> It is logical to require you to have a license to fill a cavity for safety reasons. It is not logical to require a license to cut hair.
You mean there are no "safety reasons" involved in cutting hair? A person with sharp implements around your head and neck poses no safety risk?
Also, even if the "safety reasons" are more compelling for dentists than for barbers, that's still not a reason to have the government doing the safety checks by means of licensing. Private organizations could do the same safety checks--plus, they would have an incentive to do only the checks that actually added value, whereas government has an incentive to impose any requirements that have enough of a political constituency, whether or not they add value.
You mean there are no "safety reasons" involved in cutting hair? A person with sharp implements around your head and neck poses no safety risk?
Also, even if the "safety reasons" are more compelling for dentists than for barbers, that's still not a reason to have the government doing the safety checks by means of licensing. Private organizations could do the same safety checks--plus, they would have an incentive to do only the checks that actually added value, whereas government has an incentive to impose any requirements that have enough of a political constituency, whether or not they add value.