john_v_h

They are if they fail to demonstrate said ability in a controlled, reproducible experiment.

lowmagnet

Of course they are automatically delusional. Or a con artist. I stand by the scientific canon of experiments on this one.

Tom Sawyer

I think this regulation is an important first step in getting rid of these guys.

Right now, if somebody says that he's speaking to dead people and scams people out of money this way, it's very hard to prosecute them. However, if they sign an official document saying that they are going to be doing this, there is now an official document proving their fraud, which will make the prosecution much easier.

Granted, it could help legitimize the practice, but that seems to be happening well enough without government aid. I think a few high profile prosecutions of these guys could help stem that tide, though.

jayh

Getting rid of what? ... Frauds? ... or psychics? Your goal seems to be getting rid of people whose beliefs you feel (likely truthfully) are false. Dealing with frauds is one thing. The government has no business whatsoever prosecuting anything else.


Fraud SHOULD be hard to prosecute. It should not be so broad that any two bit prosecutor could find a basis to go after people who happen to be doing something he doesn't like. More intrusive government power is NEVER a good thing. On the other hand fraud is the ONLY legitimate basis for action, and 'licensing' (permission beforehand) should not be a requirement for fraud issues.

'Licensing' implies that one needs the 'permission' of the state to do something, as if the state has any right whatsoever to give or withhold that permission.

Largely this is an informal grey market activity performed semi-casually by individuals and their willing customers. No one is people to believe in these guys. It is also dangerously close to 'licensing' religious belief (which of course cannot be proven either).

Even though from a rational scientific viewpoint it's possible to see how these people are deluding themselves, the government is neither morally qualified, nor equipped to determine the truthfulness of every cultural concept. It is potentially very dangerous when it passes laws and regulate areas where it is not qualified to judge.

What is seen here by the government is one more informal grey market that it wishes to control (i.e. tax) by raising the barrier to casual informal activities by people who are in no position to get a 'license', leaving it open to 'professionals' who are easier to tax and manage. All in the name of consumer protection.

jayh

JohnR

Of course you'd thought they would have seen this coming.