Incumbent business interests colluding with government under the guise of “public safety” to enact regulation and licensing just to build artificial moats and protect themselves from competition is such fiendish invisible form of corruption.
Planet money did a very good and very despressing episode on one woman’s quest to open a hair braiding salon.
It's really shocking how much of "the public" has bought into this "public safety" nonsense too. I recently had a lengthy debate with someone who was arguing that I, as a homeowner, should not be able to hire someone to do such basic plumbing tasks as snake my sewer line unless that person had passed a plumbing certification with the state. This over-regulation is disastrous to the poor.
It's not over-regulation to require plumbers to be certified by a competent agency, and those regulations are usually in place as a result of uncertified people taking advantage of the poor. They are an effect, not a cause.
For example, terra cotta sewer lines still exist in a lot of places. They are old, have been invaded by roots (and thus are going to need disproportionately more attention than modern lines), and fragile. An inexperienced or careless plumber with typical snaking equipment can easily damage these sewer pipes, costing homeowners tens of thousands of dollars.
State certification helps to ensure that the plumbers that show up know how to deal with these systems and can lose their right to work in the industry if they're careless.
More generally, I see this sentiment a lot, especially on tech forums, where regulation is somehow a thing that happens all by itself and it's the enemy of the poor, while we're surrounded by mountains of evidence exactly to the contrary.
* Flint, Michigan
* The Gulf Coast
* Anywhere in coal country
* Wall Street
* TARP
If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. The whole point of regulations is that the collective power of the masses protects itself against the wealth of the elite and business interests who don't generally have to live with the results of their actions. Are there stupid regulations? Of course, lots of them. Are there some that just don't plain work? Of course, lots of them. That's why you don't make regulations based on feelings and instead look at what the evidence says.
> If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you
If you really think that the collective motivations and incentives behind every regulation can be so easily generalized, then you're no different from free-market zealots unable to appreciate that markets are suboptimal for certain tasks. Regulations can be abused just like any other part of government, and just like any other part of government, this potential for abuse isn't a blanket indictment of the overall concept.
>* Flint, Michigan * The Gulf Coast * Anywhere in coal country * Wall Street * TARP
We've made a really big leap from me suggesting I don't want to force a poor person to get permission from a wealthy person to perform handy-man type jobs around my house to talking about systemic risk problems. That first bit about the poor person requiring permission from a wealthy person is the key factor here, because who do you think is going to push for those regulations? The homeowners? Ehh, maybe the one person who had some bad luck. But the big money pushing those regulations to be written will be monied industry incumbents who don't want poor people to undercut them on easier work.
Yes, your points are all valid and correct. My statement was meant about what they are meant to protect not made to protect. Was a bad word choice on my part and I deserve the criticism of my comment I received.
The first case that comes immediately to mind is Range Resources, in Pittsburgh, which drilled shale gas wells in poorer neighborhoods because the residents wouldn't have the resources to pursue lawsuits against them (http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource/latest-oil-and-gas/2...). State and federal regulatory agencies help to level the playing field (when they aren't being corrupted -- but that's another matter). In the absence of effective regulation, poorer communities have no recourse against being exploited.
Here's a really interesting insider perspective on the intersection of economics and regulation: http://allegedwisdom.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-story-of-lucky... ... this guy estimates the "trans fats ban" saved a few tens of thousands of lives. The article also opens by describing a case in which proposed regulation would not have made sense, but don't stop there.
And, while lack of regulations have over history cost this country an untold amount of money and lives, it's not at all clear that environmental regulations have a net negative impact on the economy: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/2/14772518/env...
As Cory Doctorow points out, modern software has changed the rules around regulation and cheating, and there are lots of incentives to cheat: http://locusmag.com/2017/09/cory-doctorow-demon-haunted-worl.... In cases like these, we're simply getting a glimpse at how the various actors involved would behave in a completely unregulated environment. Too many people now are too young to know first-hand what an unegulated country looked like: http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-america-before-epa-doc...
As the blog from the economist alludes to, there are bad regulations too. I'd be quick to agree with that. But while it's far too simplistic to merely say, "regulations are good" or "regulations are bad", it's not hard to find evidence that our lives are overall much better off with many of the regulations we have in place now.
I see this sentiment a lot, especially on tech forums
I agree this is common especially in such settings, yet you are here on a tech forum arguing for the necessity of professional certification. Assuming I'm not confusing your username with another, I usually agree with your comments here on HN, but not this one.
Do you think there are differences in your background that might explain why you hold the less common view here? For example, are you involved in the legislative process? Do you hold some certifications that you feel are societally beneficial? Have you personally been hurt by the lack of regulation?
those regulations are usually in place as a result of uncertified people taking advantage of the poor
While I'm sure this is often the case, I assume you'd agree that there can be an incentive for established players to want to lock in their positions by excluding competitors? Since few consumers care enough about any particular issue to get legislation passed, the impetus for new laws often comes from industry. How do you distinguish legitimate public safety issues from protectionism by entrenched businesses?
while we're surrounded by mountains of evidence exactly to the contrary
Are there some particularly strong pieces of evidence that you can offer, especially those that might compare the situation between otherwise comparable countries with higher or lower degrees of professional certification requirements?
Do you think the US benefit from greater certification for professionals? I was surprised to learn that Switzerland requires apprenticeship and training for almost all jobs, including retail cashiers. This strikes me as overkill, but apparently has the benefit of keeping very low unemployment rates: https://www.e-tas.ch/swiss-apprentices-get-new-futures.
> yet you are here on a tech forum arguing for the necessity of professional certification
? I'm not sure if you're implying that there's some hypocrisy here; I would be in favor of some kinds of certification process for software developers, for what it's worth, especially given the vast amounts of personal information that many developers have access to, even if they don't have any background in adequately keeping that data secure.
> Do you think there are differences in your background that might explain why you hold the less common view here?
My personal views have become less ideological and more data-driven as I've gotten older. I've shifted from approximately Republican, in the 90s, to more democratic, to more libertarian during the first Ron Paul cycle, to more ... honestly, I'm not sure what bucket it would be now. Mostly socially liberal, a little bit fiscally conservative, but most of all, data-driven. I'll accept whatever point of view that has the most evidence for promoting egalitarianism and humanism.
Tech forums today appear to be broadly developing a strong libertarian politic. Or, maybe a vocal minority. dang is more circumspect on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15701584
The most compelling stuff I've seen in recent years has suggested that regulation is a net positive on society, and that more regulated societies tend to be wealthier, healthier, and happier.
This is not to say that all regulations are beneficial, of course.
> I assume you'd agree that there can be an incentive for established players to want to lock in their positions by excluding competitors?
Oh, sure. That's a thing that happens, and when it does, it should be fought against. It cannot, however, be used as a stick against all forms of regulation.
> Since few consumers care enough about any particular issue to get legislation passed, the impetus for new laws often comes from industry.
The causes behind various forms of regulation can be interesting. The EPA, for instance, exists in spite of the rather large amount of lobbying and marketing against it from businesses which it regulates. The FCC was up until recently in a similar position; the current administration has managed to effectively neuter it, for the time being.
Lots of new laws come from industry lobbying. Lots of other laws come from legislators doing what they think is right, even if their morals don't agree with someone else's, or they're not particularly knowledgeable on the subject they're legislating. But, lots of other laws also come from science, or panels of experts providing consultation on a subject.
> Are there some particularly strong pieces of evidence that you can offer, especially those that might compare the situation between otherwise comparable countries with higher or lower degrees of professional certification requirements?
My "regulation" tag in pinboard is still a bit light though, so I don't have an immediate reply for you and it's late and I don't want to start nerding on statistics right now. :-)
I'm not sure if you're implying that there's some hypocrisy here
No, I was just wondering whether there was a particular reason that you'd take what appears to be the minority position within tech circles. I'm mostly in the possibly-more-common "the US is over-regulated" camp, tend to be moving farther in that direction, and was wondering what perspective I might be missing.
I'm strongly for greater governmental regulation regarding environmental issues (and in general, biased toward regulations that protect the commons from individuals) but generally against regulations that mandate government involvement in what would otherwise be person-to-person interactions.
In both cases, though, I worry that new laws are often created for some hidden private agenda rather than for the stated public good, even if the benefit to the public might be real. Usually, I'd prefer that we improve enforcement of our existing rules rather than adding more.
Thanks for your excellent answer, and I'll read the links you provided tomorrow.
>where regulation is somehow a thing that happens all by itself
Regulation certainly doesn't happen all by itself. An incident happens, like 9/11, and then suddenly Dropout Joe down at the TSA is groping my barefoot grandma in front of hundreds of looky-loos.
I'm not completely anti-regulation, but I think people are perfectly capable of assessing the amount of risk they want to take for day to day maintenance on their house. I can literally drive 15 mins down the road to the local Home Depot and rent a plumbing snake for the day and do it myself. The fact that some people screwed up their own sewer lines almost certainly does not justify raising the costs for millions of other homes who need basic handy-man type services done in their homes. If I really feel like I want added protection, there's lots of options available. I can make sure my plumber is bonded, check references, for larger jobs I may want to make sure my plumber is certified by some form of trade union, etc.
Meanwhile, countless other people get bilked, scammed, and exploited, and laws are written to try to protect them. Some of them are good laws, and some of them aren't.
I realize these laws create a terrible hardship for you, but they apply to everyone and that's just the way things are until we live in a society where you can carry a card certifying you as a person so competent that you may be exempted from your choice of laws.
>I realize these laws create a terrible hardship for you
It's not me who needs protection from over-regulation, I'm doing just fine. It's the poor your ideology is hurting. And you're doing it in the name of protecting the wealthy, which I don't understand. If what people might be doing carries systemic risk, then sure, regulate away. But let the poor snake my sewer line if that's what he wants to do to make a buck.
You seem to be approaching this strictly from, "regulations make it harder for the poor to provide cheap services to the rich". I'm coming at this from, "regulations make it harder for the rich to exploit the poor".
Poor people need infrastructure maintenance too. (I'd expect them to need a disproportionately greater amount of it.) Poor people have fewer resources at hand for dealing with costly negligence. They can't afford a hotel for a few nights, they don't have an attorney in the contacts list that can write a mean letter, they can't just pay out of pocket to remediate the problem and then sue the service provider (or their insurance) later. When an under-trained, unregulated, uncertified professional comes out and doesn't happen to be one of those flawless gems that people like to point to as examples of everything working out in an unregulated environment, when they screw up and cause damage, poor people are left far worse off.
So you can look at it as, now the poor have to pay 15 to 20% more for professional services, or they can pay less but are more likely to be financially harmed by those services to an extent that would vastly exceed their initial savings. I take the view that spending $20 more for a plumber is worth having a certified and licensed professional.
And, by the way, I've lived both sides of this. I've never been wealthy. I am right now in an "uncertain" housing situation -- my landlords have decided to terminate my tenancy because the median rental market in this region has gone up 27% in the last 12 months and the paperwork we signed doesn't allow them to raise the rent that much. I also owned and operated a technical business for 10 years, occasionally doing work that I really should have had some licenses for. I know, first-hand, what effect a stricter regulatory and licensing environment would have had on me as a low-cost service provider.
>"regulations make it harder for the rich to exploit the poor".
How is a poor person starting their own business being exploited by the rich? This isn't the Uber gig economy, this is a guy selling his labor on Craigslist or something because he lacks better options.
>Most non-partisan sources I can find suggest that professional licensing increases wages;
Yes of course it increases wages, by forcing out the little guy who is not educated enough to complete the full course of licensing, or lacks the resources to take a lower wage as an 'apprentice', or doesn't speak the language, etc.
>I take the view that spending $20 more for a plumber is worth having a certified and licensed professional.
I'm not trying to stop you from hiring whomever you'd like. You are the one being the authoritarian.
>occasionally doing work that I really should have had some licenses for... I know, first-hand, what effect a stricter regulatory and licensing environment would have had on me as a low-cost service provider.
Apparently it wouldn't have had any effect on you since you were willing to ignore the law anyways.
My father worked as a drain cleaning specialist for many decades without a plumbing certificate. When he started his business drain cleaning was not regulated under the local plumbing trade. He knew vastly more about how to locate sewerage pipes, clean difficult lines (tight corners), which trees/shrubs were likely to be causing problems through invasive roots or causing movement of the pipes than any of the certified plumbers. He had knowledge of the types of pipes that a house within a suburb was likely to have (terra cotta, cast iron, PVC etc) and the right way to deal with blockages in each type.
He did work for many plumbers who knew they didn't have the right equipment or knowledge required for some of the larger jobs (sewerage lines vs sinks for example). Many plumbers were not interested in drain cleaning as it often involved dealing with unpleasant waste, jobs were typically only an hour or two in length while construction plumbing or gas fitting was cleaner work with more billable time. He also coordinated with the local water authority when a blockage was suspected to be in the sewer main.
My father would not do any pipe repair or fittings replacement. As he was not a licensed plumber he was not even permitted to change a tap washer.
The Plumbers Association eventually lobbied to have drain cleaning included under their certification. This came in when my father was about 50 years old. He did not want to do an apprenticeship to become a licensed plumber. An apprenticeship would have taken quite a few years at low pay to learn plumbing construction, gas fitting and a bunch of other stuff that he was not interested in doing.
So my father had to then be "supervised" by a licensed plumber. Luckily "supervised" was interpreted quite loosely for a long time.
My fathers rates for drain cleaning were substantially less per hour than a licensed plumber charged. By capturing drain cleaning under the plumbing certification - prices for drain cleaning did go up for most people.
From my perspective my father was not an "uncertified person taking advantage of the poor". An organised group (the Plumbers Association) instead lobbied to capture exclusive access to work via regulation. None of my father's associates who held plumbing licences thought it was a good change - so they helped him through "supervision" to keep working.
Generally, I see certification and regulation as a good thing. I am skeptical, however, of organised groups lobbying to increase their power/exclusive access etc through more regulation. Any such regulatory capture should be backed by solid risk analysis.
As you pointed out, the risk in drain cleaning includes damaged pipework. This could be mitigated by professional insurance, which my father carried - it does not require regulation and licensing.
I could tell a similar story about my grandfather, who built MATV and CATV distribution systems around the Bay Area for a very long time. He had the appropriate licenses, but hated having to have them.
I get that there are exceptions, and those exceptions are the stories we like to tell -- the same way that this site tends towards the startup success stories and not the more mundane startup failure stories.
I would really rather not live in a society where insurance companies were the sole adjudicators of professional misconduct, given that they are primarily in the business of finding ways to not write checks.
Where I live, homeowners aren’t allowed to do most plumbing or electrical work on their own homes. Anything beyond replacing an outlet or a faucet and you’re in master tradesman territory.
I’ve no issue with getting the work inspected, but there is no reason that I can’t be allowed to do my own work. Of course, I do it anyway (and so do many others) but technicallly it’s illegal.
Related to this, it amuses (and saddens) me whenever I hear of a shortage of skilled trades workers. When it takes 7 years of apprenticeship to become a master electrician, plumber or gas fitter is it really any wonder that kids coming out of high school would choose something else?
On one hand, I agree with this sentiment, you should be free to do your own work on your own property.
On the other hand... my landlord in college. He did a lot of work on his house himself, and did it really badly. One example: he installed a cheap indoor light fixture outside where rain would get into it. It also happened to be on the same circuit as our refrigerator. So, sometimes when it rained, the circuit with our refrigerator on it would trip its circuit breaker.
You might be perfectly competent to do your own work on your house. The problem is, everyone that works on their own house thinks they are competent, and many of them are not.
I feel like this is one of those issues that is doomed to oscillate. A few generations will exist with these rules complaining of not being allowed to work on their own houses, and maybe these rules will change. Some injuries/deaths/just plain tiring of janky poorly done house modifications by prior owners will see a return of these rules. Repeat...
Sounds like the kind of thing that'd last until you tried to sell the house, and a prospective buyer's home inspector caught it. Then you'd end up paying for proper work to be done, one way or another.
The seller has a legal duty to disclose known defects and work done without proper permits or not according to code. And they don't disclose, and the defect is subsequently discovered buy the buyer, the seller can be sued.
I think there is a clear middle-ground here: You should be allowed to work, and when your shoddy work is to the detriment of someone else, they should be able to react accordingly.
I'm not a fan of over-regulation, but there are definitely some public good issues with plumbing in particular which justify some scrutiny by the state.
For example, a bad/ignorant plumber could build a system where small quantities of used water can be reintroduced to the mains supply (the public health consequences of which could obviously be horrible).
We could help the poor more by providing free training/licensing, or just by having a more generous welfare system so that they could buy it themselves. Sacrificing useful regulations is actually a very costly way to help the poor.
This meme is also behind the incredibly common position that the "sharing economy" should be banned. Many people sincerely believe that if you make jobs that pay below a minimum wage illegal, wages will increase. They're not just limiting other people's contracting rights: they're doing so based on their assumption that a theory that is highly controversial in economics is correct.
This is why robotics might not produce a job boom. The argument will be that there are bad things you can do with a robot, so only very very certified companies should be allowed to produce and write software for them. This is already starting to happen with drones.
If anyone is wondering by barbers require licenses in all 50 states, it's for both historical and public health reasons. On the historical front, barbers were previously something akin to doctors, performing a variety of tasks that we would now say are the responsibility of doctors and dentists. On the public health front, barbers deal with dangerous chemicals (hair dying), infectious diseases (lice), and tools that can be deadly if mishandled (razors). Training is necessary to minimize these risks.
Yeah, the "why" was conspicuously missing from this article.
I looked and could not find any official reference to a home theater installation license in Connecticut. I would've expected to find it here: http://www.ct.gov/dcp/cwp/view.asp?q=461650. If the article is referring to licenses required for low voltage work, that's a license that's required in other states too (including California).
Past articles on onerous licensing across the country (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/why-license-a-flo...), have been written by Morris M. Kleiner, who appears to be closely related to the Institute for Justice, which is a libertarian law firm that has been filing lawsuits against states over their licensing laws for years. The IJ is ultimately the source for the submitted article in The Atlantic.
So this is a political article, and although that doesn't mean it's wrong, it'd be really nice to get some more objective background information on these licenses.
This may be true, but it is not always the case. Licensure is the strongest form of government regulation. There are many people who deal with these kinds of challenges who do so without a license. Public health is often the justification held up for occupational licensure but the dangers haven't proven themselves. In fact the licensure schemes have done more to keep people OUT of the profession, or to beholden themselves to private credentialing organizations, with costly fees, supervisory practice, and examinations.
Certification is a much better avenue. Let the consumer choose. The Institute for Justice has had enormous success in lawsuits on this very issue, and it's only a matter of time before barber licensing falls too.
Have you seen tree-trimming gone wrong? I've seen one death and one TBI (complete with dude hanging from a tree, massive pedunculated scalp lac, neighbor screaming for help from the ladder, holding the trimmer's unconscious body up, both of them covered in blood).
As for home entertainment: I've seen lightning strikes where things weren't properly grounded, blew out whole blocks of network equipment and TVs.
Maybe if our education system was more robust, we wouldn't have to legally constrain these people. But, as it turns out, society these days requires a bit more technical know-how and knowledge of risk-assessment than back in the glory days of the 1930s when digging ditches could earn you an honest living.
People complaining about licensure laws are missing the bigger picture: the licensure laws are a symptom of the poor education system. We've been slowly backsliding into autocracy for a long time, and the education system is a major source of the problem.
Surely though, a month of training is enough to learn to test a socket to see if it is properly grounded, and thus is enough to install a 5.1 surround sound system.
Meanwhile no licensing is required for the Internet of Things. Your plastic router runs an outdated version of Linux and participates in a DDOS network. Since no one can assign liability to the manufacturer this means cheaper routers for the consumer and a demand for IT security professionals and DDOS mitigation services. GDP rises! A win for capitalism!
"Why it's illegal to braid hair without a license in Utah. And why that rule — and hundreds of others like it in states all around the country — are a disaster for the U.S. economy."
I can't find a reference anywhere, probably due to not remembering the exact title, but in the 70s-80s there was a series of books about goofy laws with titles like "You Can't Feed an Elephant Peanuts on a Sunday in Kansas" that I used to get from the library.
That seems pretty different, since those collections of wacky laws are almost universally unenforced. The hair braiding example is an actual policy discussion, not just a historical quirk.
I'm actually getting tired of this mantra of "freedom" as a defense any kind of regulation in the US.
Gun rights are on obvious one and everyone throws up their hands in the air saying there is no solution for the problems no one else in the world has.
Less controversial, AirBnB and many Americans argue "it's my house/apartment, I should be able to do what I want" yet those wanting to basically run illegal hotels are exploting a pretty classic case of the tragedy of the commons (in that their neighbours bear the cost).
The UK has a largely unregulated system for trades to the point that after the dot-com crash, many former programmers took up plumbing.
In Australia we have a pretty rigid system for licensing of trades to the point that if you call yourself an electrician or a plumber without a license you can go to jail. You're free to subcontract for a licensed contractor but ultimately someone who is licensed needs to be responsible.
When I lived in the UK, I had a friend who was an Australian licensed plumber (note that plumber here includes natural gas). He said that him and his Australian tradesmen friends used to call the UK tradesmen "chancers". Maybe they can do it and maybe they can't but they'll give it a go. He gave me the advice that if I ever got any work done in the UK get an Australian tradesman.
I don't understand why anyone would argue that you should be able to do what you want when it comes to things like gas and electricity when any shortcuts, negligence or mistakes could kill people. It boggles my mind. Just watch any of the renovation shows on HGTV and you'll see the dodgy things people do. At least a licensed tradesmen is accountable in that there's a record of their work and their license can be yanked. More to the point, any such tradesmen will invoke the permitting and inspection processes that are relevant.
It's the same reason there's a building code. Years ago I heard that Australian builders had agreed among themselves to bid on international projects (Asia specifically) and build to Australian rather than local standards. It's more expensive but at least it'll be much safer.
Laws and regulations can be onerous, sure. But they're also necessary. Licensing simply makes sure that licensees are aware of those laws.
Complaining about licensing does not always/usually represent a serious objection to licenses that are reasonably available to all who are capable of doing the work, and which are actually going to be revoked if someone proves unfit for the industry. These do not so much limit your freedom to work in the industry, as the manner in which you'll conduct yourself in the industry.
I object to licensing as a means to protect incumbents by deterring (or outright capping the number of) new entrants, where the quality-control angle isn't really there, and it's just an extra tax/filter on having that job.
> Gun rights are on obvious one and everyone throws up their hands in the air saying there is no solution for the problems no one else in the world has.
My position on 2A is probably that I wish it didn't exist, but _given_ that it exists, I'd want to tread very cautiously around violating constitutional rights. People take for granted how much better society is than it was for most of human history, and part of the credit for the incredible advance of human rights (from a historical perspective) of the last couple hundred years goes to advancement in governance that I think people are often too quick to take for granted. Reductively dismissing this baseline as ill-considered, hollow support for "freedom" just means you don't understand the conversation that's taking place.
Again, you and I probably substantially agree on every gun control policy you could imagine. The difference is that I don't need to reduce my opponents to shallow caricatures in order to feel secure in my beliefs.
You're also being extremely dishonest in pretending that your gas and electric example is even remotely relevant to the article or the discussion. Neither the study, the article, nor this thread is making the claim that regulations need to be entirely done away with. They're making the claim that the current state is one of excessive regulation: that florists and barbers[1] are unnecessarily regulated, not that we should allow anyone to do any job, regardless of safety concerns.
Again, if you can't make a counterargument without having to grossly misrepresent the opposite side, you should probably seriously examine your views on an issue.
[1] There are dangers in barbering that mostly avoid proper use of chemicals, but those can easily have their sale controlled instead of just requiring all barbers to be licensed.
To be honest, this doesn't seem like that realistic a concern to me. It's a lot harder to prepare lots of food without making people sick than it is to shave and cut hair without stabbing someone, and yet chefs aren't under occupational licensing. I'm not against literally any regulation, but occupational licensing is a pretty heavy-duty instrument of regulation and I'm really skeptical that it needs to be applied to every barber.
> My position on 2A is probably that I wish it didn't exist, but _given_ that it exists, I'd want to tread very cautiously around violating constitutional rights
From my perspective (as a foreigner who has spent a lot of time in the US) I think the second amendment has a lot of downsides, but I find myself siding with the gun rights crowd on principle, because the anti-gun-rights people seem to be so dishonest in their methods. The US Constitution provides a mechanism for amending the US Constitution, so if you don't like what the US Constitution says then you should be moving to amend the US Constitution, not moving to ignore it.
If gun rights opponents would just come out and say "Let's amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment" then maybe I'd agree with them, because they'd be making an honest proposition to do things in the legally correct way, and they'd have to clear the appropriate bar to make it happen (incidentally I think the US Constitution should be like the Australian constitution and not changeable without a referendum, but that's another story).
But it seems that gun rights opponents almost never take this tack -- they're always trying to just straight-up ignore the US constitution.
If only the Americans would keep out of other nation's affairs the way you demand in this case. Socialist country? Well, maybe stop reading about it in the paper. Goes both ways, you know.
This is so sad. Every time I read something like this a naive question appears in my head: "Why can't people just get along?". Because in the end it comes down to this: "we" against "them", where "we" have the licence or some other bureaucratic nonsense, and "they" don't.
Specifically, the problem is not regulation, but implementation of regulation.
If it costs significant time and money to acquire a license, that in itself is an unnecessary hindrance.
In my opinion, a better implementation of regulation would be reaction, rather than precaution. Everyone can be free to do work without licensing, but they are liable for causing harm. The only difference being that work is not immediately illegal.
I think occupational licensure is a step too far, and done so often it's creating entrenched monopolies. We should pull back from this and use certification instead.
It is important to know from whom the message comes, or just who has said the same things in the past. It's a good way to get your bearings on where the ideas might lead. Ideas should not be historyless.
No, but in this instance you (GP, anyway, at least) appear to be evaluating an idea on the basis of an opinion about some people who happen to share it, rather than by its own merits. This does not strike me as a useful rubric.
Maybe, just maybe, they will believe anything they are paid to believe. No need to attempt to cast doubt on his entire argument by calling him paranoid or a conspiracy nut. Isn't that an ad-hominem?
$185 isn't much to start a profession. I imagine as a barber it's likely the least of your initial costs.
> $185 isn't much to start a profession. I imagine as a barber it's likely the least of your initial costs.
I think $185 is just the licensing fee from the state and does not include the cost of the training or the missed revenue/income while you're doing that training instead of running your business. So the true cost is likely much higher.
Planet money did a very good and very despressing episode on one woman’s quest to open a hair braiding salon.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/epis...