Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

I'm actually getting tired of this mantra of "freedom" as a defense any kind of regulation in the US.

Gun rights are on obvious one and everyone throws up their hands in the air saying there is no solution for the problems no one else in the world has.

Less controversial, AirBnB and many Americans argue "it's my house/apartment, I should be able to do what I want" yet those wanting to basically run illegal hotels are exploting a pretty classic case of the tragedy of the commons (in that their neighbours bear the cost).

The UK has a largely unregulated system for trades to the point that after the dot-com crash, many former programmers took up plumbing.

In Australia we have a pretty rigid system for licensing of trades to the point that if you call yourself an electrician or a plumber without a license you can go to jail. You're free to subcontract for a licensed contractor but ultimately someone who is licensed needs to be responsible.

When I lived in the UK, I had a friend who was an Australian licensed plumber (note that plumber here includes natural gas). He said that him and his Australian tradesmen friends used to call the UK tradesmen "chancers". Maybe they can do it and maybe they can't but they'll give it a go. He gave me the advice that if I ever got any work done in the UK get an Australian tradesman.

I don't understand why anyone would argue that you should be able to do what you want when it comes to things like gas and electricity when any shortcuts, negligence or mistakes could kill people. It boggles my mind. Just watch any of the renovation shows on HGTV and you'll see the dodgy things people do. At least a licensed tradesmen is accountable in that there's a record of their work and their license can be yanked. More to the point, any such tradesmen will invoke the permitting and inspection processes that are relevant.

It's the same reason there's a building code. Years ago I heard that Australian builders had agreed among themselves to bid on international projects (Asia specifically) and build to Australian rather than local standards. It's more expensive but at least it'll be much safer.

Laws and regulations can be onerous, sure. But they're also necessary. Licensing simply makes sure that licensees are aware of those laws.

Complaining about licensing does not always/usually represent a serious objection to licenses that are reasonably available to all who are capable of doing the work, and which are actually going to be revoked if someone proves unfit for the industry. These do not so much limit your freedom to work in the industry, as the manner in which you'll conduct yourself in the industry.

I object to licensing as a means to protect incumbents by deterring (or outright capping the number of) new entrants, where the quality-control angle isn't really there, and it's just an extra tax/filter on having that job.

It's a statutory requirement in the UK that notifiable electrical [1] and gas [2] work can only be performed by certified tradespeople.

Of course violations of such laws are hard to detect, so they may get broken sometimes.

[1] http://www.electricalcompetentperson.co.uk/ [2] https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/

> Gun rights are on obvious one and everyone throws up their hands in the air saying there is no solution for the problems no one else in the world has.

My position on 2A is probably that I wish it didn't exist, but _given_ that it exists, I'd want to tread very cautiously around violating constitutional rights. People take for granted how much better society is than it was for most of human history, and part of the credit for the incredible advance of human rights (from a historical perspective) of the last couple hundred years goes to advancement in governance that I think people are often too quick to take for granted. Reductively dismissing this baseline as ill-considered, hollow support for "freedom" just means you don't understand the conversation that's taking place.

Again, you and I probably substantially agree on every gun control policy you could imagine. The difference is that I don't need to reduce my opponents to shallow caricatures in order to feel secure in my beliefs.

You're also being extremely dishonest in pretending that your gas and electric example is even remotely relevant to the article or the discussion. Neither the study, the article, nor this thread is making the claim that regulations need to be entirely done away with. They're making the claim that the current state is one of excessive regulation: that florists and barbers[1] are unnecessarily regulated, not that we should allow anyone to do any job, regardless of safety concerns.

Again, if you can't make a counterargument without having to grossly misrepresent the opposite side, you should probably seriously examine your views on an issue.

[1] There are dangers in barbering that mostly avoid proper use of chemicals, but those can easily have their sale controlled instead of just requiring all barbers to be licensed.

> There are dangers in barbering that mostly avoid proper use of chemicals,

Ignoring of course the use of sharp, bladed instruments around peoples head and neck areas.

To be honest, this doesn't seem like that realistic a concern to me. It's a lot harder to prepare lots of food without making people sick than it is to shave and cut hair without stabbing someone, and yet chefs aren't under occupational licensing. I'm not against literally any regulation, but occupational licensing is a pretty heavy-duty instrument of regulation and I'm really skeptical that it needs to be applied to every barber.

> My position on 2A is probably that I wish it didn't exist, but _given_ that it exists, I'd want to tread very cautiously around violating constitutional rights

From my perspective (as a foreigner who has spent a lot of time in the US) I think the second amendment has a lot of downsides, but I find myself siding with the gun rights crowd on principle, because the anti-gun-rights people seem to be so dishonest in their methods. The US Constitution provides a mechanism for amending the US Constitution, so if you don't like what the US Constitution says then you should be moving to amend the US Constitution, not moving to ignore it.

If gun rights opponents would just come out and say "Let's amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment" then maybe I'd agree with them, because they'd be making an honest proposition to do things in the legally correct way, and they'd have to clear the appropriate bar to make it happen (incidentally I think the US Constitution should be like the Australian constitution and not changeable without a referendum, but that's another story).

But it seems that gun rights opponents almost never take this tack -- they're always trying to just straight-up ignore the US constitution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com