Licensing is Control, Theft and Slavery

DHS Photography license Licensing is Control, Theft and SlaveryWhat is a license?

According to the Oxford dictionary a license is:

  • a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing , or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic beverages):a gun license[as modifier]:vehicle license fees formal or official permission to do something:logging is permitted under license from the Forest Service
  • a writer‘s or artist’s freedom to deviate from fact or from conventions such as grammar, meter, or perspective, for effect:artistic license
  • freedom to behave as one wishes, especially in a way that results in excessive or unacceptable behavior:the government was criticized for giving the army too much license
  • (a license to do something) a reason or excuse to do something wrong or excessive:police say that the lenient sentence is a license to assault

 

Licensing comes from authority, but who is the authority? Who gives the authority this power? The answer to that question is the people that vote! People that vote give these human gods the power to control lives, to license, to give people privileges and steal part of the fruits of our labor.

When you vote, for the human gods, these people now claim to have the authority to do what they please with your life. You allow the human god to regulate not only your life, but the lives of others. These people that you vote for make decisions for you, remember its for your own safety and for the greater good of man kind.

Licensing comes in all forms and certain places include taxidermy, massage therapy, interior decorating, selling mobile homes and even fortune-telling. In order to do the work that you love, you have to get permission from the human gods. If you don’t get permission in the name of a license woe be tide you. Has mankind gone crazy to think that we would be taken in by unqualified cheats in every business transaction whether getting a haircut, a taxicab ride, or a triple bypass? But wait! You have a fiduciary responsibility and that is why you have to have a license! Licensing does not stop people from committing real crime. Just because someone has a license does not mean they they are not cheating people, it just means that that particular individual has not been caught yet.

Many professions or business’s according to the government, need a license to operate. Who has the right to tell you what job you can do?

Who has the right to steal money from you to buy a license?

The answer is no one.

The solution to someone being in business or of being of good moral character is a rating system. The higher your rating the more people will trade and interact with you.

, , , , ,

13 Responses to Licensing is Control, Theft and Slavery

  1. Ben May 10, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    When you need emergency open-heart surgery, would you prefer to appeal to an uneducated popularity contest, or be operated on by a skilled professional certified by skilled professionals? A rating system is all very well for interior decorators, but it won’t work for professions where the general public has a poor track record of recognizing or understanding the nature of expertise.

    Taxicabs require licenses because of the trust placed in a cab driver. In many foreign countries a certain percentage of cab drivers are kidnappers. If you need a license to be a driver, and customers can easily avoid unlicensed cabs, it becomes much harder to kidnap people. Licensing also creates accountability, as licensed cab drivers are registered.

    Additionally, logging licenses aren’t there for consumer protection. They’re to preserve natural resources. You can’t do that with a rating system.

    Many other licenses, such as for taxidermy, are required because of the profession or activity’s sue of hazardous or volatile chemicals. The state has an interest in restricting the sale of dangerous toxins and high explosives.

    While the government’s authority to require licenses can and certainly is abused from time to time, both facially and with regard to its application, it is certainly necessary and a far better system in many cases to a simple rating system that would fail to accomplish many objectives achieved by licensing.

    • James Cox May 10, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

      I would trust someone more by looking at what people have said about their work, than a document from that they call a license.

      • U.S. Common Sense May 11, 2011 at 8:49 am #

        And that’s fine, which is why there are a lot of services out there (such as the Better Business Bureau and Angie’s List) that allows you to see the quality of that persons/company’s work. But from a legal point of view, it is easier to hold a licensed company responsible for poor performance or breach of contract.

        • David Shirk May 12, 2011 at 12:21 am #

          “But from a legal point of view, it is easier to hold a licensed company responsible for poor performance or breach of contract.”
          Example? Just curious.
          Also, you should change your name to Common Sense – the government bureaucracies do not even know the meaning of the word, so i think by adding the US, you do yourself a disservice.
          Seriously though, the point is that licensed companies make just as many errors as unlicensed ones. Legally speaking, a licensed company simply enjoys more legal protection – which does not always equate to the right thing. Ben earlier said that the fear of losing a license will prevent wrong doing or irresponsible action – this would be fine if a license was not needed to legally do the work, but in fields like medical, pharmaceutical, etc., it means that govt is the sole word on who can work and who cannot, and if you have a disagreement with their views then your SOL – was that not the major disagreement with ACES as to energy production etc, and home use?
          Also, companies aside, look at drivers licenses – you are not supposed to drive without one legally speaking. Yet once you have one, its a financial liability from heck – especially if you live in an area with ticket hungry cops and politicians. Now lets say you did not have license plates or DL’s. Cops could only then pull you over for outright endangerment. Also you would not be considered guilty of anything unless you did get pulled over before and had your information put into a database. However with a DL – your guilty of something regardless, and your in a database when you have done nothing wrong.

  2. Ben May 10, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    If a rating system were to have any integrity it would have to have some sort of official oversight. Otherwise what would stop me from saying I’m a top rated neurologist? Or, if you suggest oversight by a private company, what’s to stop me from paying them off? Without government coming in at some point and saying that you can’t buy or lie your way to better ratings, the rating system will be corrupt because the market will corrupt it.

    And once you need government oversight for your rating system you just have a licensing system with public input and a sliding scale.

    • Clayton Gee May 10, 2011 at 10:38 pm #

      What better oversight is there than that of the consumer? A group of individuals with no stake in the matter can not effectively analyze a situation better than those that have the need to utilize it. It would be in the best interest of a private company not to accept your payment because they would lose business to a competitor. With licensing competition is extremely limited, therefore reducing incentive by large corporations to satisfy the consumer.

    • James Cox May 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

      You would not be able to comment on your work, only people that you had done work for would be able to comment and rate you. If your ratings are bad no one is going to business with you. Ebay is a perfect example of this.

    • Tom Rankin June 1, 2011 at 12:38 am #

      And what makes you think the government is not corrupt?

  3. Ben May 10, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    What better oversight? Maybe experts? If a company tells you that its product is rich in vitamins, do you think consumer reviews or expert analysis is more likely to prove they’re lying?

    Also, what if we want an industry to have a standard that the industry won’t support? This can be a big problem for industries with a high barrier to entry. Not just anyone can become a successful auto-manufacturer, and if none of none of the existing ones want to include safety features it won’t do the consumer any good to demand them if none of the players go along with it. This could have easily been the fate of the seatbelt and the airbag.

    It would only be in the best interest of the private company to refuse my bribe if it was widely known that they were being bribed and that their competitors were not.

    Also, you’re forgetting that customer satisfaction isn’t the only good. Licenses aren’t the governments alternative to consumer reports.

    Licensing also creates accountability. If I need a license to buy chemicals used in taxidermy and I use those chemicals to poison someone, the police can begin their investigation with those individuals who can legally buy chemicals used in taxidermy, which makes catching such criminals much easier. The same reasoning justifies the licensing of pharmacists, demolitions experts and pyrotechnicians.

  4. David Shirk May 11, 2011 at 12:18 am #

    Ben,
    My fiancee recently had a c-section completed by a certified professional. In the process of the spinal, they messed up – badly. So badly in fact that another operation had to be done to help fix the problem it created.
    I am a certified network engineer, and can tell you first hand that the cert course is worthless – and holds far less weight then experience. Anyone in my company would hire experiecne over certification any day of the week.
    “Licensing also creates accountability.”
    Then why do people who are licenced still commence in irresponsible acts anyway that cost the rest of us money regardless in insurence premium increases, and state service fee increases? A fallacy if i have ever seen one.
    ” If I need a license to buy chemicals used in taxidermy and I use those chemicals to poison someone, the police can begin their investigation with those individuals who can legally buy chemicals used in taxidermy, which makes catching such criminals much easier.”
    Love this one. First of all – any chemical is either able to be easily reproduced by just about anyone, or is for sale on the black market. When you make something a ‘controlled substance’, you in effect create the black market. If this was not bad enough, you make it far more difficult and expensive for those who really do need the product to get it. Also it does not make catching criminals easier – a person who has a licence is typically not stupid enough to use the items their licence enables them to get to commit a crime. Besides – there are far more ways to poison someone with perfectly legal products – criminals know this. I have some advice for you – turn off the TV, and start thinking more.
    “The same reasoning justifies the licensing of pharmacists, demolitions experts and pyrotechnic.”
    yet pharmacists steal more drugs from the sellers then anyone else despite the license – and get caught not by their license, but more with cameras etc installed in the pharmacy. As to explosives, you obviously have no idea just how easy they are to make with just a little bit of no how. Also, demo experts are not infallible either – a quick youtube video search will show you just how often they mess up as well.
    What you fail to understand is that people are people and will do as they will without or without licenses. The only thing a license does is make life more expensive and troublesome to those of us who have never done anything wrong to begin with. In addition, you are operating under the assumption that people who are unlicensed are not fit to accomplish a certain task – this is complete and utter nonsense.
    Finally, you said “And once you need government oversight for your rating system you just have a licensing system with public input and a sliding scale.”
    Why do you need government over site? The FED, CIA, FCC, and FDA (just to name a few), have all made disastrous ‘mistakes’ despite over site. In addition – each of these entities ARE the regulators of the market that you have so much faith in.
    I gotta stop now…you are giving me a headache

    • U.S. Common Sense May 11, 2011 at 8:57 am #

      “Licensing also creates accountability.”
      Then why do people who are licenced still commence in irresponsible acts anyway that cost the rest of us money regardless in insurence premium increases, and state service fee increases? A fallacy if i have ever seen one.

      ———————————————————–

      In theory, the person/company who are deemed to be acting irresponsibly when providing a product or service would lose their license to operate, preventing them from creating more problems in the future. In addition, they would be fined for the price of repairing the damage caused or compensating others for their actions. Historically, this worked well, but in modern times, the softer legal process has allowed persons/companies to continue to operate with as little as a slap on the wrist. This isn’t a fault of the licensing process, but of the legal system itself.

  5. Ben May 11, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    I’m sorry about your wife’s C-section, but I feel obligated to point out that it is anecdotal evidence: Useful only for proving that the medical licensing system doesn’t lead to perfect doctors. It might be a small part of the evidence needed to prove that the system isn’t working the way it ought to, but it does very little to prove that an unregulated rating system wouldn’t make the problem ten times worse.

    As to your network certification, I don’t believe that’s a license. Unless I’m mistaken that means it isn’t relevant to our discussion.

    When I said licensing creates accountability did I mean that no one with a license ever does anything wrong? Do you think I meant that? No and no. Accountability means that you think when you screw up someone can hold you accountable.This cannot be 100% effective because people do not always act in accordance with their best interests 100% of the time. But it doesn’t change the fact that license plates make it easier to catch hit and run drivers. It also makes it easier to catch pharmacists that sell drugs. It doesn’t mean there are no hit and run drivers or pharmacists selling drugs. It just makes them easier to catch. It doesn’t make catching them inevitable. Just easier.

    Yes, government bans on controlled substances can create black markets. And for substances like marijuana and alcohol, that are easily created and in high demand, this can lead to a hopeless and wasteful battle to regulate. However, when dealing with chemicals that are difficult to produce or used primarily in specialized fields, regulation of controlled substances can be effective. You think any chemical is easy to buy or produce? Is that why all of the chemical companies and drug manufacturers have been driven out of business by amateurs operating out of their garages? I’d been wondering about that.

    You sling around the word ‘infallible’ like I said licensing makes you the Pope. When I said that licensing created accountability you said this was a fallacy (which one?), your use of the word ‘infallible’ is an instance of the straw-man fallacy. Do you think a rating system would make people infallible? I don’t think so. No one is infallible.

    Instances of government error do not prove that government needs to be gotten rid of, replaced or necessarily even changed. Now, I grant you, I think federal agencies, like those mentioned, certainly make enough mistakes that they could probably all stand a little more scrutiny from the common man. No arguments there. However, I would much rather have the FDA than have to do its job by myself. I don’t have the training, the know-how or the time. They might not always get it right, but they do more often than I would by myself, and I’d lay odds they get it right a heck of a lot more than a bunch of consumers rating how healthy they arbitrarily decided different foods are, with no qualifications or oversight.

    I wouldn’t take Tylenol for that headache of yours. The FDA are the ones making sure they don’t put cyanide in them. You might want to try trepanation. It was once quite popular.

  6. David Shirk May 11, 2011 at 5:23 am #

    “I’m sorry about your wife’s C-section, but I feel obligated to point out that it is anecdotal evidence: Useful only for proving that the medical licensing system doesn’t lead to perfect doctors. It might be a small part of the evidence needed to prove that the system isn’t working the way it ought to”
    Licensing is expensive and exclusive – and imperfect, then why do we have it? To ‘protect’ us from the 1% of the population that would try to take advantage? Sorry, but that happens anyway despite the massive amounts of money that get poured into the whole system at taxpayer expense. As to the c-section being labeled as anecdotal – is that how you label things that do not fit your views? Last time I looked, insurance premiums have gone through the roof for doctors because apparently things happen like that all the time. So my personal experience in this realm fits reality – not your view of it. As to licensing – listen to some Ron Paul sometime – he was a doctor for a very long time and knows the medical field very well. He is quick to point out that since government has taken control of ‘licencning’, it has cut access to healthcare and raised its price. Furthermore, other such regulatory mandates from the state also prevent competition in the sector, making it more exlcusive and expensive. Now if you work in the medical sector and have done so longer then the good doctor Ron Paul, then I will retract everything I just said.
    “it does very little to prove that an unregulated rating system wouldn’t make the problem ten times worse.” – You mean what we had before all this licencing and regulatory mandates from government and it was far cheaper and more reliable (you never heard about all these medical lawsuits in the 70’s and 80’s to the point where insurance got to damned high)? You are not looking back far enough. If I wanted to do current snap shots etc, I would be able to come up with mountains of pro state arguments, but when examined on the whole, they turn out to be as worthless as a one dollar bill.
    “As to your network certification, I don’t believe that’s a license. Unless I’m mistaken that means it isn’t relevant to our discussion.”
    Touchee my friend – and one for your side. Your are correct in that technology requires no such licenses for the most part. It is largely unregulated pretty much does whatever the heck it wants. It is also the only sector of the market where prices go down while quality goes up even in todays economy– coincidence? But don’t worry, your trusted regulators/licensing folks in the FCC are working to stop that.
    “When I said licensing creates accountability did I mean that no one with a license ever does anything wrong? Do you think I meant that? No and no. Accountability means that you think when you screw up someone can hold you accountable.”
    Yet there exist so many laws that cop can pull you over just about any time (like they do in my town), and find something to cite you for – believe me they will. The following fines are steep despite the fact that you never hurt and endangered anyone. I know I am not alone in thinking this because when I went to court, every other person in that courtroom was in the same boat I was – hurt no one yet paid an insane amount of fines. So it comes about licensing is an excuse of the state to generate revenue to please their constituents – not serve justice.
    “This cannot be 100% effective because people do not always act in accordance with their best interests 100% of the time.”
    “If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.” ~Robert LeFevre
    “But it doesn’t change the fact that license plates make it easier to catch hit and run drivers.”
    Proof please? I am sure that hit and runs occur right in front of masses of witnesses who think fast enough to get the plate number? Sorry but no.
    “ It also makes it easier to catch pharmacists that sell drugs. It doesn’t mean there are no hit and run drivers or pharmacists selling drugs. It just makes them easier to catch.”
    Once again – give me proof. In addition, I could easily come back with the fact that it also makes it twice as easy to set someone up for a crime they never committed.
    “ It doesn’t make catching them inevitable. Just easier.”
    Once again – proof please?
    “Yes, government bans on controlled substances can create black markets. And for substances like marijuana and alcohol, that are easily created and in high demand, this can lead to a hopeless and wasteful battle to regulate. However, when dealing with chemicals that are difficult to produce or used primarily in specialized fields, regulation of controlled substances can be effective. You think any chemical is easy to buy or produce? Is that why all of the chemical companies and drug manufacturers have been driven out of business by amateurs operating out of their garages? I’d been wondering about that.”
    Give me a week and a hundred bucks and I can either get you a nice hunk of thermite, or ammonium nitrate. The truth is that those of us who know how to make their own stuff are less likely to use it irresponsibly – that’s the governments job.
    “You sling around the word ‘infallible’ like I said licensing makes you the Pope. When I said that licensing created accountability you said this was a fallacy”
    You never provided a single link where a person was found using their license. In addition, many who do commit a crime get away quite easily – even if they had a license. Sure it’s useful for catching dumb criminals I suppose – but let’s be honest with ourselves, there are hardly enough of them out there to make it worth having the rest of us pay for the whole mess.
    “ your use of the word ‘infallible’ is an instance of the straw-man fallacy. Do you think a rating system would make people infallible? I don’t think so. No one is infallible.”
    Sensing a self contradiction here.

    “Instances of government error do not prove that government needs to be gotten rid of, replaced or necessarily even changed. Now, I grant you, I think federal agencies, like those mentioned, certainly make enough mistakes that they could probably all stand a little more scrutiny from the common man.”
    Mediocrity at my expense – no thank you. Its called freedom my man – try it. Besides 90% of what they do is as transparent as glass if you look deep enough – problem is that people like you do not see it as enough of a problem to do so until it is already too late. Have you ever read Bastiat?
    “No arguments there. However, I would much rather have the FDA than have to do its job by myself. I don’t have the training, the know-how or the time.”
    Part of the problem right there. You have enough time to find reasons to agree with it then not to. Seems a little one sided for a thoughtful type like yourself.
    “They might not always get it right, but they do more often than I would by myself, and I’d lay odds they get it right a heck of a lot more than a bunch of consumers rating how healthy they arbitrarily decided different foods are, with no qualifications or oversight.”
    I can recall many a pill that caused many ill effects that gained FDA approval – many of which have been recalled. Fact – the FDA is not an independent research team made of scientist, but a regulatory board made of bureaucrats who rely on third party input. Are you really okay with this? Also, by saying what can be used and what cannot, they create market monopolies that do not allow competition. Seriously….
    “I wouldn’t take Tylenol for that headache of yours. The FDA are the ones making sure they don’t put cyanide in them. You might want to try trepanation. It was once quite popular.”
    Cute – really cute, but I prefer tea – it is natural and allows the body to do what it does best – heal itself. You are wrong though you know – the FDA does not test anything – if you do not believe me, go to their website. Also, there is no FDA dude on the assembly line of Tylenol making sure that no cyanide gets put in – rather a group of people that the company relies on to be honest…maybe you should stop taking it.
    Seriously man, its like I am talking with a television running a law and order marathon…and for the record, I am very close to an ex fbi agent and several ex police officers (all of which are retired) – who would be the first one to tell you that 90% of your argument is based on television – not facts.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.