I was reading a brochure from Angie's List today and it pointed out something that helps make a case I have been arguing for a long time. The quote? I forgot the wording, but the point was that to get a plumber's license, you need to take a written test, not demonstrate any skills.

And that is a point I have been making for quite some time. Professional licensing is a racket. It may initially be intended to provide a basic level of competence, but in practice, all licensing schemes end up being nothing more than a barrier to entry, raising wages for professionals in the field and costs for everyone else, or else nothing more than a way for the state to shake down individuals once a year for some extra revenue.

Think about some of the better known licensing plans. Home improvement contractors? The test does not "protect homeowners",  as it doesn't test skills, it tests knowledge of state regulations. Do you care if your contractor knows the rescission period for a contract or which end of the hammer to hold? The bar exam? Most lawyers who have been in practice 20 years couldn't pass it without a refresher, it is a massive trivia test covering so many fields few, if any, practicing attorneys could pass it. Why else would people who have spent three years studying nothing but laws STILL need a "bar review" course to pass it?Likewise many of those contracting licenses, HVAC, electrician, etc. They may vary from state to state, but a lot of tests are more interested in making sure individuals know the relevant state regulatory minutiae than have any competency in the field. Or, worse still, the tests such as "cosmeticians' licenses" which often require knowledge completely irrelevant to the field. Do I care if my barber knows the names of the bones in the skull?

And then there are the other sort of licenses, the ones where the state honestly says "give me $80 or you will not be able to ply your trade". Yet these too are touted as "professional licenses" and the state acts as if they provide some great safeguard for the public. At the very least, the state never admits it is just shaking down people in certain fields to make sure it gets a few dollars.

My point being, the licenses, when they require anything more than simply paying off state extortion, are usually either incredibly difficult trivia test, to make sure the field remains closed and wages high, or else, at best, test knowledge of regulations. However, the public continues to think of them as safeguards, convinced that but for these licenses, any fool could set himself up in business and cause untold harm. (When the truth is, even with licensing, a fool can set himself up in business and cause untold harm.) Whenever I propose getting rid of licensing, someone will tell me that it would create a horrible situation. And usually it is a self-described conservative.

Why is that? We accept, as conservatives, that individuals are better than the government in deciding almost everything. And those things they can't do better themselves, they would still be better off paying a private group to do, rather than rely on the state. So, why do conservatives think evaluating the competency of lawyers, electricians, and doctors is the one field where this is not true?

Would we not be better off relying on our own ability to review their qualifications? Or rely on private, non-compulsory certifying bodies? Do we trust the state is competent in this one area when it has proven inferior to private action in so many others?

Why?

POSTSCRIPT

Actually, the corollary of this is the elimination of the FDA and other safety regulators. Again, if the state is incompetent at deciding for us in every other realm, why should it be good at certifying food? Perhaps it is because I keep kosher, so I have relied on private food certification for years, but I have to say that private certification of health and cleanliness strikes me as a better bet than overworked, easily bribed, at best indifferent health inspectors. I worked for the state and federal governments, and I have to say that I would not like to bet my health on the diligence of either.

Yet, again, when I suggest getting rid of health inspectors and the FDA, even conservatives tell me I am crazy and things will collapse. I just don't get it.

UPDATE

I have to amend my argument on licensing lawyers. If the state wants to limit who can argue in court, then that may be a proper function of government. I would still like to think that an individual could retain anyone they wished to stand beside them in court, but I can see an argument being made that incompetent counsel wastes the state's time and money. So I can see a case for limiting who can provide representation in court.

But I still don't see an argument for the state limiting who can provide legal advice, draw up contracts, act as an agent, and so on. So I don't believe that my concession above means that the entire legal profession should be regulated. Instead I would allow that the state may have a right to limit who can be a trial lawyer, and that's it. I see no real argument that the state is a better judge of legal ability than an individual who judges for himself, or a private, non-compulsory certifying body. So do not take the statement above to allow for anything like the present licensing scheme.