Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Kate. I enjoy the straightfoward, tangible language of each of the winning essays. Russel J Lyster certainly deserved the top prize. David B. Skarbek's essay is, as winner Lyster pointed out in the Reader Tip thread, a good one too; I'd never seen the issue of occupational licensing as an even nominally political issue, despite the fact that such seemingly inconsequential intrusions are almost certainly, in aggregate, quietly effective political course-changers, inasmuch as they change consideration of how much government people will be calmly accepted. It's the very inconsequentiality of such camouflaged incursions that abets the...other side.

Skarbek the Virginian:

"Licensing has quietly become the most important labor market policy today. Governments at the county, state, and federal levels license over 800 different occupations. Some licensing is common, such as regulations on medical doctors, but other, more novel occupations, such as Fortune Tellers and Hair Braiders have recently implemented licensing requirements."

It goes without saying that pilots, doctors, engineers, etc etc etc must be licenced. But when licensing requirements start, erm, prodding, they amount to juried-bureaucrat judgements avec fees. Any given instance of such tiny, politico-cultural maneuverings behind-the-scenes might be trivial, and a non-topic, but such regulation is, in aggregate, a Trojan Horse well worth noting.

Thanks again, Kate.

The GAI. A fine concept indeed. Well done, Russell.

When will they license journalists?What standard are in place to maintain ethics and quality in that field?

All medical professionals and other professions have governing boards in place to keep their members educated, and to maintain standards.Engineers and technicians in various fields are required to meet high standards before 'certification' by their peers.
Why does the government have to get involved when it's government beaurocracy that bogs down and interferes with any process?

Think of the convulsions required to 'standardize' journalists;

Is it just the ability to find, format and present facts? Would there be penalties for the inability to complete the above tasks. Who would be in charge of discipline?
Would they be like lawyers, making their own rules? I have always loved the fact that lawyers don't consider it unprofessional to engage in sex with clients, as described by the lawyers themselves.
Or would the standards be raised to expect that every bit of information can be 'improved with value added ( context, import, sensitivity).. '.

I grow weary just thinking of the many, many twitches and tweaks that would be required to license journalism, as we know it.

And what of the public, upon which the journalists inflict themselves, would they have any say?

A government activism index (GAI) - fascinating.

That there has to be government or societal regulation is hardly disputable. But how much? Can that other mode of societal regulation, the free market, stand alone? Would a free market prevent lead in paints or watered down milk products? And how much does government activism contribute to the problems of a middle class economy based around small businesses?

A fine balancing act..

Congratulations Russel,
Great idea.

Well Done! Well Deserved and well reasoned.

Also it would help with turning the tide regarding the proliferation of revisionist politics, history and punditry. It would allow for actual comparative effects of governance and policy across Administrations.

Sorry Aaron...that was rhetorical and perhaps cynical wrt jounalists. Standards would keep journalists out of work, except the handful who don't "make things up."

No offense taken. Did I post anything?

That would be Arron D.

Ah, an impostor :) His lips are different.

Tracking the impact of every regulatory change introduced by a government would be complex and of little utility. However, this can be vastly simplified by instead using a simple measurement such as the increase or decrease in total Acts, pages, or even words, within a given year.

Beautiful.

Nothing captures the shoddy, simplistic methodology of the Fraser Institute like this proposal.

Stephen at August 21, 2009 1:24 PM
**Nothing captures the shoddy, simplistic methodology of the Fraser Institute like this proposal.**

The use of absolutes such as "nothing, anything, always, never, ever " etc is also shoddy and simplistic.
Your heroes, the obamademocrats, vote for 1000 page legislation, with 300 pages of last minute amendments, without reading......much like your denunciation of ANYTHING from the Fraser Institute.

Congrats Russ.

An excellent suggestion .... I'm sure the GAI will take flight somehow.

Although I'm not real sure the simplified set of measurements you propose would be enough.

Remember .... you can always do something the easy way .... or do it right.

Cheers!

Measuring Curiosity in schools-Cedar Riener

The use of absolutes such as "nothing, anything, always, never, ever " etc is also shoddy and simplistic.

You have no clue, do you?

The folly of opting for a quantitative measure "such as the increase or decrease in total Acts, pages, or even words, within a given year," regardless of a qualitative measure of what those acts, pages or words actually say doesn't occur to you, does it?

Of course not.

Hence, your suitability for a post at the Fraser Institute, whose "researchers" are--to put it kindly--to be doubted.

Stephen at August 22, 2009 2:26 AM
**You have no clue, do you?**

Sophistry has no value....
Don't **** down my back and tell me it's raining.