5 ms·

The taxi thing seems totally like a pretext, but cosmetologists engage in a lot of quasi-medical stuff that seems reasonable to regulate. Perhaps I'm mostly thi

The taxi thing seems totally like a pretext, but cosmetologists engage in a lot of quasi-medical stuff that seems reasonable to regulate. Perhaps I'm mostly thinking of spas and their ilk, and honestly I'm probably mostly just thinking about the rise in community-acquired MRSA (which, to be fair, has not been shown to be driven by cosmetological practices at this point).

houseabsolute 16y ago
Sometimes it might be better to wait and see if a problem arises rather than preemptively legislating it in a way that might do far more harm than the anticipated problem.
- carbocation 16y ago
  Absolutely! Hence my strong agreement on taxis and my rambling uncertainty about cosmetologists.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    I thought you felt that way, but I wanted to make it explicit for the readers because there was some ambiguity. :)
    - carbocation 16y ago
      Cheers; thank you for nudging me to express myself more clearly!
- gojomo 16y ago
  Indeed. And not only is it good to wait until problems occur, but it is also good even after a problem occurs to wait to see how businesses and their customers adjust, rather than assume that every new problem needs a regulatory solution. Once a problem occurs, and gets enough media coverage to drive regulation, it has also achieved enough awareness to become a point of marketing/competition/consumer-activism. That might be enough to control the risk, even without official state inspectors/licensors/bureaucrats. Especially in the modern era of costless sharing/archiving/finding of customer reviews and discussion.
- vermontdevil 16y ago
  The state government is using this 'sanitary' issue as a pretext to intervene on behalf of the hotel industry that they have beholden themselves to.
kiba 16y ago
Is it really necessary for the government to regulates? Why not have voluntary associations that people can join but have rules on business? If the organization have honest inspectors, their reputation will show. Businesses will pay for that kind of exclusive brands. Risk-averse customers will flock to it. If you have an organization that everyone must join by law to practice certain field, then it could be a breeding ground for corruptions. The government is now intertwined with a professional organization, and then create an illusion of safety which none shouldn't exists. Associations that has been around for years will have more trusts than new associations that pop up. The new associations will then prove that they're not kooks that been rejected by incumbent associations.
- carbocation 16y ago
  You raise a valid point. I suspect that professional associations are neither superior nor inferior to government regulation. Perhaps it's best when both exist to the most useful extent necessary, and no more. (I guess that's a trivially true statement; sorry.) Government is susceptible to lobbying by interested parties (thinking about hoteliers vs Airbnb). Professional organizations are susceptible to antitrust (thinking about Wilk vs AMA) and perhaps to perpetuating the problem they are designed to solve.
- ohashi 16y ago
  Government often regulates when an industry doesn't regulate themselves. Sometimes you need the government to step in because the social cost isn't being borne by the industry.
  - wisty 16y ago
    Well, the customers should be the ones who regulate industry. In some markets (medicine, food, financial advice, etc), it's very hard for customers to make informed decisions. In other markets, negative externalities are an issue. I think I can spot if a hotel room is clean or not. I doubt I could tell if the bedsheets had been properly sterilized, or if the shower was cleaned with bleach, but I can carry a sleeping bag and a pair of rubber slippers. Neighbors will complain about tourists partying till 3am every night, but that could be handled by the cops. They could raise some revenue by fining noise polluters, just like they fine people who break the speed limit.

houseabsolute 16y ago

Sometimes it might be better to wait and see if a problem arises rather than preemptively legislating it in a way that might do far more harm than the anticipated problem.

carbocation 16y ago
Absolutely! Hence my strong agreement on taxis and my rambling uncertainty about cosmetologists.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  I thought you felt that way, but I wanted to make it explicit for the readers because there was some ambiguity. :)
  - carbocation 16y ago
    Cheers; thank you for nudging me to express myself more clearly!
gojomo 16y ago
Indeed. And not only is it good to wait until problems occur, but it is also good even after a problem occurs to wait to see how businesses and their customers adjust, rather than assume that every new problem needs a regulatory solution. Once a problem occurs, and gets enough media coverage to drive regulation, it has also achieved enough awareness to become a point of marketing/competition/consumer-activism. That might be enough to control the risk, even without official state inspectors/licensors/bureaucrats. Especially in the modern era of costless sharing/archiving/finding of customer reviews and discussion.
vermontdevil 16y ago
The state government is using this 'sanitary' issue as a pretext to intervene on behalf of the hotel industry that they have beholden themselves to.

kiba 16y ago

Is it really necessary for the government to regulates? Why not have voluntary associations that people can join but have rules on business? If the organization have honest inspectors, their reputation will show. Businesses will pay for that kind of exclusive brands. Risk-averse customers will flock to it. If you have an organization that everyone must join by law to practice certain field, then it could be a breeding ground for corruptions. The government is now intertwined with a professional organization, and then create an illusion of safety which none shouldn't exists. Associations that has been around for years will have more trusts than new associations that pop up. The new associations will then prove that they're not kooks that been rejected by incumbent associations.

carbocation 16y ago
You raise a valid point. I suspect that professional associations are neither superior nor inferior to government regulation. Perhaps it's best when both exist to the most useful extent necessary, and no more. (I guess that's a trivially true statement; sorry.) Government is susceptible to lobbying by interested parties (thinking about hoteliers vs Airbnb). Professional organizations are susceptible to antitrust (thinking about Wilk vs AMA) and perhaps to perpetuating the problem they are designed to solve.
ohashi 16y ago
Government often regulates when an industry doesn't regulate themselves. Sometimes you need the government to step in because the social cost isn't being borne by the industry.
- wisty 16y ago
  Well, the customers should be the ones who regulate industry. In some markets (medicine, food, financial advice, etc), it's very hard for customers to make informed decisions. In other markets, negative externalities are an issue. I think I can spot if a hotel room is clean or not. I doubt I could tell if the bedsheets had been properly sterilized, or if the shower was cleaned with bleach, but I can carry a sleeping bag and a pair of rubber slippers. Neighbors will complain about tourists partying till 3am every night, but that could be handled by the cops. They could raise some revenue by fining noise polluters, just like they fine people who break the speed limit.