Comments on: nota bene

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:36:25 +0000

I make distinctions between “corporations” and “individuals”. I also make distinctions between regulation protecting “the commons” and regulation of individuals acting within the privacy of their own homes.

That said, I look at the three car companies you mention and wonder whether they’d have survived the 80’s, if not the 70’s, without the government “protecting” Americans from cheaper, better-made, cleaner cars.

By: Sam M

Sam M — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:21:21 +0000

Sure, OK. We need a heavyweight and a superheavyweight division. Where do you draw that line? Where is the cut off? And how to respond to the folks who will inevitably make the same points you are making right now?

Unfair!

By: North

North — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:14:42 +0000

Freddie, I think a pertinent point is that once such a liscenced group is created the incentive and motive is in place that will push government in a direction that it is naturally inclined to go on the subject of liscencing; increasing benefits for the liscenced group, increasing penalties to unliscenced practitioners leading to where most government liscencing leads: the inability of people to operate in the field without obtaining a liscence. It happened with hairdressers, undertakers, taxiis, auto mechanics etc..

I don’t like slippery slope arguements but this seems like a slide that government, once it involves itself, is naturally inclined to go with.

By: Travis

Travis — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:38:40 +0000

Sure, let’s have that discussion.

I like clean air, untainted food and safer autos. All of which are the result of governmental regulation to prevent free market abuses and failures.

Or would GM, Ford and Chrysler have voluntarily installed emissions controls back in the 1950s, if only those bad, nasty California legislators hadn’t forced them to?

By: North

North — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:10:57 +0000

A small point E.D. As soon as we create a group of “liscenced trainers” we have created a group that has built in incentives to lobby for higher barriers to entry for people outside of their group.
As soon as we create a group of government employees who’s job it is to monitor and issue liscences to said group of personal trainers we have created a group of people who’re naturally inclined to be receptive to suggestions that their power and reach be increased. It is a pattern in every industry I am aware of where liscensing has been introduced from building codes to liscensing.

Now I think liscencing or certification is absolutely necessary in some vital and unavoidable things. I’m a straight ticket democrat for heavens sake. But do we truely wish this kind of government intrusion to become so pervasive?

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:04:14 +0000

I put that in. Here is what I see:

An article discussing California passing a law to regulate personal trainers.

A blog post.

An article talking about how there will be new regulations coming down the pike.

An article from a Canadian website. (Hey! That’s the one you linked to!)

A fitness webpage talking about the legislation.

A licensing organization’s webpage talking about the legislation.

A blogpost discussing a poll approving of passing such legislation.

An answers.com webpage explaining what personal trainers do.

An excerpt from a book that had been entered into google books.

That’s the first page. I didn’t jump to the second page.

Should I have?

Having googled it using your suggestion, I find myself wondering, again, why this legislation is so absolutely necessary.

I am no longer wondering why you answered “just google it” when someone asked you for more information, however.

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:20:56 +0000

No, I’m not saying that we should repeal all laws.

I am, however, asking you if the law is what keeps you from killing your significant other.

I don’t know that government regulation does far more good than harm. We could have the “more good than harm” discussion, if you’d like, but there are also unintended consequences that, despite being unintended, need to be added to any given accounting.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:48:11 +0000

You’re a good sport. Thanks.

Yes, it will likely take a long time for both those events to take place. Now off for a jog with my PT.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:14:53 +0000

Sure. Though I’m sure physical fitness instructors will be well-regulated then.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:03:53 +0000

“It exists by the indifference of the governed.”

Hey, thanks. Mind if I use that if the Reich takes power?