Do it yourself home inspectors

I agree that the buyer should have the right to hire whomever he or she wishes. And, of course some tradespeople would be fine, many would not. However, in Washington State, if the tradesman is calling any issues of wood destroying organisms or conducive conditions (even basic things like a leaking gutter or downspout) and he or she is not licensed, then it is an illegal inspection and that party will be fined if the WSDA finds out. So, whether the buyer really has the right to hire a person of his or her choosing, does depend very much on the state laws. 

As you say, some home inspectors are better, and more qualified, than others. Personally, I would never kill a deal to get another job, however there are some houses that have died the first time because they had problems. An inspector, who does a good report, should provide the evidence to support those calls that would kill a deal. If it is not there, then the report would be suspect. The market here is such that an inspector doing that would soon have a reputation. As to "further inspection" some inspectors do refer out for further evaluation almost everything, and that is not right either. There are times an inspector really does need to do so, for example to get a problem furnace fixed, however an inspector should be able to make a decision on a number of other matters. One problem is, many of the insurance companies that insure inspectors demand that, if a problem is found the inspector must call for further evaluation. It is all part of the "covering your back" syndrome that we are facing in the real estate field. But I agree, I have reviewed reports where an inspector called for further evaluation by a plumber, when the inspector had a system figured backwards. There was nothing wrong!