Licensing is more or less arbitrary, with the various professions deciding what is kosher and what is not.
As to this:
“Licensing of lawyers and doctors is not overly burdensome on those professionals, and greatly increases the chances of their clients receiving competent service. It saves lives and keeps innocent people from going to prison or losing their property.”
Burdensome on the professional is not the issue, but protection of the profession from outsiders, which is well worth the few hundred dollars per year many pay to be in the guild. This is protection from competition, and also scrutiny, as the guilds are essentially self policing - Especially the lawyers guilds, who not only define their rules, but write the laws governing how others may or may not have recourse when they fail.
There are particular problems with that field which may not be completely surmountable no matter what solution is attempted. E.G. the law seems more inclined to think that suing a lawyer for malpractice is a party’s best recourse when poorly represented, rather than upset a system dependent upon giving deference to decisions after they are made, whether made well or not.
There could be problems with appeals made on the basis of inadequate counsel if the law practitioner were not licensed, but these could be taken care of, perhaps more easily than when counsel is licensed. Certainly the malpractice insurance market could have some impact.
Additionally, if a lawyer has a problem with drugs, for instance, that is privileged information as far as the public is concerned. Discipline is only quasi-public, with much of most complaints in my current state being confidential. Only the truly egregious and un-hidable cases become known, and people who try to expose a lawyer’s track record can be disciplined by the state supreme court themselves.
Having had three such critters in a row fail something as basic as a response to a counterpetition (which was granted due to lack of answer), all of whom were licensed, and all of whom were given material to prepare said response, has jaded me more than a little.
Some professions or organizations are more responsible than others, but determining which is a tough nut to crack.
Now, I would not see a doctor who was not minimally certified to have some expertise in the field for which I need him, but I would also use other opinions and my own judgment in the end.
The thing to remember is that these are minimum qualifications, and that your lawyer and Realtor or other professional may have self interests contrary to your best interests (in some fields this is more likely than others, or the impact higher), any claim to professional responsibility notwithstanding.
These shysters take care of their own, there is no disputing. What looks like criminal conduct to an outsider can be downgraded to a verbal reprimand within the professional organization.
Something else to consider, and this is a direct result of the close-knit, us-versus-them relationships that exist within the legal community, is the matter of judge retention. You almost never see lawyers' names on letters asking that a particular judge be removed in the next election, no matter how incompetent or biased the judge may be, no matter how often the judge's decisions were overruled on appeal, no matter how uncivilly the judge conducts his courtroom or threatens attorneys coming before him with contempt.
Of course, we can easily understand their reasoning. Most attorneys aspire to be judges themselves someday. Gotta protect the status quo that they've become a part of.
That goes without saying, but as long as you're saying it . .
Have you read the book, Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner? They devote a chapter to realtors, of the Chicago variety, who may or may not be representative. By compiling selling price statistics they conclude that a realtor's motivation is to collect that commission as quickly as they can when it's another person's home but to hold on for a higher offering price when selling their own.
This could be another whole hour for Stossel, if he needs more material.
It is not the professions that decide, it ends up being some politicians that decide to license this or that in a locality — and that IS a valid exercise of LOCAL governmental authority, albeit nearly always an abusive and harmful one.