I was confused by it too, although it captures many of my own sentiments very closely. The way I tend to think of this is that the government's best role is to

I was confused by it too, although it captures many of my own sentiments very closely. The way I tend to think of this is that the government's best role is to increase competition. Sometimes this means increased regulation, sometimes it means decreased regulation, depending on the market and situation. Sometimes the government should provide more services, sometimes it means it should exit. My biggest concern about all of this is that the regulatory capture and rent-seeking solutions don't get applied equally--that the banner of libertarianism is used to prop up certain monopolies and tear down their competition. So, for example, we have a concerted effort to tear down labor unions while maintaining or even expanding obscene "intellectual property" laws that do little but stifle free speech. It's for these reasons I have concerns about tearing down, as opposed to reforming, unions, which are often the last best defense against exploitation when the government doesn't act to protect its citizens. I have little sympathy for arguments that public school teachers earning 35k a year, with decent benefits, are somehow not worthy of that scant protection against the ultra-wealthy who want to hoard even more money through their own government protections. It's not only hypocritical, but morally bankrupt to argue that the humble public school teacher should somehow be stripped of all their protection, while the financial market should somehow be saved from the consequences of their reckless mistakes, or should be protected from competitors who "steal their ideas." Who is more of a crybaby? Or is it a psychopath? Even in his examples, he uses architecture and law to illustrate problems with licensing systems, but omits discussion of medical licensing, which is arguably far more pernicious in terms of its societal costs because it has such wide-reaching scope (I'd argue the failed war on drugs, not to mention lack of access to health care services, are examples of the long reach of overly strict medical licensing). Note that you are legally entitled to represent yourself legally, but not to treat yourself as you see best. I find it troubling that he seems (perhaps unintentionally, or only by suggestion) to confuse accreditation, which are often systems set up by fields themselves, with actual legally enforced licensing regimes. I see nothing wrong with accreditation--it's a way for private citizens to certify themselves by third parties--but I do have problems with licensure, which mandate certain certification regimes. Anyway, it's an interesting read. I wish there were more discussions around these issues, and about building up alternative systems and what they would look like.