I'll concede that point that I misread "friends" in your argument, and I like the "mine the borders" thing. Reminds me of Korea.
But, I will never agree with the Libertarian notion that every individual is fully capable of governing themselves. For the general public to be fully protected (including those who aren't capable of making those decisions, such as kids and disabled adults) the law needs to step in somewhere. Licensing for anything effectively says to the public that the person providing the service or committing the act that requires that license has gone through the proper guidelines and, according to the state, is capable. I can agree that it's a good way for the state to make money and I'm not really cool with that, but that's the compromise I guess.
Also, it saves the municipality from liability because according to the community at large they met the standards, the customer saw it posted and proceeded to use the services anyway.
I don't want to eat at a restaurant without the proper licensing requirements. I don't want people who don't have the proper licensing requirements to drive 18 wheelers on the highways. I don't want people to fly planes who haven't gotten aviation licenses. I don't think I'm crazy for wanting that. True, just because somebody has a license doesn't mean their free and clear (see Mohammed Atta). But I won't take their word for it either.
Guess I really jammed my hand up the wildcat's ass on this one. WHOOO!
The thing is that for the government to protect these people, they pass laws that affect me as as well. And why aren't the parents of the children responsible for their safety? Why is the state responsible for the safety of every child from bad businessmen?
Why exactly would the municipality be liable if I go to a bad barber and he cuts part of my ear off? I'd sue the barber, not the city. Licensed barber or not.