I'm reading over it, and I fail to see the problem.
You are talking about skilled trades like construction (or deconstruction), machinists, and industrial manufacturing.
Generally the businesses involving the traditional skilled trades require that individuals have experience. This is a good thing.
Usually with small businesses you will see things like "We have 30 years of industry experience", meaning the five people who founded it may have 14 years, 7 years, 4 years, 3 years, and 6 months experience, respectively.
Those key people, the ones with 14 years experience and 7 years experience, are critical to the success or failure of the business. Those are the ones who really know how to do the job. They have the experience to keep things safe. They have the experience to know when things are not quite right, to know what kind of things need to change, and the ability to supervise projects and train the new guys.
In order to get a professional license in those skilled trades you need experience. It is a good thing. Once you are experienced and individually licensed you can start out on your own venture, but until you get the license you are not considered skilled enough to manage and run the projects on your own.
Most of the businesses ideas mentioned require not just professional licensing, but also bonding. That requires further evidence that you can do the job safely without jeopardizing the public.
It is not that they don't want your business. It is that they want skilled tradespeople to do the job, or at least to supervise the work, for everyone's safety.
This is a common them in government, trying to save the citizens/subjects from their own stupidity for their own good. However, regulations are always a bad idea. Free market consumer interaction will always be more efficient and lead to more wealth because it allows greed, the motivation of just about everything great in this world, to do its thing. What do you think would happen if all the regulations were abolished tomorrow. Would we have an epidemic of poorly run and dangerous businesses a few years from now? Of course not, because consumers don't run charities. They want the best value for their money, always. Usually they will want people with experience and a good reputation because their is a smaller risk involved. They also might want to go for the cheapest guy despite him not having a track record (risky). Regardless, they should be able to choose. Government regulations aren't necessary to pick and choose suitable businesses and unsuitable businesses. The consumers can do it much better and without paying paper pushing bureaucrats. Crappy businesses fail and good businesses prosper.
The sad thing is that "protecting the people" isn't even the whole story as people have said above. Reducing competition is a huge factor not only in Detroit but also on a nationwide scale as anyone familiar with the dealings of large corporations and the government will tell you. Disgusting if you ask me