You might also be interested in the concept of regulatory capture, which is kind of rent-seeking's opposite (IANAE). Say you have a company that provides web-security audits and you help press for a law requiring websites to have current security audits. Boom, guaranteed business.
The most ridiculous example of this that I've seen is that some states require a license for the practice of interior design. Louisiana comes to mind but I believe there are others. It's really an example of the phenomenon that a small group of dedicated individuals with a vested interest in an outcome are often able to overcome a much larger group that has a small, diffuse, or unknown interest in the opposite outcome. In the interior design case, if you're a person who hires an interior designer, you're probably not going to notice the extra $50-$100 it costs you (made up numbers) because of the licensing requirements - in fact you might not even know that the licensing requirement exists. But the people collecting that money certainly notice it when you multiply by the total number of customers. It's a legal way to do the Office Space trick of stealing a small amount from a large number of people.
This was in the NYTimes a few weeks ago: "So you think you can be a hair braider?" Not without two years of cosmetology school, which should set you back $16,000.
Nobody's arguing that people who perform a service shouldn't have an awareness of basic hygiene, and that could definitely be regulated... but requiring $16K up front is just rent-seeking.
Not to mention, these sorts of jobs have often been the first step that young people and immigrants take in their careers, and the whole reason is that it doesn't take any capital investment, although it needs a lot of labor and a reputation for skill. When someone adds an arbitrary financial hurdle to clear, it feels particularly unfair to me.
And in the age of Yelp / Google Places, there's a much better way to make sure the florist or what have you is good at their job, rather than taking a state-issued test.
The purpose of the education and testing requirement for cosmetologists and barbers is not an arbitrary financial hurdle; it is a legitimate safety function of the government.
These people will be using very sharp tools on your head. Tools which may draw blood, or worse. The education and testing requirement ensures that such people know how to safely use those tools across a wide variety of situations (i.e., requests), and can demonstrate that they are actually able to use those tools safely in such situations.
Should the schooling cost that much? No, and it usually doesn't unless you go with a private school. Smaller cosmetology schools cost in the neighborhood of a few hundred. Alternatively, if you feel strongly enough about this, you could open your own school. The primary expense is facilities (including equipment and supplies), since this type of education is experiential--you learn by doing, not by watching it or reading about it.
Nicely argued, but you are responding to a straw man position (that government has no role in regulating cosmetic services) nor did you read the article (which points out that licenses are cheaper in neighboring states, but not Utah.)
I'd categorize regulatory-capture more as a sibling to rent-seeking (rather than its opposite). Twisting regulatory processes to benefit larger incumbents is often the mechanism that is used to extract rents.
Regulatory capture is when you make it more difficult to work in your industry on purpose through regulation, in order to discourage competition.
For example, McDonald's could push for a law that would require anyone who wants to run a chain restaurant to post a $100 million bond. Sure, they have to put up the bond too, but they have plenty of money to do so. The burden would probably stop many new chains from ever getting started.
