4 ms·
> You mean there are no "safety reasons" involved in cutting hair? Ah, but this isn't really for "safety reasons", it's for "legal reasons". Sweden is widely r
by amag 11y ago
> You mean there are no "safety reasons" involved in cutting hair?
Ah, but this isn't really for "safety reasons", it's for "legal reasons". Sweden is widely regarded as one of the (if not the) most safety concerned countries, after all we "gave"(1) the world Volvo and Autoliv (among others). Yet the idea of regulating barbershops for safety reasons is totally alien here. We tend to trust that people have a common sense. This seems not to be the case in the US. This is mostly because of the legal system, whereas in Sweden you cannot sue someone else because you lack (or pretend to lack) common sense. In fact, the idea would never even occur to most people here.
(1) No, we're not giving away Volvos, you need to buy one yourself.
- pluma 11y agoNice theory, but it's also a regulated occupation in Germany.
- amag 11y agoGermany != Sweden
- pluma 11y agoYes, but > This is mostly because of the legal system [..]. [T]he idea would never even occur to most people here. As far as I understand it, your argument was that the US regulates hairdressers because of its legal system. Germany also regulates hairdressers but doesn't have the US's legal system (in fact, it's closer to Sweden's with regard to suing over common sense). So as far as I can tell, Germany invalidates your assessment.
- amag 11y agoAh, but it doesn't. That would be a logical fallacy. Germany could have another reason for regulating barbers. My original comment wasn't about the regulation of barbers in general, it was about regulating them in the US (which was what the article was about). Having been to the US a couple of times, I have experienced first hand that you are commonly deprived of your own choices in the name of safety, when really, it's in the name of "not wanting to be sued".