Am reading @LongmanPhil "The Case for Small-Business Cooperation," which is interesting but despite some effort, doesn't seem quite fully engaged with the views of people who disagree.

Eg it characterizes the debate over occupational licensing of hair braiders as involving the BRAIDERS seeking licensing regimes. No. This involves (predominantly White) state cosmetology boards imposing their licensing regimes on (predominantly Black) hair-braiders.

I know concern about racial inequality is perceived by certain progressives as a hurdle to achieving an economic equity that will of course benefit all on a color-blind basis. But @IJ et al have been pretty clear for decades about the dynamics of the licensing of hair braiders.

If you have paid attention to the issue, I don't see how you could think IJ has been litigating to stop the braiders from seeking out state licensing for their specific trade, rather than to get them out from under a licensing regime that is expensive and useless for their work.

Longman also equates ccupational licensing with unionization. Especially in states that permit non-unionized workers to work, unionization is generally voluntary, not imposed by the government.

If the existing hair braiders form an entity (corporation, partnership, cooperative) that sets the price of their services, but any new entrant can opt out of the entity, then this is importantly different (especially for libertarians) from occupational licensing.

Longman also keeps reiterating the paternalistic claim that it's better for competition not to be over prices, bc this just leads to lower quality, customer service, the existence of a "basic economy" class on airplanes.

But while having the government institute minimum pricing or bless cartels removes the option of competing on price, the reverse doesn't remove the option of competing on non-price factors. Eg Nordstrom's sells the same formal gowns or boots for a higher price than some rivals...

...but people who can afford it will shop at Nordstrom's bc they like the non-price factors (pleasant store, attentive staff, on-site tailoring, liberal return policy, etc). Price competition doesn't make Nordstrom's impossible; banning price competition makes TJ Maxx impossible.

Having spent a lot of time talking to economic libertarians, I can tell Longman that they will not be fooled by his equating voluntary association with government regulation. They're big on the distinction between (technically) voluntary vs (literally) coerced.

There's a similar problem in the increasingly popular analogy between market regulation and rules for a sport. People get to choose which sports to play. If you like strict rules on how to beat the hell out of someone, you box; if you don't, you develop MMA.

The point of rules for a sport is not that they produce an outcome that's fair by some external standard; it's that everyone has to compete by the same standards. Some rules seem pointless & unfair, such as requiring pro golfers to actually walk the course (see PGA v Martin).

Market regulation isn't like that. If you want to style hair but the government forces you first to learn White lady hair techniques, you can't decide to work with your own traditional category of hairstyling called braiding that wil enable you to avoid that rule.