>>You're ignoring the part where it cannot be conveyed, like when people are mentally ill, incapacitated, etc. We already have provisions for when someone cann

>>You're ignoring the part where it cannot be conveyed, like when people are mentally ill, incapacitated, etc. We already have provisions for when someone cannot make decisions for themselves, like guardianship. We do not need to subject the entire population to guardianship-like subordination. >>You keep calling this a monopoly, but it is not a monopoly. It is a monopoly: the licensure rules have a monopoly over all providers. Your argument seems to be that people cannot choose for themselves, so it's better we impose this monopoly on them. But if they can't choose an effective delegate in the marketplace, who says they can choose an effective politician to vote for in an election, who will then appoint the regulator that vets their market options? It's better to go with a decentralized approach, where each individual is free to choose their own delegate, rather than a centralized one where the entire population votes every four years for one delegate that gets the power to vote for every one, whether they consent or not. >>Do you have a thesis paper or something that we can see? We really need more information about what exactly you are proposing beyond 'remove licenses, free market will work', I think the burden of proof is on those who advocate for continuing to limit people's right to freely contract and purchase the goods/services they want.