A few years ago, I wrote a humorous essay about a spaceman from another planet who had come to earth. To all appearances, he looked human, so he went around observing our ways. One of the confusing things to him was the principle of “licensing” by the state.

In this case, he wanted to purchase a car (in the hopes of meeting an attractive female that was in the commercial that advertised it). After purchasing it, he was confused at the requirements to register it, insure it, inspect it, and license it. He had no intention of ever driving it. He just wanted to possess one.

He eventually reached the determination that the licensing process was simply a method of raising revenues for the state. Otherwise, if he just wanted to own or collect cars–even if he never wanted to drive one on a public street–he still had to purchase licenses for them.

Licensing of firearms is the prerequisite for seizure of them. In Bosnia, when the Serbs captured villages and towns, they would go to the prefecture, get the gun registration records, and go to homes to seize them. If the guns were no longer in the possession of the owners or were sold without documentation, it was assumed that they had been provided to the resistance and the owners were executed.

Licensing in a profession, as you mentioned, provides state control and a revenue stream of private activity. You have to have a business license. You have to have a license to practice many professions. You need a license to have a garage sale! For cryin’ out loud!

In Europe (I served a mission in France), no “church marriages” are recognized by the state. Before you can get married in a church, you have to get married by the state. Afterwards, you can go to the church or temple to get married. That’s how they license marriage. In the US, the state grants authorization to ministers to perform marriages, so long as the clergymen complete the appropriate forms to register as an agent of the state. Once that’s done, a pastor can lawfully sign the wedding license. Shouldn’t we question the very principle of the state granting a marriage license?

In religion, “licensing” became common among sectarian Christian churches. Instead of receiving authority by prophecy and by the laying on of hands, the churches of men organized schools and theological seminaries to promulgate their doctrines and ordination became a process of licensing. Credentials replaced divine authority.

The whole process becomes so pervasive that, eventually, no one questions it. Why not let private agencies provide proof of credentials instead of having the government do it. Some will argue that it’s a necessity to protect citizens from those who might prey upon them. That has been the excuse all along to expand the nanny state.

Perhaps it won’t be long before we’llll need to pay a licensing fee to be a blogger. After all, we wouldn’t want to have unauthorized opinions get out there! It would be the new “Stamp Act” of the 21st century.

:)

A good analogy would be the company UL (Underwriters Laboratories). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories.

The point is that government isn’t necessary to keep us “safe”. There are private means available to do the same thing, and do it better, safer, more efficiently than any bureaucracy can hope for.

It’s a useful litmus test – hard-core Friedmanian or limp-wristed pot legalizer?

Great article – always amazes me how people get deceived on this one. I do not have the right to stop someone entering the honest profession of their choice. Therefore I cannot delegate any such power to government to do it on my behalf. End of argument.