Don't Be Silly

So, Matthew Yglesias looks at the imposition of a regulatory regime that grandfathers in those already practicing and concludes

This is the bad faith that gives away the game. If licensing is primarily about ensuring quality in the face of market failure, then obviously you need to regulate existing practitioners. But if licensing is primarily about restricting competition to advance the interests of incumbents, then regulating existing practitioners is counterproductive.

It's arguments like this that give the game away. Either Yglesias is so ill-informed that he hasn't yet had to grapple with what's wanted and what's possible, which one might call the art of compromise, or he does, in fact, understand that getting to yes, as it were, requires compromising with the various groups that have a interest in the thing being regulated. Also why market failure?  We're supposed to wait until something catastrophic happens before acting?  Isn't the training inherent to licensing supposed to ensure and therefore reassure each consumer that the person from whom you are purchasing the good or service, at the very least, knows which end is up?