Licensing from a common law perspective.

A license is a written authorization signed by a representative of the state, that authorizes the holder to perform some activity which would otherwise be illegal.

In the case of setting up a private hospital for example, one requires a license to operate a medical facility and a medical business; If one were to operate a medical facility without a license then the police would be called in and threaten to shoot you if you did not shut it down and submit to detention.

From a common law perspective, here's what is occurring here:

Say that I am party A (the hospital) and you are party B (the patient.) We make a legal agreement that I will provide you medical services in exchange for monetary reimbursement. This is a private contract between A and B, under common law and is only binding on parties A and B. Neither party has signed any other contract related to this interaction.

Now here comes party C, the state. C says that A cannot contract with B, unless A first contracts with C. That is, I am unable to offer medical services to you until I have a contract with the state. (A 'license'.)

Where have we seen this pattern before? From where does this originate?

From slavery of course!

Under the law of chattel slavery a legal person (a free man) cannot contract with a slave without the master's consent.

For a very simple example of this, let's take marriage. (Marriage is a contract.) In order for a free-man to marry a slave who is owned by a slave owner, the free-man must first make a contract with the slave owner before he is allowed to make a contract with the slave -- infact before a contract with the slave is even recognized as a legitimate contract. Which is the same as the hospital example above. Namely that A cannot contract with B until A first contracts with C. And if A attempts to contract with B without contracting first with C, then the law will not only not recognize this contract but will actively try to aggress upon / intrude upon the contract between A and B.

But the similarities do not end there; Slaves were persistently told by their masters under systems of chattel slavery that their enslavement was 'for their own good', 'for their own safety', and so on.
And what is the most common excuse for licensing? It's for "the safety of consumers." -- the 'safety' of the slaves.

There you have it. Licensing is an active demonstration of the legal rights of 'citizens'; Namely that they have none, only privileges granted by their owners.

 

Total bullshit. In most countries you need a license to do any sort of business. 'A business license'. And you need, in addition to that, a license for the industry you work in; 'food preparation,' for example, if you were operating a chicken stall in a market. And on top of that even, you need a license to employ people to work at your stand -- and they need licenses to work for you -- AND you usually need state enforced insurance for your stand.

 

In many states in the US you need a license to be an interior decorator or cut hair. Go on, tell me what's so dangerous about that. Going on the internet is dangerous. Should that be licensed?

Getting back to common law perspective here; what are you invoking tort or contract law? And are you trying to claim a presumption of guilt on the contracting parties?

 

Well a tort still requires evidence of a complaining party, causation, and provable injury and damage. You have none of these things. You can't sue me for opening a chicken stand, unless you bought chicken and were thereafter poisoned. And we already have a body of law for this, so what need have you of licenses?

Would you hold each at gun point, as slave before master, 'just-in-case' of property damage?

Yes that is retarded?

 

So, because it might be hard to get evidence to carry out justice, you propose to do away with the presumption of innocence?

You mean like all those heavily licensed banks that just went under and lost tens of trillions of ordinary people's dollars? Sounds very safe.

 

I don't understand. What's your position? Can A freely contract with B or not?

 

So your answer is 'no'. Your (moral) position is that all human beings must first obtain permission from a man with a gun before they can agree to exchange goods and services with one another. This is in-fact slavery.

 

Well firstly, why is anyone entitled to my money in the form of 'taxes' or any other tribute, if I am not a slave? And secondly I would still require a 'business license' (permission) to be allowed to sell things.

 

It's not licensing if the third party agrees to inspect and certify the product or service on a voluntary basis. That is just certification, which is a completely wholesome and good market phenomenon.

Ever notice the (UL) logo on your electronics? That's a market institution certifying products -- voluntarily -- as safe. That's why your toaster doesn't electrocute you; and if it did you could probably sue underwrite labs.

Ah the cries of the minarchist... "just a little" he doth declare. "Just a little evil is all I want, just a little."
We tried a little... a little evil, the American experiment it was called. It lasted not but 50 years, and is now the largest empire of them all.