The funny thing is that doctors would be the canonical examples for most people. Yet, there is no license that stops a pediatrician from performing brain surgery. What stops the pediatrician from performing brain surgery is that no hospital would hire them as a brain surgeon, no insurance would insure their brain surgery and if something goes wrong they'd likely face a lawsuit they couldn't win. Why is the system able to judge the difference between a pediatrician and a brain surgeon but we need licensing to distinguish between doctor and non-doctor?
> there is no license that stops a pediatrician from performing brain surgery.
This isn’t the case everywhere. Where I am (New Zealand) each doctor has a scope of practice. You work within your scope. There may be conditions placed on a scope of practice too (eg supervision is required).
You can look up every doctor’s scope of practice and get a short summary of their training on the medical council website.
It's the credentialing. The pediatrician lacks the credentials of a neurosurgeon. Just as non-doctors lack the credentials to work as a doctor. The hosptial, insurance, and court would all be looking at the credentials.
Credentials are not the same as license. For example, software engineers do not need to pass any certification exams to practice software engineering, but companies still look at their education, years of experience, etc... Yes, it would make a recruitment process for doctors longer, as you would have to interview them, ask them questions to verify their medical knowledge, etc., but it is not impossible.
And yet, in your software example those companies overwhelming rely on degrees to credentialize candidates regardless of actual skill.
Licensing is merely a subset of the larger credentialing world. Even in your doctor example, the license is not the issue - board certification of a specialty would be the issue.
It does. Licensing has nothing to do with your credentials past having them. The state bar doesn't care which lawschool you went to, your LSAT score, your GPA, etc.
My point? That credentials are separate from the license and aren't part of the same thing. That's why many professions don't have licensing. They serve completely different purposes.
I did look up the definitions and they don't support your argument
License: a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade
Credential: a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something.
Sure, you can characterize the license as an achievement. But it's really just a license.
This is kind of an absurd example. The system is setup in such a way that such a person would be in enormous amounts of trouble even face criminal liability. They may not face a law called “practicing medicine without a license” but they would face negligent or other similarly severe charges. As well, the fact that this never, ever happens seems to indicate the current regulatory structure is enough for this.
It's called malpractice. What you described is prima facie malpractice and a key element of malpractice is that it is a licensed profession with a standard of conduct.
Cutting hair is one thing. But hairdressers also handle things like, for example, chemical relaxation of hair, which can be seriously dangerous in the wrong hands. I don't know where the answer lies for regulation. But it seems to be there for at least some reason.
I’d say that an industry with significant health, safety or financial risk should require regulation and licensing. Your example seems a bit crazy.