Comparing apples and particle accelerators is fun, but rather ineffective. There can be reasonable limits of intervention. Just because one instance is good, does not mean all are, and vice versa. This line of argument goes nowhere.
That's true but JohnDoe specifically said the system (licensure) that government set up is immoral. At that point I think it is fair to know why he considers that so and how that extends to other issues involve licensing and regulation.
Companies can't force anyone to do anything. Cheaper, for certain. Are you claiming the government is the only entity capable or willing to enact quality controls? That's not true. You think that if standards aren't imposed by force, they won't exist at all? That's silly, as if there is no demand for quality goods.
There would also be demand for no-quality goods. With government regulation, you eliminate unacceptably bad products. I'm sure you're not happy with that. But, it does limit externalities that impact other citizens, like healthcare for people who have hurt themselves or others with their own foolishness.
Unacceptable to the representatives we elected to legislate for us. You do at least still like democracy, right?
What's good enough for me to eat should be up to me, not a vote, or a politician, or an agency regulator.
Of course. You should be allowed to poison yourself, take unregulated drugs that make you sick, or kill you. All those sorts of things. We, the taxpayers, should be allowed to refuse you emergency care at hospitals we are paying for simply for being so stupid. So if that's the deal, knock yourself out. Literally.
That doesn't mean that it's right for the public to mandate how that business is run. The public doesn't own the property, therefore they don't make decisions about how that property is used.
It's immoral because forcing people to be licensed to act in a manner that doesn't harm others turns rights (voluntary association and voluntary exchange) into privileges. Beyond that, government claims that the system is for our benefit when in reality, it prevents people from competing with the businesses favored by politicians and bureaucrats. This hurts everybody. That is why it's immoral. It's comparable to theft.
They can if people want to work. It was done before. Study US history. What I said is correct, and again US history proves that to be the case. Some of the food will be quality, but they just wouldn't have to waste the bad food, and they would be able to disguise so it so that nobody would know it wasn't quality.
But they have the right to expect certain standards related to the public welfare when entering a particular establishment. All social laws and regulations are predicated on this simple concept - as businesses and populations grow, it becomes untenable (and inefficient) for people to have to rely solely on themselves to assure minimum standards are upheld at places that serve the public's needs. The phrase "doesn't harm others", while certainly more applicable elsewhere, has nevertheless been shown inaccurate during the course of this thread as it pertains to the topic (barbers). It is. See above. If the people disagree, they are free to protest it and change the laws. If they don't - the concern is either valid or inconsequential. Paranoid fantasy. I would request proof of this claim, except that I know none exists. No doubt, such things have happened - don't get me wrong - but to claim it an epidemic or a systematic failure is nonsense. The only provable observation in that regard is that a lack of standards can (and no doubt has) led to health issues and, accordingly, public concern. Libertarianism of the nature you preach here requires that everyone doubt and mistrust everyone else. That is hardly efficient, or palatable.
So does anybody object to the idea of a non-mandatory licensing system? Public health concern or not, if people want to take the risk witg rusty scissors and lice-laced combs, i'd say that's their right. I think stirring up some kind of rampant, epidemic public health menace boogey man without mandating licensing is kinda overkill.
I'm kind of torn on this one. In one respect, it's freaking barbers and health concerns seem like they would be....rare. On the other hand, the social costs are somewhat nebulous. I wager just one person getting aids from a dirty barber shop and getting on meds and hospitals would undo any savings from deregulation. It's analogous to smoking - sure you have the right to slowly kill yourself. But when I have to pay for medical bills because of your stupidity, the "right" part of it turns far more tricky.
I object to non-mandatory licensing. You may not know that the environment isn't safe until it's too late. Nobody is going to advertise "We don't sterilize or practice safe standards and procedures!"
[devil's advocate because I agree with you]In theory, you could look for the barber who is licensed though.[/devil]
In the long run smokers will probably save society money. They, like fat people, will die earlier and collect fewer Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits. Their medical bills may be high for a time, but that's only part of the picture.
An intriguing possibility. So intriguing, that I actually looked up some data on the internet - but nothing I found off-the-cuff was encompassing enough to make a judgment. Lifetime costs for a smoking man average 220k. Lifetime medicare costs for a single man on average is ~90k. I don't know what all goes into the 220k number to judge it's weight vs. the 90k number. I'm thinking I might actually pick up this book to explore the idea a bit more. Because I'm weird like that.
