[bkirkby]

What you describe is the exact reason we should question your very premise. "For example, let's say that to do some specific the law says a degree is required."

Why is the government in the business of requiring degrees for financial transactions? Maybe that's valid for a doctor, but it's certainly not valid for a hair dresser.

[InefficientRed]

To be fair, parent mentioned "university", and I'm fairly certain that universities don't train hair dressers, so presumably he was thinking of things like engineers, lawyers, and medical professionals.

I also find the educational requirements for hairdressing to be rather perplexing.

[mrtksn]

Yep, it's very common to require certain degrees and qualifications to be able to sigh off projects and stuff in some industries. It's a way to make sure that a job is done properly without need for a thorough audit every time.

[wolframhempel]

For certain things yes. But on a more fundamental level there's a fair question of "what's the role of government" and "how much does the government need to do".

I would for instance argue, that only professions where a negative outcome is irreversible should have government standards. E.g. if a surgeon or a civil engineer building bridges is unqualified, the outcome might be irreversible damage. If your cook or hairdresser suck, the market will take care of it.

[mrtksn]

I agree, just trying to illustrate how seemingly simple things can have very heavy implementations that are not necessarily bureaucratic and complex just for the sake of being bureaucratic and complex.