Address my arguments, if you are able.
You have yet to do so.
I mean I have, more than once. But I'll sum it up again.
First, why would you ever hire anyone without checking their credentials? Just because someone has a license from the state doesn't mean they're good at what they do. My wife is a manager of a barbershop. She requires everyone she hires to demonstrate they can actually cut hair by having them perform a haircut on a person. She's not hired several people because they can't cut hair to save their soul, yet they have a piece of paper from the state of Utah saying they are licensed to do so. I wouldn't hire someone to wire my house without checking to make sure they knew what they were doing.
Still, even when you're licensed and trained, you can still make mistakes. No license from the government is going to prevent that because humans make mistakes. If that mistake causes property damage or physical harm, then you have civil courts to get compensated for your loss. If the mistake is due to negligence and leads to the death of someone, then that's manslaughter, which is already a crime.
You also brought up a doctor. There's only been a handful of instances where someone who isn't a doctor, nor is trained as a doctor, has performed actual clinical duties while posing as a doctor. Past that everyone who's hired by a health system to be a doctor (or any clinician for that matter) has to prove they have had the training to be in that position. Where I work we keep a record of every employee's education credentials and even I, the lowly analyst, have my college degree in that repository to show that I did, in fact, go to college like I said I did.
Still, all the licensing and all the training in the world isn't going to prevent malpractice. Malpractice costs doctors, health systems, and insurance hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Guess what happens when a doctor does end up performing malpractice? They're sued and the patient or the patient's family typically gets a massive sum of money.
So my reasoning against state and federal licensing is that it prevents precisely nothing and all it does is allow the state to collect money from people for doing their job. Anyone hiring anyone should require proof that the potential hiree has the training they say they do and, if applicable, have them demonstrate they know what they are doing. There are plenty of licenses I could go out and get by simply studying for the test and passing it. It doesn't mean I'd know how to actually do the job past what I was required to memorize and regurgitate on a test for the state.
Government regulations also don't stop people from making mistakes or doing a task poorly. As
@ryzno points out, and I believe he has the correct experience since he works construction, OSHA is more or less a joke. If you can pay to make it go away, it goes away. It's not exactly in the business of keeping people safe at work, if it was it wouldn't be looking to just fine places that put employee's lives at risk. Even if OSHA was ultra-strict and watched every job site like a hawk, people would still make mistakes and employees would still be injured or killed on the job.
Are some regulations needed? In our current world, yes, some regulations are required and I think most libertarians understand that. It's not like libertarians live in this fantasy world where they don't understand how the current system is setup. What they want to do is work towards changing the system where there are fewer regulations, a smaller government, and less intrusion of the government into their lives. They still understand things are illegal, but they understand that making something a law doesn't automatically prevent something.
The best example of this is gun control. You can pass all the legislation you want on gun control, but all you're going to do is keep guns out of the hands of people who are mostly reasonable gun owners. The same goes for drugs. You can make every drug illegal (which for the most part they are) but it's not going to stop people from buying, selling, and using various drugs.
With regard to Kant, what should I specifically read? He has over 40 works and many are in German (which I can only read somewhat). Since you're suggesting I read his works, I assume you've done so. Which one did you find the most helpful and can you give me a summary of it? I also assume you've read his works in German too since those translated to English have probably lost some of his original points since things do get lost in translation, especially things that nearly 250 years old.
I did take a gander at his Wikipedia page though. Looking at his political philosophy and per his work
Rechtsstaat it looks like he's in favour of having the government's power confined to law and to protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of authority. It also appears he's heavily in favour of a government following the powers outlined in its constitution and is against a direct democracy since it neglects the rights of the minority. So what exactly is anti-libertarian about that? It seems like it's very much in the scope of the Libertarian Party's platform today, which is having the government stay in its own lane, which is to say, only do what the Constitution allows it to do. Am I missing something?
