Why should you need government’s permission to do a job?
I’m talking about licensing. The arguments are usually centered around licensing (i.e. government okaying you to do a job because you’ve met certain arbitrary requirements and paid some arbitrary fees) being required to ensure the safety of the consumer. But as you’ll see in this video, that’s simply not the case in the vast majority of the occupations now licensed in various states.
In fact, licensing seems to be more about fees for government and barriers to competition imposed by government (good old crony capitalism).
You have to ask yourself, as pointed out in the video, if forty something other states are seeing people safely shampooed in their states, why is such a license and cost necessary in the states licensing that?
Of course, that’s common sense, and we’ll have none of that when we discuss government.
Understand?
Forward.
~McQ
Twitter: @McQandO
An argument I have made for decades now.
Â
Licensure requirements were Progressive Era products, and in some respects were not bad. The Progressives tended to impose a uniform standard on what had been several areas that were pretty helter-skelter.
Â
But licensure is really a bridge too far, IMNHO. Certification is a MUCH better notion. Even in fields like medicine and the law. Most American lawyers historically “read” the law…never attended or briefly attended a formal law school…and were admitted to the bar by examination. There is no inherent reason to require an education at a school approved essentially by the guild that controls the craft.
Â
In my novel nobody has read, written over two decades ago, I have people who are certified doing surgery. Why the hell not?
Don’t forget rent seeking by those with the harder to obtain licenses from those with less difficult to obtain licenses.
Because you’re racist, THAT’S why!
Â
Need a valid license to shampoo someone but no ID to vote. Sounds about right to me
Pingback: Why should you need government’s permission to do a job? | Liberal Whoppers
Well, the soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors are fighting on Obama’s behalf, do you suppose he gave them permission to do that job too?
Â
On his behalf. wow….really?
“hurl-worthy”; the definition of…
I was just glad I wasn’t the only one who that revealing phrase hit a nerve for.  Here I was watching his weasel waffle evolution interview on same sex marriage (which, as a religious institution is none of the governments flucking business, and if they went for civil unions, I don’t think they could be denied the privileges they say they’re after) and he trots out his narcissism one more time and parades it around. For him, for Obama and Country, long live Obama the decisive, the bold, the gutsy, the genius, the uniter.