The state Senate is considering a bill that would end the state’s burdensome licensing requirements for barbers. Predictably, the people who benefit from the current system are outraged. And, just as predictably, they justify this outrage not as being in their own self-interest, but as being in the interest of the public. Too bad this justification doesn’t survive scrutiny. KATV interviewed a barber and the director of a barber school on their thoughts about SB 104, the legislation in question. One barber said, “I don't want somebody cutting my hair with the little bit I got without any kind of education or understanding of what's going on.” This barber does not seem to realize that de-licensing does not prohibit anyone from receiving an education in how to cut hair. Surely there are plenty of people who are interested in going into the business of cutting hair who would seek training before doing so. Presumably customers would look at how a barber operates to see if that person is doing a good job -- some of them might even look to see what type of training a barber has. If a customer doesn’t want someone cutting his or her hair without “any kind of education,” then that person could seek out someone who has obtained such an education. A state license is not the only way to determine that. Furthermore, barbershop owners would be free to refuse to hire anyone who didn’t have a sufficient education. However, let’s say that owner wanted to hire someone who had trained for less than 1,450 hours of barbering training. That sounds like a lot of time to learn his or her craft. Under current law, that is illegal. Current law also mandates that barbers must be trained in a variety of functions. These include waving, bobbing, shaving, and beard trimming. If someone wants to go into business merely cutting hair, but not offer bobbing or waving services, that doesn’t matter to the state today. That person must take the state-mandated training course, even if that person never