Comments on: Regulatory Creep

By: Phil Goldstein, Bulldog Investors

Phil Goldstein, Bulldog Investors — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:02:24 +0000

I think meditation instructors need to be regulated too.

By: Kirt Higdon

Kirt Higdon — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:23:49 +0000

Absent a complete nationalization of the physical fitness industry and a whole new federal police force to enforce standards and licensing, this regulation of yoga instructors will never work. Reason – you can always teach yoga and call it something else. Right now there are many trainers who simply teach basic yoga and pilates moves and call it “stretching” or “core conditioning”. I think pilates might be trademarked, but there is nothing to stop anyone teaching it, poorly or well. The same applies to yoga.

An interesting comparison here, though with significant differences, is with state attempts to regulate the massage industry. Here the unobtainable object is to keep massage from being used as a front for prostitution. Since untrained whores charge more than trained and licensed masseuses and since men looking for sex will not patronize non-sex-providing masseuses no matter how little they charge, there is no cartel protection aspect to this regulation. But it’s close to unenforceable overall; the best regulation can accomplish is occasional shutting down of large scale operations employing illegal aliens and these generally re-open quickly. Often they simply pay off the enforcers in cash or trade. Independent operators can offer “relaxation”, “aroma therapy”, “accupressure” or other euphemisms to avoid regulation of massage. Whores can be pretty much identified by higher prices, but if the whore waits for the customer to actually propose sex, she then has a defense of entrapment if the customer turns out to be an undercover cop.

By: That Downward Dog Is Filed Under Regulation 134.2 « Around The Sphere

That Downward Dog Is Filed Under Regulation 134.2 « Around The Sphere — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:28:28 +0000

[...] John Schwenkler: This New York Times article on the controversy that’s been a-brewin’ over the push for government-mandated licensing requirements for yoga instructors is a prime piece of head-scratching high comedy. When I first saw the headline I assumed the story would fall into the familiar pattern of cooperation between government and cartel, wherein the established and well-connected representatives of an industry prevail on government officials to pass and enforce official standards that will strengthen their position, by raising barriers to entry and posing additional burdens on their competitors. As it turns out, though, seemingly no one in the multibillion-dollar yoga industry is happy with having their voluntary standards turned into state-sponsored licensing requirements; teachers and students alike claimed that such standardization and oversight runs directly counter to the essence of the practice, and have joined together to lobby and protest to keep the regulatory state at bay. [...]

By: Matt Weber

Matt Weber — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:16:10 +0000

I agree that that would be a good compromise, but I’m not a hardcore libertarian. It’s a nice dream, to think of such a compromise being enacted, but proponents of the regulatory state aren’t willing to compromise. They grant special powers of competency and neutrality to the government above and beyond any other organization, rendering all private organizations incapable of adequately carrying out such responsibilities.

By: Petellius

Petellius — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:32:36 +0000

I think that a large part of the problem is that there is a serious information imbalance in most of these situations between service provider and consumer. That is, most of the fields where there are licensing criteria are fields in which the providers purportedly have some kind of extensive specialist knowledge, and so the consumer has to place a lot of trust in the provider’s word that he knows what he is talking about. It is a rather large burden to place on consumers, to tell them that they will have to become expert in every field in which they are looking for a care/service provider. “Oh, we don’t license dentists anymore; just go study dentistry for a couple years, and then you’ll know whether your guy is a quack or not.” (I realize that this is a bit of a straw man, since you’re not actually calling for the abolition of dental licensing; it’s just meant to be a slight overstatement for the sake of a clear example.)

It’s the citizenry’s awareness of their own ignorance in the relevant fields, and the inability to address that ignorance in any feasible way, that makes them amenable to these kinds of licensing programs. Well, that combined with the apparent irresistibility of “public health” as an argument in contemporary political debate (which is why these sorts of things really only get off the ground in healthcare-type situations, and not in other fields of specialized knowledge. I don’t think that anyone is seriously arguing for state-mandated licensing of computer repairmen.)

It seems, off the cuff, that the most reasonable sort of compromise situation might look like self-regulating trades, with their own internal standards of conduct and certification; combined with beefed-up fraud laws, and the vigorous enforcement of same, to prevent BS pseudo-certification programs. This still might involve more state power than those in the hardcore libertarian camp are comfortable with, but I think that there’s a decent argument for this kind of consumer-protection as a public good.

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:33:19 +0000

Fear mongering is at the heart of most of these frivolous and cartel-producing regulatory measures. I know some yoga instructors. They’re great people, great instructors. Guess what? If they weren’t – or if they were doing a lousy job or a lousier job than someone else – people would stop going to them, or they would be let go from whatever gym or yoga center they were instructing at. Thus we are allowed to regulate ourselves. Certainly a similar rule does not apply to those who operate on our hearts or our spines – but I think it could work on those same people who stitch our cuts, or tell us that the cough we have will go away in five days and to drink some tea and get lots of rest….

Great post, John.

By: John Schwenkler

John Schwenkler — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:31:32 +0000

The question is not ’shall we have standards?’, the question is ‘who shall enforce them?’.

Agreed. Professional cartels can have whatever internal standards they want; my only objection is to their getting the government to enforce them across the board at the point of a gun, so that the cartel gets state-sponsored monopoly power.

By: John Schwenkler

John Schwenkler — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:23:42 +0000

Are you seriously arguing for the abolition of standards for medical and dental licensing?

No, I don't think they should be abolished outright. Here and here are a couple of my posts on the subject.

By: Petellius

Petellius — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:23:53 +0000

Are you seriously arguing for the abolition of standards for medical and dental licensing?

By: larry

larry — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:50:49 +0000

Yoga schools should also provide training in automatic weapons. The National Rifle Association would then spend zillions of dollars bribing government officials to do away with any meaningful regulation. Yoga doesn’t kill people, people kill people.