If you would like to engage in a polite debate over the extent to which it's appropriate for governments to regulate the economy for consumer protection, I'm happy to do so.
I will not, however, engage with ad hominem insults.
There's nothing ad hominem in pointing out that your argument is based on ignorance because you lack specific knowledge of this area of expertise. Sorry, but pretending you are on some equal footing with people much more experience in a particular industry is the only logical fallacy here - False Balance.
If I argued - as a non-doctor - that anyone should be able provide medical advice to people without being an MD, or that Joe Shmo should be able to provide legal advice without being admitted to the Bar, you'd rightly call that attitude ignorant and naive. The same holds true with your argument. It simply comes from a place too far removed from the topic at hand to be considered even remotely viable.
Don't take it as an attack on you, it isn't. Do take it to mean that you are clearly out of your element, and that with a little bit of research on your part, you'll understand why this is so.
What you posted was against the HN guidelines not because it was an ad hominem but because it called names ("you are clearly ignorant", "naive almost to the point of being moronic"). It's particularly uncivil to say things like that and then add "don't take it as an attack on you", as if you hadn't added to the problem.
You clearly have experience and knowledge. There was no need to make this personal. If someone is ignorant, show them that by responding factually and stop there. Don't rub their face in it.
1. You are ignorant on this topic. This doesn't mean the same thing as "You are stupid", it means precisely: "You lack key knowledge about this particular topic." That's how I used it.
2. I provided a few paragraphs telling why these conditions exist, and why arguing against them is not something someone educated in the topic would consider even attempting.
3. When you continue - over the course of several comments - to progress with your argument from a position of clear ignorance, it does indeed require increased naivety to the point of absurdity.
If you are going to take a stance on a subject you know little about, and then continue to assert that opinion, you can't get upset when people use more and more direct means to communicate with you. Don't assert a position that is based from a position of ignorance; seek to learn instead.
Also: I'd just like to point out the ironic nature of asserting meaningless comments are against 'guidelines' while at the same time suggesting guidelines are irrelevant for a much more important human concern.
"You lack key knowledge" is already an order of magnitude less name-calley than "You are ignorant", because it doesn't take the form "You are X". But why diminish the other person at all? Build them up by increasing their knowledge.
The distinction here is simple. Factual comments about insurance and licensing: great for HN. Comments about people's knowledge levels and getting tangled in personal bickering: bad for HN.
If you would like to engage in a polite debate over the extent to which it's appropriate for governments to regulate the economy for consumer protection, I'm happy to do so.
I will not, however, engage with ad hominem insults.