Why work long, hard, and fairly for your money when you can use the power of the state (a monopoly on violence) to raise prices by creating artificial scarcity for your labor (and beget another monopoly)?
Yet when the donors of the Brookings institute (like JP Morgan) create artificial scarcity massively in excess of what a hairdresser can do, that they can profit from, they can rely upon Brookings' silence.
As a customer, I want these people to be licensed. I don't mind paying more to know that they will do a good job.
There's a big problem of money-chasing hacks that spend minimal effort learning the skills they need so they can claim the profession. I don't want these people doing my hair or fixing my plumbing or doing my electricity. Sometimes I wish software engineering had an effective credentialing mechanism (that isn't university), because there's a lot of idiots in this field.
Ah, _you_ can be violent at any time. You can go get a gun with a five minute waiting period or go to the kitchen for a knife or find a blunt object and go be as violent as your pretty little heart desires. Of course the rest of us may react strongly to your violence but that is, of course, as it has always been. Your freedom to be violent ends where our freedom to be violent begins.
Or perhaps you mean violence === an expectation of pro-social behavior.
That's not what I meant. Sorry for the sarcastic tone. I'm saying occupational licenses enforced by the state are a means of granting political privilege to a group of people, at the expense of another group (usually the poor) through the use of coercion, i.e. violence.
This may sound dramatic, but it's true. Because if an unlicensed (non-privileged) person is operating in the market, even if they are reasonably qualified, they will still be targeted by the state on behalf of the licensed (privileged) lobby: First, the unlicensed person may be fined. If they refuse to pay the fine, they may receive a warrant. If they refuse to go to court, agents of the state will knock at their door, threaten to lock them in a cage for not paying their tribute, and ultimately use physical violence to force compliance.
>at the expense of another group (usually the poor)
Because hairdressers are some of the richest people you know?
I'm kind of okay with them having some occupational barriers to entry, actually. It's not like they earn a lot anyway, and it makes up for some of the absolutely egregious and enormous political privileges granted to the 1% which are completely ignored both in this article and by the people commenting on it in this thread.
