Tudamorf wrote:What do licenses have to do with fraud? (Fraud is not the same as theft, by the way.)
Fraud is theft by way of a lie. A licensed person has a vested interest in not lying, because of the negative consequences for committing fraud. It is a non force motivator, simply.
Let's say you're great at renovating houses. How is it fraud if someone hires you and you don't have a license? What if I want to hire a contractor that I like, who doesn't have a license?
You may hire a person, they are not a 'contractor' unless they have a license, to do anything you like. There is no force involved. But the contract between you both, is not legally binding.
You as a consumer have little recourse if the person is unlicensed, and does shoddy work.
And the so-called contractor has no protection if you decide to not pay him. I suppose he could file some breach of contract suit, but the judge will throw his case out as soon as the person can not produce a license.
A license is effectively a government takeover of the consumer's decision of whether a service provider is good. And often many of the requirements for the license just amount to taxes, not criteria that are useful to the consumer.
I certainly would not want you to be my doctor or accountant. You are not qualified.
If you pass the boards, then you have the minimum requirements for that profession.
You're not qualified to cut my hair, even.
I suppose you are trying to make some point, you can get to it any time you like. Just try doing it without analogies, please; most analogies are not analogous, yours less so. If you see licenses as some flaw in my Libertarianism, then explain your argument.
To me that seems like a very un-libertarian idea.
If you say so.
If libertarians like government meddling in their private business decisions, it's news to me.
Ok, if you say so.