I'll write a piece of an answer I gave to another person:
> Lets say we want quality control in dentistry. You like the government quality control the government gives and would like your dentists to count with their approval. I, on the other hand, think it's requirements are excessive. Most of what my dentist does is find black spots in my teeth, drill them out, and then fill the hole. This does not require 4 years of study. If I ever get to need a root canal I would need someone with more studies but until then I'd me happy with someone with less studies, maybe a certification given by the manufacturer of the equipment, I don't know.
If you like the government certification you can limit yourself only to government certificated doctors. No problem.
A group of people should be able do give public approval of university courses and degrees. If you like the government that OK.
I'm just object locking people in cages when they don't comply with these regulations. The violent monopoly is the problem.
> But the article is dead wrong in concluding that we're better off removing all licensing requirements.
The key word here is requirements. Not removing all licensing. The distinction is not expressed clearly. If you don't comply with the "required" licensing they lock you in jail, or the demand money from you, and if you don't comply, then you go to jail.
> Lets say we want quality control in dentistry. You like the government quality control the government gives and would like your dentists to count with their approval. I, on the other hand, think it's requirements are excessive. Most of what my dentist does is find black spots in my teeth, drill them out, and then fill the hole. This does not require 4 years of study. If I ever get to need a root canal I would need someone with more studies but until then I'd me happy with someone with less studies, maybe a certification given by the manufacturer of the equipment, I don't know.
If you like the government certification you can limit yourself only to government certificated doctors. No problem. A group of people should be able do give public approval of university courses and degrees. If you like the government that OK.
I'm just object locking people in cages when they don't comply with these regulations. The violent monopoly is the problem.
> But the article is dead wrong in concluding that we're better off removing all licensing requirements.
The key word here is requirements. Not removing all licensing. The distinction is not expressed clearly. If you don't comply with the "required" licensing they lock you in jail, or the demand money from you, and if you don't comply, then you go to jail.