balloonshark
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 6,286
- 2,682
- 136
Regulations aren't a necessary evil. They are necessary because of evil, neglect, incompetence and the knowledge gathered as time passes.
You want one with herpes, AIDS, or hepatitis to nick me with a razor, right?Yup. If someone sucks at something - people will simply stop booking them as a hair stylist.... Either that, or the hair stylist will get better and improve. It's really that simple.
You want one with herpes, AIDS, or hepatitis to nick me with a razor, right?
Hehehe, pay no attention to me. My first post was intended to express the emptiness of my opinions, knowledge and therefore any real interest in this subject. I believe the argument over regulations etc to be something I take on a case by case basis. I believe, for example, that doctors should be part of the civil service, get free education, free housing for life on a campus setting that includes university and hospital and a job and retirement guaranteed for life. Let people who want to make millions go into stamp collecting or some other profession. Let people who want to help people be our doctors.Moonbeam, why would you say that? I love you.
No but seriously, you usually make some cometent posts here unlike the majority of 1-sentence replying libtards. So not sure what you're trying to say with this post.
The simple point is, the narrative of "I agree with a license for X profession" can be applied to any profession. Hence, it's a stupid proposition to make. It's a means of preventing competition in order to drive up costs in the name of regulation. It doesn't equal better outcome. It doesn't equal better work.
PS: I see now what happened. I said 'nick me' rather than 'nick you'. Should have been, "Hehehe, pay no attention to me. My first post was intended to express the emptiness of my opinions, knowledge and therefore any real interest in this subject. I believe the argument over regulations etc to be something I take on a case by case basis. I believe, for example, that doctors should be part of the civil service, get free education, free housing for life on a campus setting that includes university and hospital and a job and retirement guaranteed for life. Let people who want to make millions go into stamp collecting or some other profession. Let people who want to help people be our doctors.
In short, I like licensing that is intended to insure competence and prevent fraud and but don't like it when it is there to limit the supply of people going into that profession to keep their incomes up. I like regulation similar, when it prevents slime from defrauding people but don't like it when so rigorous or unreasonable that it drives prices out of reach. As a member of society, I depend on society to work to find balance on these things, and so I depend on those who I hope have experience and good judgement to make things equitable. I don't think a single person like me has the capacity to make that call universally. There are millions of regulations and licenses and is an area of politics that I am unsuited to evaluate.
I paid little attention to the dialog you had with fiskimo other than to smile to myself when he said he was conservative on housing. He and I seem to see things differently on CA Prop 13 as it relates to kicking Grandma out of her house. Logical easily drifts over into being inhuman, as I see it. So, the only thing I wanted to say, not really understanding the hairdresser thingi between you and he, was to comment on where I could see a reason to regulate that profession. There is a risk to close body contact with people who are in contact with many many people. Hairdressers are just one small set. At a minimum, people should be aware they take a risk rather than be blindsided with an illness they had no idea they might be able to catch from a professional. Just wanted to emphasize that point. I put it as a question just for emphasis. I have no desire at all that you catch any of those things. Sorry if it seemed that way.
I can see licensing in some fields as to prevent an over abundance of people in those fields thus depresing overall pay in them, also to have a minimum standard in others.
See this is what has you all mixed up. Republicans claim to be against regulations and have successfully convinced plenty of really stupid people that liberals are the ones who make all the stupid regulations. However, I bet if you did a tiny bit of research you would find out that at least half of all the regulations you personally think are ridiculous government overreach were put in place by conservatives. It's the same thing with guns, patriotism, and fiscal "conservatism." All things Republicans use to paint liberals as whackos because really stupid people can't see past simple sound bites.You're sounding awfully conservative right about now....
But yes, I agree with you pretty much in full.
I'll even go out on a limb and say that I agree with regs/licensing on CERTAIN industries - in particular (just as an example) being food (restaurant/groceries)... Namely because what we eat can very much determine disease control, etc. Even still, I'm sure the rules are still overboard.