How does that help things? I can easily find you a licensed chiropractor who will "diagnose" your ailments by just pushing down on your outstretched arm while holding a supplement or homeopathic remedy in front of you to determine if that supplement will fix the problem or not. I won't even get into "subluxations".
And because that chiropractor is licensed by the State, the State government is explicitly endorsing this doctor's medicine and all the "theory" that backs it.
There is an argument that this is an in-demand service that will be practiced legitimately or illegitimately. Thus, instead of providing the atmosphere for a black market, the state licenses practitioners so that some standards can be enforced and so that it has a way to prevent known-harmful quacks from practicing.
You could make that argument about a bunch of things: prostitution, drugs, auto mechanics, etc. But I don't see much push to license these things rather than criminalize them or ignore them. Drugs cost society a huge amount in many ways, but there's been no push to license that until just recently with marijuana. Mechanics aren't licensed, though they do have a totally private certification system. How many people have died from bad chiropractors, compared to cars breaking down (not so much now, but in the old days this was probably a problem) or using tainted illegal drugs? And how many people have died by going to chiropractors or other such quacks instead of real doctors? Steve Jobs is a good example of the latter.
>You could make that argument about a bunch of things: prostitution, drugs, auto mechanics, etc.
Yes, indeed you could.
> But I don't see much push to license these things rather than criminalize them or ignore them
It probably depends on what segments of the population you run with, but among some groups, there is a fervent belief that both the drug trade and sex work should be legitimized, licensed, tracked, and taxed by the state.
You're right that this argument could be made for anything, and that ultimately a moral judgment has to be made as to whether the practice is tolerable under regulation or whether the practice is so offensive that it should prohibited totally. I'm just saying state licensure shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as a recommendation or endorsement of the service offered; it is perhaps more prudent to interpret it as a service that is recognized as in-demand and deserving of regulation without implying a judgment as to whether the service is beneficial.
Wow, that's incredibly wrong and ignorant. What do you think the driving test is for? Yeah, the testing regime is a bit of a joke in many places in the US, but the intention is to make sure a driver is competent to operate the vehicle in traffic and read road signs, so YES, it IS an endorsement. If you're completely clueless and unable to operate a car and pass a written test, you can't get a license. The whole purpose of drivers' licenses is to ensure competency and improve safety.
