Because the folks already "licensed" don't want the competition, for starters. The license has little or nothing to do with safety, competence or professionalism. I was an RN for 30 years, and I met every kind of unsafe, incompetent and just plain malicious people who had their nice little "license" and were free to prey on people. The "license" proves nothing, and provides no protection of any kind... except to those who want to maintain control and monopoly.
It's a racket, like any other.
+10
Frederic Bastiat, in his 1800's booklet,
That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen, tells a made up story about the aftermath of a boy who breaks a window. If the reader ever comes across a reference to
the broken window fallacy, it is referring back to the illogic Bastiat is illustrating in this booklet. His main point is that, when it comes to economics, we have to look past what we can easily see, and look or think about that which we don't see--we have to think further. Although not directly on point, it has some use here. Obviously, when it comes to licensing, reliable service sounds good. But, is that all that is going on?
Bastiat wrote another piece, usually referred to as the Candlestick Maker's Petition. It is bitingly satirical. You see, in the satire, candlestick makers are facing some pretty stiff competition. So, they approached government with a petition to protect them from this competition. The competition was flooding the market with low-cost light. Who was the competition? The sun. Oh, Bastiat hammers his candlestick makers. The point of the satire is to criticize those who use government's power to stifle their competition, preventing the rest of us from enjoying lower prices and more abundant products or services.
Think about it. Along comes Uber and Lyft. What do the existing cabbies do? They yell to high heaven to government. "They're not licensed!!! Protect us!! We don't want to compete! Pass laws and ordinances forbidding Uber and Lyft! Pass laws making it burdensome for new drivers to earn side income or even main income. They have no equal right to earn a living!"
I like my barber. Nice guy. But, he's anti-competitive. He trots out all the tired clichés about unlicensed barbers. But, he never seems to touch the "restrict entry into the profession by others in order to maintain prices" angle. Well, I never told him, but I got a haircut from one of those "unlicensed" barbers. It went fine. The haircut was fine. In fact, they even used a steamed towel on my face and massaged my scalp at not only no extra charge but for about $1 less. Did I go back? No. Steamed towels and scalp massages just aren't my thing. Plus, since I am not of Asian descent, I had a hard time understanding them. But, just because I am willing to pay an extra buck for old-time barbershop atmosphere and conversation doesn't mean he is justified in reducing my options, or the right of that Asian to start earning a living providing a desired service. In a way, I think my barber is a bit of a dummy. He's one of the few in the area who has a lock on being an old-time barbershop. Instead of leveraging that to increase his business, he decides to side with reducing others' business. Lack of marketing sense, I would guess.
I think MamaLiberty nailed it. All the arguments about safe service and guaranteeing skill level are just persuasions. The reason is to reduce competition to protect the income of those already in the profession.