[Their site](https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/diet/diet.htm) says that:

> The Dietitians program licenses and regulates dietitians in Texas. A license is required to use the titles "Licensed Dietitian" and "Provisionally Licensed Dietitian." A license is not required to use the titles "Dietitian" or "Nutritionist."

Haven't checked the others, but at least that one seems pretty reasonable.

Also, hospitals tend to have licensed-dietitians to handle stuff like making meal-plans for patients, which is apparently a more involved process than one might think, especially for patients with multiple complications.

Yeah the polygraph one seem anachronistic, but if people still use them I appreciate the state trying to make sure the practitioners aren't more snake oil-y than the field at large.

What do you imagine you're getting from hypothetical oversight? It is not theoretically possible to be more snake-oily than the field at large.

Because hepatitis is real.

Same deal with an acupuncturist.

It does seem like quite a few of the things that require licenses in Texas would be just as safe with a certificate and random inspections (like they do with food handlers).

Well sure, we'd all like that. But those of us who have experience dealing with government regulatory bodies (even justifiable ones like building inspectors, fire inspectors, etc.) are skeptical for good reason. The competence of your licensing overlords will vary greatly.

Free-market dynamics require a lot of intellectual overhead.

For example, in a theoretical world with unbound computation and information-sharing, all stocks on the stock-market should be perfectly priced, and all doctors should be of known qualities. And all of those supplements in the pharmacy should be of known effect, and priced perfectly given that knowledge.

But in more limited contexts, where folks don't have infinite free information and computation, centralized authorities can help provide standards. For example, if you go to a licensed medical-doctor, then you may not know their exact quality, but at least you can generally infer that they're competent enough that the state hasn't yanked their license. Ditto for most other licensed professions.

Anyway, to answer your question: the government does it because it's too costly for everyone to do it themselves. When that changes -- this is, when consumers start to acquire a level of knowledge where they can make informed decisions and find government regulation stifling rather than helpful -- then they petition the government to change in response to such new circumstances.

> intellectual overhead

aka transaction costs.

Licensing, credentials, certification are just the cost of doing business. Open markets are built on transparency, accountability, fair rules, impartial referees, etc.

Sure, it all sucks. The alternative is worse.

You cannot hold someone accountable without a government, because otherwise there's no way to create consequences. Having a private certification authority only adds a layer of indirection.

You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme.

I mean, the key difference is that with a market solution you're policing one market with another that's even harder for consumers to evaluate than the first one, and consumer choice is what (supposedly) keeps markets in check, so all you've accomplished is making the situation worse. At least using government changes the mechanism by which we apply pressure to the regulators, and their incentives, rather than presenting a worse version of the same thing, so it has the potential to be an improvement.

A dietitian giving bad advice could cause serious harm.

A dyslexia therapist could provide no benefit to the patient.

A cosmetologist could cause someone's hair to fall out.

Like, having something deeper than yelp reviews to help make someone's hair not fall out seems reasonable...

My dad was a doctor who lost his license (nothing dramatic or gossip-worthy involved). He was primarily treating opiate addicts with something called Suboxone. It is sensitive enough that the state puts a hard limit on patients you can have - 100. This means people who need the treatment are often on waiting lists because the doctors who have the qualification to write Suboxone are often at their 100 patient limit. Father told the medical board they need to find placements for his 100 patients or they will end up dead WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Medical board couldn't give two shits since that's not their problem, last we know at least three died within 4 months or so of not being able to find a new doctor.

All the other licensing requirements do is favor incumbents and restrict competition. Amazon was against paying local sales taxes - until they eventually figured it out; now they are a huge proponent for forcing all online retailers to have to collect all local taxes. Will squeeze out the little guys or drive them into their web store solutions.

Regulations rarely benefit small business or their customers.

Also who seriously pays attention to if someone has a license or not? You can still get a bad haircut or advice from a licensed person. What I find appalling is the more rigorous the licensing the less some people question the people who hold them. Indeed, it's now a thing to criticize any critical thinking around "experts" (such as the anointed one, Saint Fauci) - utterly disgusting.

See "Competition and Monopoly in Medical Care" by Frech.

What tends to happen, however, is that the requirements to acquire a license grow beyond basic health and safety to include a ton of formal education. This is probably due in part to the fact that practitioners are well represented among the people designing the licensing requirements, and they have a vested interest in erecting and maintaining barriers to new entrants.

For example, it typically takes 1,500 hours of instruction to become licensed to cut peoples hair in exchange for money. That amount of training might be reasonable for someone working with potentially harmful chemicals, but on the other hand I can give someone a pretty decent buzzcut and have approximately zero hours of training (but would still face civil penalties if I were to open Frankus' Buzzcut Studio).

It's also worth noting that licensing doesn't necessarily have to be enforced by the state, (although I agree that basic knowledge of the health and safety aspects of an occupation is probably a reasonable requirement to be state-enforced).

You could have a private credentialing agency that certifies practitioners who have completed additional study or exams, or have a certain minimum amount of experience (something along the lines of Microsoft's MCSE credential, but for, say, applying makeup).

I sometimes think they want to license everything because it brings in a fair amount of money in fees.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/HB01560F...