In response to my post above, some might be tempted to say "So what? To each their own. Don't tell me how to climb!"
That would be fine, normally I say anything goes, so long as it doesn't adversely affect others. The Problem, in keeping with the OP's question, is that the activities of some are now affecting the rights and activities of others.
An obvious example is the situation in Ecuador, noted here on SP:
gov-t-restrictions-in-ecuador-t63791.html where you can no longer climb above 5000m without hiring a local guiding agency. So the needs of the novice gringos wanting paid shortcuts, and the needs of business for profit and government for kickbacks, are trampling independence, competence, tradition and adventure for mountaineers.
In the Cordillara Blanca, for years a training and proving ground for independent alpinists aiming for bigger things, they have been gradually introducing similar regulation, often being rebuffed and compromising, but never completely giving up. Recently Ueli Steck was turned away from one of the entrances because he did not have his alpine club card and was not with a guide.
Over the last several years, expedition insurance has become harder and harder to get, and a number of insurers now distinguish between expeditions with 'professional guides' and 'fixed ropes' on 'established routes' and….er, what we used to call 'climbing', with none of that. They figure the former is 'safer' and the latter is 'riskier', taking no account of the skill, or lack thereof, of the participant. Commerce trumps climbing, again.
There are all sorts of reasons for this, mostly to do with money, but also it's the result of an increasingly risk-averse, convenience-is-king, type of culture back home where the 'mountaineers' come from. These regulations, compromises and conveniences exist because there is a demand for them. But there is also a cost beyond the agency's price.
You might say "just quit whining and go somewhere else" and that is what many of us do. But really, that's a shame to have things limited like that, and even more importantly, what is next? First one area gets sold out, restricted, then another, then the rules of one park are spread over a country. Then what? Then what? First you have to have a local 'guide' on Trekking Peaks, then you have to have a 'guide' on 7000m peaks. Then you have to have two 'guides' on 8000m peaks. This is not fantasy - these are exact proposals put forward in Nepal earlier this year after the Everest avalanche. Where will that end?
To those that say that guiding has been around since the beginning of alpinism, with Swiss shepherds taking rich Englishmen up their backyard hills, that is true. However that is a different type of guiding to what has evolved over the years and can now be found on many trophy mountains. The latter is more commercial mass-guiding, with little or no instruction, up regular, often fixed, routes with increasing infrastructure and often even more hired local help.
In those olden days, though there was undoubtedly trophy-hunting aplenty, the approach and method was quite different, with objectives chosen depending on the time available, weather and conditions, skill and experience level of the client and any other variables. Quite a different thing. Mountain guiding is a perfectly valid job, and at IFMGA level, an admirable professional qualification and career, but the commercial mass guiding of a few packaged peaks is having some serious consequences for climbing.