Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtberatwork | Hacker News Reader

This is an op-ed from a libertarian think tank about a study they conducted themselves. Quite a bit of bias here. Sure, there exists a grey area with the music therapist anecdote they use, but personally, I'm quite fond of electricians, plumbers, etc being licensed.

View on HN

This reminds me of a discussion I had with someone who self identified as a libertarian and was on the extreme side of anti-regulation. Their argument was that if regulations didn't exist then in those situations where they had an issue with a company or the government they would sue. Which, for me, raised the immediate question of "Who is going to do the suing?". The response, "A lawyer..." and a look that was supposed to inform me that I was being dense. Then after a few seconds it clicked and they started coming up with any number of criteria by which they'd use to determine who was a "qualified lawyer". All of which were based on their own experiences and knowledge. While obviously this is an anecdote, it was interesting to see how much all of us (even those in the opposition camp) take for granted with regards to the regulatory structures that exist. I can't help but think "CHESTERTON'S FENCE" anytime someone proposes a radical change such as that which is proposed by the extreme anti-regulatory side.

Self-representation would be the sensible answer here. Just because your friend didn't have a good answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

Feel free to represent yourself against a multi-hundred-million dollar (or larger) corporation and let me know how that goes.

All the people I know who went into music therapy needed a masters degree (on top of a background in music). Am I crazy for expecting a mental health profession to require some sort of education/licensure?

The last three or so times I saw this topic on HN it was a link to an article that cited a Koch funded think tank.

It seems to be a particular hobby horse of theirs.

Which is weird, why are a bunch of oil guys obsessed with hairdresser licensing?

Why does anyone support legal advocacy nonprofits? They believe in something (in this case, economic freedom).

Well, other than believing in something, the motive is usually money.

Billionaires are human beings capable of donating to political causes out of idealism for the greater good, not necessarily only because they think it will increase their net worth by another few million dollars.

Sure, there exist conspiracy theories of mustache-twirling malevolent villains in the Kochs wanting the extra profits from deregulation or in Soros desiring to short the currency of a destabilized countries. But it is disingenuous to begin one's speculation and curiosity with the assumption that those theories of malevolence are true.

These billionaires do pollute a lot and have had run ins with the NEA which may suggest a certain dislike of government regulation.

But yes, perhaps I'm just spreading conspiracy theories and their obsession with hairdresser licenses has the purest of idealistic motives.

It's possible for people to have lasting ideals and biases that were shaped by their personal experiences in work and life, and their advocacy in old age does not necessarily indicate that they are still on the warpath to make their next buck or pollute even more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com