That's not what I meant. Sorry for the sarcastic tone. I'm saying occupational licenses enforced by the state are a means of granting political privilege to a group of people, at the expense of another group (usually the poor) through the use of coercion, i.e. violence.
This may sound dramatic, but it's true. Because if an unlicensed (non-privileged) person is operating in the market, even if they are reasonably qualified, they will still be targeted by the state on behalf of the licensed (privileged) lobby: First, the unlicensed person may be fined. If they refuse to pay the fine, they may receive a warrant. If they refuse to go to court, agents of the state will knock at their door, threaten to lock them in a cage for not paying their tribute, and ultimately use physical violence to force compliance.
>at the expense of another group (usually the poor)
Because hairdressers are some of the richest people you know?
I'm kind of okay with them having some occupational barriers to entry, actually. It's not like they earn a lot anyway, and it makes up for some of the absolutely egregious and enormous political privileges granted to the 1% which are completely ignored both in this article and by the people commenting on it in this thread.
This may sound dramatic, but it's true. Because if an unlicensed (non-privileged) person is operating in the market, even if they are reasonably qualified, they will still be targeted by the state on behalf of the licensed (privileged) lobby: First, the unlicensed person may be fined. If they refuse to pay the fine, they may receive a warrant. If they refuse to go to court, agents of the state will knock at their door, threaten to lock them in a cage for not paying their tribute, and ultimately use physical violence to force compliance.