If you don't have special government permission to work, get ready, you may need it! 

One of the tenets of freedom, I believe, is the ability to utilize your mind and your body to create an income for yourself and your family.  Yet, there is a protectionist movement in our fine country that is lobbying for increased license requirements of almost every single occupation and profession.  A license, of course, is permission to do something that you do not automatically have permission to do.  The Declaration of Independence declared that we each have a right to liberty and pursuit of happiness!  Doesn't that include the right to earn a living without special permission to do so?

The licensing advocates and lobbyists (i.e. protectionists) claim that state licensing is necessary to protect the public from incompetence and potential harm.  The protectionists also claim that license requirements maintain quality in the marketplace.

However, neither of these claims are true.  In fact, licensing can actually provide a false sense of security to the public who fail to evaluate their provider on their education, experience, ratings, etc because they're licensed and therefore, meet the required standards of their profession.

The real reason that industries lobby for licensing requirements of their own industry are simple to understand.  (Key point:  The public is not clamoring for new licences; The industries themselves claim that they need to be licensed.  This point says it all.)  Obtaining a license requires a person to invest time and money in order to obtain the license and requires ongoing annual tributes to their state government to maintain their license.  This investment of time and money reduces competition by keeping more people from entering their profession.  Licensing requirements is protectionism at its best.

Of course, the state governments are satisfied with adding more licensees under their umbrella because in most states, the license fees cover the increased bureaucracy and provide a net profit to the state.  As an example, the small state of Connecticut earns a $21,000,000 net profit each year from their licensing operations, according to the WSJ.

Can the public be safe without overly-burdensome licensing requirements?

Without a doubt, certain professions require a minimal education.  With that said, the private sector excels in creating certification, education, and quality assurance programs.  Businesses use these programs to stand out from their competition.  In order for a certification program to be relavent and relied upon, private programs must market and advertise the benefits of their program and the quality of their certificants.  The certification programs must ensure that their certificants meet designated requirements on an ongoing basis.  Standards of quality are greatly stressed versus a minimal standard that is typically required to obtain a license.

In addition to private certification programs, one of the best "checks and balances" is insurance companies!  If a person or company is insured, you can be sure that an insurance company has evaluated the company for various things.  First, insurance companies evaluate a person/company on their experience.  Second, insurance companies look at past claims history as an indication of future claims probability.  Third, insurance companies evaluate a person/company's qualifications.  All of this occurs before a policy is issued.  After all, it's in the self-interest of insurance company that the public is safe from harm lest they pay claims!

Government bureaucrats do not have the time, resources, or inclination to manage the quality of businesses and protect the public from harm.  Licensing requirements simply establish a minimum barrier of entry that make it difficult to enter a profession and an ongoing expense that makes the profession less appealing to enter.  Over-burdensome licensing hurts the public in three ways:
1.  Creates a false sense of security
2.  Keeps entry level workers out of an industry
3.  Raises the cost of services in the licensed industry by creating costs that must be passed on and by limiting and reducing competition.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Kleiner of the University of Minnesota estimates that the increased costs of goods and services in the Unites States is at least $116 BILLION.  That's rediculous.  Also according to the WSJ, 23% of workers now require a license to work as opposed to 5% in 1950 and in the mid-1980s one state licensed 800 professions and now license over 1100!

Some occupations that now require licenses are insane!  The WSJ cites several insane examples:
* Texas requires "shampoo specialists" to take 150 hours of classes!  
* Connecticut is the only state to license glass installers and requires two tests, over $400 in up front fees, and $150 per year!
* California requires barbers to study FULL-TIME for 12 MONTHS at a cost of around $12,000!
* Louisiana requires floral arrangers to pass a test and obtain a license!  Really!
* Michigan considers it a felony to massage a person without a license (which requires 500 hours of classroom)
* Alabama requires 750 hours of schooling to become a manicurist!  (My note: This is the equivalent of about 12 full-time college courses!  Absurdity!) 
* Oklahoma requires locksmiths to pay $350 per year for a license.

If we're going to be free, let's start with a freedom to work and a reduction of over-burdensome licensing requirements.  Virginia probably has some of the fewest licening requirements, but is it necessary to require a license of hair-braiders?  boxers?  wrestlers?  fight promotors?  Interior designers?!  Home inspectors?  Martial artists?  Auctioneers?

If so, why not license every occupation?  Wouldn't the public be safer if dog-walkers were licensed?  Wouldn't we be protected from poor aesthetics if cat groomers were licensed (this movement in underway in Ohio)?  Wouldn't we be better off if car salespeople were required to pass a test before letting us test drive their new model?  Could we eliminate poor service (and weak drinks) if we required licenses of waiters and bartenders?  Shouldn't every auto mechanic have to pass a state test every year before touching our vehicle?  How about produce handlers at the grocery store?  If they don't know how to pull rotten produce or understand that it's important to wash their hands before putting it in the bins, we could be in big trouble.  Shouldn't the cashiers have to pass a proficiency test that they can identify iceberg from green leaf lettuce, and pay an annual government tribute?  Seriously, if believe that hair braiders and interior designers should be licensed, is there ANYBODY who shouldn't have a license to work?  As absurd as that sounds, that's where we are headed.

NO- Overly-burdensome licensing, without a doubt, benefits incumbent providers at the expense of the public and those who would like to take up work in a new profession.  Let's stop the madness!  We need people working; we need new jobs- We need less licensing!

Conclusion: Not only can the public be safe without overly-burdensome licensing requirements, we'll actually be safer because insurance companies and buyers will not rely on a false sense of security and a license as a proxy for quality assurance!  And we, the public, will benefit from lower costs and increased employment opportunities.  We need less bureaucracy and less licensing and we need it now!