A Stitch in Haste

It seems to us that this regulation is ... an attempt to free the profession, to as great an extent as possible, from all taints of commercialism.
--Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483 (1955)

“An educated consumer is our best customer.”
--Syms clothing store

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an atrocious Tennessee law that -- get this -- makes it illegal for an optometrist to actually practice in an eyeglass store.

The case, Lenscrafters v. Robinson, No. 03-5512 (PDF - 7 pages), is a direct and inevitable extension of the monstrous Lee Optical case quoted above, and not just because both cases involve eyeglasses. The core holding of Lee Optical, which has wreaked a half century’s worth of damage, is that protecting (hypothetical) gullible consumers from (hypothetical) “predatory” sellers (i.e., protecting them from themselves) is a “legitimate government interest.”

Now the (true) nature of a law such as this is fairly straightforward -- naked protectionism. The “gullible consumer” argument is always an insolent shibboleth that cloaks the real “legislative intent,” namely the Politics of Pull. Independent optometrists can’t compete with the convenience of one-stop shopping for eye exams and eyeglasses from a national chain (more on that below), so they simply petition the local hack politicians to outlaw that competition outright.

When that tactic is used by, say, an online dating company, it is (rightly) ridiculed. But throw in the magic word -- healthcare -- and suddenly the concept somehow starts making sense to anti-capitalists. Never mind that eyeglasses are hardly comparable to surgery, psychiatry or other branches of “healthcare” where mistakes can literally kill. Never mind that eyeglasses are, compared to other aspects of healthcare, relatively inexpensive. It’s “medical,” so of course it must for some reason be kept free of “all taints of commercialism.”

On the other hand, if “healthcare” is so important, then isn’t it worthwhile to make it as inexpensive as possible, both in terms of money and time? Whatever (hypothetical) costs there might be to the (hypothetical) gullible consumer who may occasionally succumb to the “taints of commercialism,” would those costs not be overwhelmed by the savings to every single eyeglass customer, as competition drives down prices, for both one-stop stores and independent optometrists? And what of the time savings of being able to make a single trip to an eyeglass chain that has an on-site optometrist? Completely blanked out by those who only see (sorry for the pun) the supposed benefits of their anti-capitalist maneuvers but not the costs. Or those who put the interests of the optometrists above the interests of customers.

And in the process they claim to be “public servants.”

Can there be a more obnoxious argument against the free market than the “danger” of goods being too easy to buy too cheaply?

It boggles the mind.

Hat tip to How Appealing.