From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 19:52:46 PDT
To: Jim Ray <liberty@gate.net>
Subject: Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
In-Reply-To: <199509142253.SAA63671@tequesta.gate.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.D-G.3.91.950914224730.17369B-100000@dg.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Jim Ray wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Brian Davis wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >Just wondering about liability issues after state accrediting is dead.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> <I can resist jumping in no longer...>
> 
> Despite loud squawking, "chaos" will not ensue. Instead, the private
> sector will take over assesing risk, which it has always done better.
> 
> An example: I'd rather jump into a full bathtub with a plugged-in,
> UL [Underwriter's Laboratories] certified TV set than take the FDA
> approved (but very dangerous, IMO) prostate drug called "Proscar."
> While there is only one UL (by choice, not force) and only one FDA
> (by force, not choice) I can easily imagine a  lawyer-certifying
> companies like UL for appliances, probably tied [like UL] to the
> insurance industry. [I am not a lawyer, or a doctor either.]
> JMR

Last I checked, FDA, UL, or state bar association approval does not 
*require* you to take, use, or hire the approved drug, toaster or lawyer.  
Market forces are still at work, albeit in a filtered environment.
Just a first cut.  And even that can usually be gotten around.

EBD