much included in it.

I think our legal systems are just too different.

Malpractice is handled by the professional order's Syndic along with all sorts of minor offences such as misrepresentation.

It is part of the judicial system. It can impose fine, training, disbarment, etc. As a side note, the American obsession with suing everything just look backwards to most of us.

> but the fact that he could be charged for calling himself "an engineer" -- and the fact that we all have come to a point where we think it is something reasonable -- is so upsetting.

I'm "a doctor"; certainly I will see to that brain surgery for you.