Ironically, your speed limit example is exactly a case of government interference that doesn't cause the intended positive result. See the Montana no posted spe

Ironically, your speed limit example is exactly a case of government interference that doesn't cause the intended positive result. See the Montana no posted speed limits study (TLDR--no speed limit = decrease in fatalities): http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/ http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/montana-no-speed... The author's point is not that the role of government isn't to protect liberty and the general welfare of the American public. He is simply saying that licensing doesn't do a good job of that, and in fact causes the exact opposite effect through lack of competition (bad for prices and quality, and thus bad for consumers) while really doing nothing to ensure quality. In order to protect the liberty and general welfare of the public, the government would be best to stop requiring licensing.