3 ms·

Whenever I hear this argument, especially with its prominent example of hair cutting, I can't help but think Chesterton's fence. Isn't one of the main problems

Whenever I hear this argument, especially with its prominent example of hair cutting, I can't help but think Chesterton's fence. Isn't one of the main problems that hair salons are avoiding is the spreading of lice and other bugs (that we now take the non-existence of for granted)? That doesn't excuse the high fees, red tape, zoning restrictions, etc. But we should seek to reform those dynamics and make them less onerous, rather than assuming that the lack of problems we currently enjoy is reflective of the natural condition. Personally I think that all costs for state licensing programs should come out of the state's general budget rather than being foisted onto those being required to get licenses. And passing a straightforward test should suffice, rather than needing to complete any particular education program.

mhb 4y ago
The argument already accounts for Chesterton's fence. It would take about 2 minutes to understand that the reason to put combs and scissors in that blue disinfectant is sanitation. The thesis of the article is that the high fees, red tape and other restrictions are absurd.
- mindslight 4y ago
  The subtitle is "Why should anyone need a license to braid hair?", and the lead in example is talking about New Hampshire's push to wholly remove licensure. Sure, maybe that kind of tack is needed to open up minds to the idea that it's possible to have consentual private interactions without the mediation of government. But it's not particularly nuanced to brush aside why some of that standardization may have been useful to begin with, especially when we take for granted modern conveniences like the ability to talk into any random shop labeled "hair cuts" and not walk out with bugs. I'll admit I stopped reading the article at some point, as it was quite long and not particularly enlightening. So I said my piece regarding the philosophical basis of where reform needs to start, which is actually the same root as the issue of unaccountable police - this rotten assumption of sovereign immunity. If we correctly attribute the state's drag on individuals' lives to the state itself (rather than allowing it to be brushed aside and externalized to individuals), the proper incentives will fall out.

mhb 4y ago

The argument already accounts for Chesterton's fence. It would take about 2 minutes to understand that the reason to put combs and scissors in that blue disinfectant is sanitation. The thesis of the article is that the high fees, red tape and other restrictions are absurd.

mindslight 4y ago
The subtitle is "Why should anyone need a license to braid hair?", and the lead in example is talking about New Hampshire's push to wholly remove licensure. Sure, maybe that kind of tack is needed to open up minds to the idea that it's possible to have consentual private interactions without the mediation of government. But it's not particularly nuanced to brush aside why some of that standardization may have been useful to begin with, especially when we take for granted modern conveniences like the ability to talk into any random shop labeled "hair cuts" and not walk out with bugs. I'll admit I stopped reading the article at some point, as it was quite long and not particularly enlightening. So I said my piece regarding the philosophical basis of where reform needs to start, which is actually the same root as the issue of unaccountable police - this rotten assumption of sovereign immunity. If we correctly attribute the state's drag on individuals' lives to the state itself (rather than allowing it to be brushed aside and externalized to individuals), the proper incentives will fall out.