The bigger government gets, the more control it wants of every aspect of daily
life. I agree with licensing of professions where there is substantial risk of
harm to people personally or financially. Doctors, lawyers, accountants
financial planners, architects and the like should have to show education and
the proper use of trust accounts, etc. But why does a barber need
hundreds of days of training? To save someone from a bad haircut? I think a 1
page document that says "I understand that I should disinfect combs and
cutting implements" should pretty much take care of it for life. Governor
Herbert should make it a goal to get rid of 50% of government licensing
requirements before the next election.
Licensing has a lot to do with revenue for cities and counties and state
governments. So do most zoning laws. Cities have gotten very involved with
what businesses can go where and who can do what with in city limits. States
like Utah's end up getting run by certain lobbies such as the
realtors/developers, or the hair industry people, or the ski industry.
Sometimes everybody's interests are the same but most times its all about
My license from years ago:1. Training/experience in the field. DD214 and
my word provided the proof.2. Exam (with application and testing
fees, of course) that was all about feeding the bureaucracy in a timely manner
with their report forms and payments. Also an awareness of the ability of the
consumer to check the license and any complaints. Absolutely nothing regarding
my professional expertise.3. Deposit or bond as backup for my
regular required payments. I ticked them off by doing handing them a CD in both
names (mine and the bureaucracy) that put the periodic interest payments into my
business account. It had nothing to do with consumer protection: it
was all about revenue to feed the government beast.
In the case of Jerry Seinfield it is just a result of NIMBY--not in my backyard.
Hoity-toity who don't want street urchins messing up the scenery.
It is the Police's job to protect the public, according to what they say
and the general understanding of their motto to Serve and Protect. However, the
lemonade stands story seems to pop up often enough that it makes one wonder of
the Police and the people who employee them really want them to include ordinary
people in their protection. The primary purpose of local police is
to facilitate and protect the business environment. Since business is the most
powerful force in the local governments most of the local laws favor and protect
business. In the process of protecting business some laws provide protection
for ordinary people but only as a incidental nature. Everyone wants
freedom and no interference from outside entities like government and religion.
The fact is that for every freedom and right that a person has, someone, some
others, must have restrictions on their freedom. Freedom for
lemonade stands means the loss of freedom of the general public to purchase
quality lemonade drinks. Or, vise versa.
Very good points but it doesn't go far enough: even mandatory licences in
the medical field should be abolished.The only thing mandatory
licensing accomplishes is it sets up a legal monopoly on the service. This is
especially apparent in the medical field. Who is competent enough to set
licensing standards? Doctors. So they (the AMA) are in charge of who can be
licensed and they artificially keep the number of doctors low by restricting the
number of medical schools and the enrollment. This is a very big reason why
healthcare is so expensive: little competition in the supply of healthcare.Mandatory licensing hardly prevents the existence of incompetent doctors
so eliminating it wouldn't burden the consumer more anyway as people
already have to choose doctors on that basis. Most highly specialized doctors
would still get licensed or credentialed in their field. So we might as well get
rid of a regulation that doesn't really help and is so expensive. Read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman to see more of how
ineffective and wasteful mandatory licensing is.
Two very isolated examples and the writer condemns the whole system.
Years ago I had the displeasure of having to deal with the state's
department of licensing. It was distasteful at best. While they were always
polite, they were also bent on all rules being complied with in the fullest and
to the most onerous interpretation possible. I always felt it was more about
justifying their jobs then protecting the public. It would be
appropriate to have the Governor tell them to reduce the number of licenses by
30%. If forced to, they would weed out the ones just not needed.
Having lived in several states, I have to say Utah is pretty onerous about
licenses for some pretty innocuous occupations. I was surprised to say the
least that such an anti state would require licenses for so many jobs.
"for the fuzz"That's 1960 vernacular for police?
Athletic Trainers (ATs) are healthcare professionals who collaborate with
physicians. The services provided by ATs comprise prevention, emergency care,
clinical diagnosis, therapeutic intervention and rehabilitation of injuries and
medical conditions. Athletic training is recognized by the American Medical
Association as a healthcare profession. In order to become an AT, one must
graduate from an accredited athletic training program (at least a
bachelor’s degree) and pass a national high stakes exam that is recognized
by the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL).
According to DOPL’s website the fee to obtain a license is $70 and to
renew a license is $47.Licensure of healthcare providers, such as
ATs, is important in protecting the public. Imagine that your son, daughter,
niece, nephew, etc…were playing a sport and suffered a head injury. Would
you rather have a licensed athletic trainer who has demonstrated that they have
the competence to treat such an injury through their education and by passing an
exam or the person who calls themselves an athletic trainer who may not have the
same education and level of competence?
A couple of thoughts: 1. Should athletic trainers be licensed? Depends on
what we're talking about here. Trainer as in the medic that attends a
high-school or college or professional athlete on the field? I'd answer yes
to that question. I'd even answer yes if it's only the guy who spots
me while weightlifting and yells encouragement. Don't know that I want just
anyone doing that who isn't aware of what could go wrong.And 2. Today
I was driving out of the grocery store parking lot and saw some enterprising
young folks (probably college-age) selling birdhouses on the parking strip.
Trouble was, the enthusiastic young woman holding the sign kept waving it in
such a way that anyone leaving the parking lot had a restricted view of a (busy)
street, making it harder to leave safely.Should someone like that need a
license? Or at least hew to some sort of city code about where they can set up
shop? If we don't have some small, common sense rules, we'll end up
looking like Mumbai pretty soon. Some freeway exits are already pretty close.
It's all Obama's fault! Benghazi, health care, and now this! How dare
Should anyone (with any background) be able to be an athletic trainer or
pharmacy technician? The imbalance may be problematic but not the idea of some
controls on who enters the field. As to earth drillers - yeah wait until they
are fracking near you and they are all unlicensed drillers. Nothing could go
wrong there . . .As we consider the cost-benefit tests - remember
that the public should be protected from charlatans. Otherwise we clog up both
our courts and hospitals with the double problem of massive lawsuits and lasting
Small business licensing is at least somewhat seen as a revenue generator for
municipalities and states but it is exacerbated by lawyers. It's just a
lemonade stand but could also be an obstruction or a health hazard or traffic
hazard. It's pretty unlikely, but if something happens that might be
remotely associated with it someone's calling a lawyer. And then the
municipality gets dragged into it because the thing was not properly situated or
didn't have a food safety plan or who knows what. We're over regulated
because there is the chance, no matter how remote, that government can be held
accountable for some unfortunate outcome carried to it's furthest extreme.
I have just finished reading a book called "The Death of Common Sense,"
about stupid rules by governments at every level. Both rightists and leftists
are guilty, but the bigger government gets, the more stupid rules it
accumulates, so I'd hold the left slightly more guilty. It is time we rise
up and place common sense on a pedestal and reject those who want a lot of dumb
rules. It is time for cops to ask themselves if they have really made a positive
difference by shutting down lemonade stands, or if perhaps they have not only
wasted our tax money, and their time, as well as ruined someone's day for
A problem begging for simple pragmatism and common sense.But watch
the comments to follow – it will be used as evidence to support every
ideological scheme under the sun.
so why do states need federal money to look at their licensing laws?maybe
we should get out and vote for people who rail against idiocracy
Rest assured that many will read this article and blame Obama and the Federal
government for these STATE required license issues.
Why do the states need the federal government to fund this initiative and why
are the Deseret News and the Wall Street Journal both praising federal
involvement? Where is the rhetoric about states rights and government works best
when closest to the people?
Writing a piece like could cost a person their editorial license.What's that? You mean they allow people to write stuff like that without
a license? Call your legislators! It's time to license opinion!