This topic contains 1 reply, has 1 voice, and was last updated by 
fg_admin 2 years, 6 months ago.
-
Posts
-
SOURCE: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/government-takes-sells/
___________________________
How Government Takes Away Your Right to do Something and Sells it Back to You as a “License”
Government licensing as an extortion racket and depressor of prosperity
Government has, for thousands of years, refined its methods of extracting wealth from people, perhaps with no greater efficiency than in 20th century America. The Federal Reserve, corporatism, and consumerism proved a winning combination for achieving what is known as The Great Fleecing.
While this brought about the largest transfer of wealth in history from the middle class to the 1 percent, through taxes it has also fueled the growth of an incomprehensible leviathan. The Pentagon alone “spends” (actually borrows from the Fed) $600 billion a year using our tax dollars to perpetuate endless war, and it’s never been audited.
The federal tax code is a nightmare for most ordinary people, but this complexity is for the benefit of government’s corporate partners in extortion. The feds are always fiddling with taxes for the supposed benefit of American citizens—such as “housing stimulus packages” which ultimately benefited the bankers.
The feds and the states join forces to tax every facet of life, for individuals and again for businesses. Sales taxes continually creep up, and new niches in taxation are always explored. When a small, aspiring business wants to hire someone, a double burden is created. Reports must be filed continuously for multiple government agencies, and profit that could stimulate the economy is diverted into feeding the State.
Licensing as Extortion
A favorite of state and local governments is the practice of requiring everyone who wants to provide certain products or services to be “licensed.” These licenses involve paying government to take some sort of test and/or provide documentation of state-approved training, and then paying government every year—at steadily increasing rates—until you quit, retire or die.
The notion of being licensed may sound nice to people looking for a service, and the basic idea of demonstrating knowledge about a trade is good. But mandatory government licensing can be described simply as extortion rackets with no real purpose in making things safer or better.
Take landscaping, for instance. In most places, when someone wants to install ornamental plantings at a person’s private home, he or she must be “licensed” by government. Being licensed is not really a way to demonstrate knowledge of how to successfully landscape a home. It is a test and a lifetime of government fees.
One of the most absurd examples of government licensing is African hairbraiding. In 17 states, people who offer this traditional practice must have a cosmetology license or another special license. The cosmetology license takes thousands of hours of classroom training and costs $5,000-15,000, and is usually unrelated to African hairbraiding.
The Institute for Justice (IJ), along with several activists, has managed to dissolve these ridiculous barriers to prosperity in some places. 11 states now exempt braiders from the cosmetology licensing requirement.
Others have fought the system and won. Sheila Champion, owner of The Good Earth Burial Ground, wanted to provide inexpensive, environmentally friendly burials with biodegradable caskets. The Alabama Board of Funeral Service would have effectively ended Sheila’s entrepreneurial effort by making her become a licensed funeral director.
However, Sheila championed the idea of freedom by suing the Board for her constitutional right. It soon became clear to authorities that the law was bad, and “the governor signed a bill removing sales of funeral supplies and merchandise from the definition of “funeral directing.””
To put licensing in perspective:
“Twenty-nine percent of all American workers must secure a government-issued licensed before they can practice their trade. Unfortunately for would-be entrepreneurs who seek to create jobs for themselves and others, government-imposed licensing has grown significantly. In the 1950s less than five percent of workers were licensed. But the explosion of licensing laws and the shift to a service economy has caused tremendous growth in licensing… Approximately 50 occupations are licensed in all states and about 800 occupations are licensed in at least one state.”
Even in a profession that can be dangerous to others, such as repairing gas leaks, the constant money shakedown from government has no bearing on the safety of such professions.
Indeed, as IJ explains, it is not about protecting consumers, but protection from competition. Government licensing is a joint effort made possible by “the personal interests of those already practicing the occupations” and the state’s thirst for control—just another part of the corporatocracy.
“Occupational practitioners, often through professional associations, use the power of concentrated interests to lobby state legislators for protection from competition though licensing laws. Such anti-competitive motives are typically masked by appeals to protecting public health and safety, no matter how facially absurd. For example, the 2011 legislative session in North Carolina saw efforts to license music therapists. The enabling legislation’s introduction stated: “The North Carolina Music Therapy Practice Act is established to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare…””
Another odious example lies in Louisiana, which is the only state that requires florists to be licensed. After years of legal wrangling and resistance from the florist industry, licensing requirements were reduced…but not eliminated.
“Such arguments fly in the face of common sense—how do consumers manage in the other 49 states and D.C.?—as well as research demonstrating that Louisiana’s licensing scheme in fact did nothing to improve the quality of floral arranging. Nonetheless, Louisiana remains the only state to license florists, albeit with substantially less burdensome entry requirements.”
This collusion of corporate and state interests not only takes away the right of people to do things, but also acts as a throttle to prosperity. Perhaps not coincidentally, this serves the interest of driving people away from individual creativity to instead join the corporate drone workforce.
“The legislation recognizes that licensing laws are bad for Minnesota entrepreneurs and consumers. Entrepreneurs are hurt because such laws protect industry insiders from honest competition. Licensing reduces jobs by forcing entrepreneurs to meet expensive and unnecessary requirements before they can start working. In fact, converting licensing laws to certification laws could help create more than 15,000 new jobs in Minnesota.
Moreover, Minnesota’s consumers are worse off because licensing laws reduce the number of providers from which consumers can choose and force them to pay up to $3.6 billion more for services, while reducing economic growth in the state by up to $1.1 billion annually.”
These are only snapshots of what goes on in all states. Government has taken up the role of Mafioso to shake down the citizens for its own gain and deter competition for its corporate partners.
Since licensing is shown to have no benefit to consumers or service providers, and is successfully being challenged in court, what remains but an extortion racket?
Government takes away your right to do something just to sell it back to you.
Case law has spelled out quite simply the farce of licensing, such as Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105:
Quote“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”
Another issued a clarion call in the fight for freedom.
Quote“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)”
Once these impediments to freedom and prosperity are broken down, will society plunge into a mad max world of people engaging recklessly in such services as braiding hair or landscaping a home?
Well, no.
There are better ways to address the actual issue of consumers wanting to hire reputable service providers.
“Certification, especially certification by an independent third party, can give consumers justifiably heightened confidence in a service provider without imposing licensing restrictions that stifle entry into an occupation, which limits competition and drives up prices. What’s more, such voluntary certification can be coupled with online reviews and recommendations to further guide consumers to the best service providers.”
In other words, working outside of government and the corporatocracy is more effective at making things better and safer than the sham of licensing.
"Two things I request of You (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies far from me; Give me neither poverty nor riches— Feed me with the food allotted to me; Lest I be full and deny You, And say, “Who is the Lord?” Or lest I be poor and steal, And profane the name of my God."
[Prov. 30:7-9, Bible, NKJV]By the way, the quotes at the end of the article are FALSE! We verified them. Read for yourself:
Shuttlesworth:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9117999928639504550&q=373+U.S.+262&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
Murdock:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053&q=319+U.S.+105&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
You should NEVER rely on internet articles in court as evidence without verifying the case cites.
Below the following line is an improved version of the cases cited that directly quotes the actual language:
__________________
Case law has spelled out quite simply the farce of licensing, such as the following:
Quote“The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . ..” It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.”
[. . .]
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33, 56-58), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., p. 47 and cases cited. A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect. It is true that the First Amendment, like the commerce clause, draws no distinction between license taxes, fixed sum taxes, and other kinds of taxes. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444; Schneider v. State, supra; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 306; Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418; Jamison v. Texas, supra. It was for that reason that the dissenting opinions in Jones v. Opelika, supra, stressed the nature of this type of tax. 316 U.S. pp. 607-609, 620, 623. In that case, as in the present ones, we have something very different from a registration system under which those going from house to house are required to give their names, addresses and other marks of identification to the authorities. In all of these cases the issuance of the permit or license is dependent on the payment of a license tax. And the license tax is fixed in amount and unrelated to the scope of the activities of petitioners or to their realized revenues. It is not a nominal fee 114*114 imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question.[1] It is in no way apportioned. It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax. As stated by the Supreme Court of Illinois in a case involving this same sect and an ordinance similar to the present one, a person cannot be compelled “to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”[2] Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d. 515. So, it may not be said that proof is lacking that these license taxes either separately or cumulatively have restricted or are likely to restrict petitioners’ religious activities. On their face they are a restriction of the free exercise of those freedoms which are protected by the First Amendment.”
[Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105]
Another court issued a clarion call in the fight for freedom. The below case was about a criminal trespass that had no “mens rea” or evil or malicious or injurious intent. The trespass conviction was overturned, but the same principle applies to those those who work without a license but do not intend to injure anyone and in fact DO NOT injure anyone by doing so.
Quote“It is generally recognized that there can be no conviction for aiding and abetting someone to do an innocent act. See, e. g., Edwards v. United States, 286 F.2d. 681 (C.A. 5th Cir. 1960); Meredith v. United States, 238 F.2d. 535 (C.A. 4th Cir. 1956); Colosacco v. United States, 196 F.2d. 165 (C.A. 10th Cir. 1952); Karrell v. United States, 181 F.2d. 981, 985 (C.A. 9th Cir. 1950); Manning v. Biddle, 14 F.2d. 518 (C.A. 8th Cir. 1926); Kelley v. Florida, 79 Fla. 182, 83 So. 909 (1920); Commonwealth v. Long, 246 Ky. 809, 811-812, 56 S.W.2d 524, 525 (1933); Cummings v. Commonwealth, 221 Ky. 301, 313, 298 S.W. 943, 948 (1927); State v. St. Philip, 169 La. 468, 471-472, 125 So. 451, 452 (1929); State v. Haines, 51 La. Ann. 731, 25 So. 372 (1899); Wages v. State, 210 Miss. 187, 190, 49 So.2d. 246, 248 (1950); State v. Cushing, 61 Nev. 132, 146, 120 P.2d. 208, 215 (1941); State v. Hess, 233 Wis. 4, 8-9, 288 N.W. 275, 277 (1939); cf. Langham v. State, 243 Ala. 564, 571, 11 So.2d. 131, 137 (1942).”
[Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
Once these impediments to freedom and prosperity are broken down, will society plunge into a mad max world of people engaging recklessly in such services as braiding hair or landscaping a home?
[1] “And be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That there shall be raised, levied, collected and paid, to and for the Use of her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, for and upon all Books and Papers commonly called Pamphlets, and for and upon all News Papers, or Papers containing publick News, Intelligence or Occurrences, which shall, at any Time or Times within or during the Term last mentioned, be printed in Great Britain, to be dispersed and made publick, and for and upon such Advertisements as are herein after mentioned, the respective Duties following; that is to say,
“For every such Pamphlet or Paper contained in Half a Sheet, or any lesser Piece of Paper, so printed, the Sum of one Half-penny Sterling.
“For every such Pamphlet or Paper (being larger than Half a Sheet, and not exceeding one whole Sheet) so printed, a Duty after the Rate of one Penny Sterling for every printed Copy thereof.
“And for every such Pamphlet or Paper, being larger than one whole Sheet, and not exceeding six Sheets in Octavo, or in a lesser Page, or not exceeding twelve Sheets in Quarto, or twenty Sheets in Folio, so printed, a Duty after the Rate of two Shillings Sterling for every Sheet of any kind of Paper which shall be contained in one printed Copy thereof.
“And for every Advertisement to be contained in the London Gazette, or any other printed Paper, such Paper being dispersed or made publick weekly, or oftner, the Sum of twelve Pence Sterling.”
[2] Stevens, Sources of the Constitution, 221, note 2; Stewart, Lennox and the Taxes on Knowledge, 15 Scottish Hist. Rev. 322, 326; McMaster & Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 181; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 248.
"Two things I request of You (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies far from me; Give me neither poverty nor riches— Feed me with the food allotted to me; Lest I be full and deny You, And say, “Who is the Lord?” Or lest I be poor and steal, And profane the name of my God."
[Prov. 30:7-9, Bible, NKJV]
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.