1.4.19-20 Intro for Parts 2-3

Chalmers

Debating the need for tighter controls and the appropriateness of regulation as the mechanism to implement these tighter controls

There is currently an overwhelming trend towards the implementation of more stringent measures to govern tattooing and body piercing practices with state-controlled regulation being targeted most frequently as the current strategy of choice.

    The second part of this series will consider key factors, which are influential in the debate to determine the need to introduce tighter controls over the tattooing and body piercing industry. The third article will then consider the appropriateness of regulation as the mechanism to implement these tighter controls.

Editor’s note:

Tattooing and body piercing are increasingly recognized as carrying the risk of infection and in need of regulation to minimize these risks. These issues are addressed in the second and third articles of this series. While not directly dealing with infection prevention, this first article provides an essential historical perspective on the topic.

Chalmers writes

There is currently an overwhelming trend towards the implementation of more stringent measures to govern tattooing and body piercing practices with state-controlled regulation being targeted most frequently as the current strategy of choice.

This is a repeat, previously illustrated in 1.4. as lacking support and a misrepresentation of the historical record.

Let me clear up her obfuscation to get at the meaning.
If there is an "overwhelming trend" to govern T&P, "Governments" "govern" by "state-controlled regulation."  By definition, "to govern" is what governments do.

Chalmers obfuscates by writing that governments are choosing "state-control" as contrasted to governing by some other method. The only other method to "govern" is to give the authority to govern to others by the state entering into a contract with a group of individuals to allow them to "govern" with the power to enforce and to certificate practitioners as previously was allowed for lawyers, and doctors: i.e., professionalization, or a mixture of the two. The "trend" by governments is to disallow professionalization.

The fallacy of circular reasoning will be pointed out in Part 2 where she argues that T&P cannot be self-regulating because they do not have the power to enforce, among other deficiencies (which can only be given by the state). The state does not allow it, so there is no debate, this argument is a sham to make it appear somewhat democratic, but it is not.

Much of this narrative review and preview of coming articles was previously discussed. But I will mention what Chalmers repeats and give a brief comment on the Editor’s remarks.

I have provided extensive evidence in the examination of Part 1 to show that Chalmers routinely “spins” the argument using questionable methods. Here once again, the truth is: government regulation has never been the “strategy of choice” any more than eating of food is a strategy of choice by people.

Unfortunately, the Editor seems to  misread Chalmers because she writes that the risk of infection is not a valid argument. Further, the Editor’s claim that an “historical perspective” is essential proves itself the lie because there is no historical perspective provided by this article. The Editor assumed that what he read was accurate, that it had supporting research. His bad, and he needs to print a retraction.

The unfortunate thing is, though now exposed, this article will remain in hyperspace and be repeated by others to support further "governance" of T&P: perpetuating fiction.

Last updated 02-20-2011