5 ms·

Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up hurting, or even killing people. Examples include tour guides running over pedestrians w

Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up hurting, or even killing people. Examples include tour guides running over pedestrians while driving and entertaining [0]. Or software engineers writing code that has probably killed people [1], or "beauticians" being forced to work in near-slavery conditions [2], or professional drivers killing people [3]. 0. http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/About-to-be-silenced-S-F-tour-bus-operators-not-6185055.php http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/About-to-be-silenced-S-F... 1. http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_slides.pdf http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_s... 2. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-offer-2-measures-to-improve-conditions-in-the-nail-salon-industry.html?referrer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-offer... 3. http://pando.com/2014/01/02/uber-driver-hits-kills-6-year-old-girl-is-not-our-problem-still-an-appropriate-response/ http://pando.com/2014/01/02/uber-driver-hits-kills-6-year-ol...

maratd 11y ago
> Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up hurting, or even killing people. Correction: Most of these licenses arise because those in the industry want to create a barrier to entry and use examples of morons doing their job poorly as evidence of need.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Exactly. And I feel it's expanding rather than shrinking.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  Of course it's both. In many of these cases, the public has a strong enough interest to justify licensing requirements. E.g., it would be impractical to eliminate CDLs, licensing for food prep/barbers, etc. Once these licensing requirements exist, it's easier to justify increasing requirements as a way of increasing the barrier to entry.
- wfo 11y ago
  This "everyone is a moron we don't need regulations if everyone was a genius LIKE ME" attitude isn't particularly convincing. But it pervades this thread. It's full of people who can't imagine even the possibility that a regulation could be created for the good of people instead of with literally evil intent. If this is the new face of the anti-regulation side of the debate we've really reached a new low; it's not a debate anymore, it's rabid mindless religious extremism.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > But it pervades this thread. It's full of people who can't imagine even the possibility that a regulation could be created for the good of people instead of with literally evil intent. Who writes the regulations? Ask yourself that. It's not the regulators, they just enforce the rules. Regulations always start with the best of intentions, but are almost always co-opted by industry lobbyists to create barriers to entry in the guise of helping the common good. That hurts the common good and hurts the industry in the long run, all for the sake of lining the pockets of entrenched players. I don't see you proposing a solution to this. I just see name calling.
    - wfo 11y ago
      I didn't propose a solution because it isn't a problem. Regulations protect people by forcing corporations, generally, to do something that's more expensive but better for their workers/customers/the general public because our society has decided (by voting) that we want certain standards to exist; I want to be able to walk into a restaurant and know that I won't get food poisoning and die without having to consult some privately owned and non-accountable review system. I want workers to be treated decently so they can support a family and be part of a livable civil society. These are basic, basic things that we've developed over thousands of years of civilization as expected common goods that the extremist hyper-libertarians like you see here are trying to destroy because they get in the way of someone's ability to make money by exploiting others. Because that's what deregulation does; it allows people with money to abuse the capitalist system to exploit others and make more money, since regulation is almost always used to prevent exploitation. Sure the barrier to entry problem exists but honestly it's minor in comparison to the value the regulations have. It is HUGELY blown out of proportion by people here. Maybe it's more expensive to run your business safely and prove that you are but honestly I don't care, if you can't run a safe business society doesn't need to allow you to have one. We allow businesses to limit their liability in exchange for being good citizens; the regulations just make sure the businesses are holding up their end of the deal because we've seen through history, without them, businesses are disgustingly exploitative and destroy the lives of citizens and entire societies (see robber barons).
dylanjermiah 11y ago
You are correct, the licenses arise because they aim to protect people. However, the intentions need to be separated from the reality. Three useful questions to ask when situations like this arise are: - As opposed to what? - At what cost? - Is there any evidence? Do the regulations actually protect both sides of the agreement?
- x0ra 11y ago
  That's a stupid argument, ~48 months for an athletic trainer vs 1 month for an EMT in Michigan...
stickfigure 11y ago
> Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up hurting, or even killing people. From the article: "In fact, across all states, interior designers, barbers, cosmetologists, and manicurists all face greater average licensing requirements than do EMTs".

maratd 11y ago

> Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up hurting, or even killing people. Correction: Most of these licenses arise because those in the industry want to create a barrier to entry and use examples of morons doing their job poorly as evidence of need.

ekianjo 11y ago
Exactly. And I feel it's expanding rather than shrinking.
nmrm2 11y ago
Of course it's both. In many of these cases, the public has a strong enough interest to justify licensing requirements. E.g., it would be impractical to eliminate CDLs, licensing for food prep/barbers, etc. Once these licensing requirements exist, it's easier to justify increasing requirements as a way of increasing the barrier to entry.
wfo 11y ago
This "everyone is a moron we don't need regulations if everyone was a genius LIKE ME" attitude isn't particularly convincing. But it pervades this thread. It's full of people who can't imagine even the possibility that a regulation could be created for the good of people instead of with literally evil intent. If this is the new face of the anti-regulation side of the debate we've really reached a new low; it's not a debate anymore, it's rabid mindless religious extremism.
- maratd 11y ago
  > But it pervades this thread. It's full of people who can't imagine even the possibility that a regulation could be created for the good of people instead of with literally evil intent. Who writes the regulations? Ask yourself that. It's not the regulators, they just enforce the rules. Regulations always start with the best of intentions, but are almost always co-opted by industry lobbyists to create barriers to entry in the guise of helping the common good. That hurts the common good and hurts the industry in the long run, all for the sake of lining the pockets of entrenched players. I don't see you proposing a solution to this. I just see name calling.
  - wfo 11y ago
    I didn't propose a solution because it isn't a problem. Regulations protect people by forcing corporations, generally, to do something that's more expensive but better for their workers/customers/the general public because our society has decided (by voting) that we want certain standards to exist; I want to be able to walk into a restaurant and know that I won't get food poisoning and die without having to consult some privately owned and non-accountable review system. I want workers to be treated decently so they can support a family and be part of a livable civil society. These are basic, basic things that we've developed over thousands of years of civilization as expected common goods that the extremist hyper-libertarians like you see here are trying to destroy because they get in the way of someone's ability to make money by exploiting others. Because that's what deregulation does; it allows people with money to abuse the capitalist system to exploit others and make more money, since regulation is almost always used to prevent exploitation. Sure the barrier to entry problem exists but honestly it's minor in comparison to the value the regulations have. It is HUGELY blown out of proportion by people here. Maybe it's more expensive to run your business safely and prove that you are but honestly I don't care, if you can't run a safe business society doesn't need to allow you to have one. We allow businesses to limit their liability in exchange for being good citizens; the regulations just make sure the businesses are holding up their end of the deal because we've seen through history, without them, businesses are disgustingly exploitative and destroy the lives of citizens and entire societies (see robber barons).

dylanjermiah 11y ago

You are correct, the licenses arise because they aim to protect people. However, the intentions need to be separated from the reality. Three useful questions to ask when situations like this arise are: - As opposed to what? - At what cost? - Is there any evidence? Do the regulations actually protect both sides of the agreement?

x0ra 11y ago
That's a stupid argument, ~48 months for an athletic trainer vs 1 month for an EMT in Michigan...

stickfigure 11y ago

> Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up hurting, or even killing people. From the article: "In fact, across all states, interior designers, barbers, cosmetologists, and manicurists all face greater average licensing requirements than do EMTs".