They will license you into oblivion

[capego]

Theory: Outlawing of work (requiring a permit/license) is unconstitutional:

- US Constitution : `To define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations`
- Declaration of Independence: `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.`
- Bill of Rights, Amendment 9 : `The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.`
- Wikipedia on what the word `happiness` meant in 1776 :
- `the common meaning may have been "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"`
- `In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".`

So, it reasons:
- Since a sovereign's duty in the "Law of Nations" is to protect the rights of its citizenry
- Since failing to do so is an offense against the Law of Nations
- Since punishing offenses against the Law of Nations is a duty presented in the US Constitution
- Since the same people were involved in both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and thereby recognize the same rights of the citizenry
- Since the Declaration of Independence includes a recognition of the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`,
- Then we can assume the US Constitution presents a duty of government to protect the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`
- Since `happiness` meant "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"
- Since "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing" requires work
- Then outlawing of work is unconstitutional

 

[OldLady]

Theory: Outlawing of work (requiring a permit/license) is unconstitutional:

- US Constitution : `To define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations`
- Declaration of Independence: `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.`
- Bill of Rights, Amendment 9 : `The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.`
- Wikipedia on what the word `happiness` meant in 1776 :
- `the common meaning may have been "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"`
- `In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".`

So, it reasons:
- Since a sovereign's duty in the "Law of Nations" is to protect the rights of its citizenry
- Since failing to do so is an offense against the Law of Nations
- Since punishing offenses against the Law of Nations is a duty presented in the US Constitution
- Since the same people were involved in both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and thereby recognize the same rights of the citizenry
- Since the Declaration of Independence includes a recognition of the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`,
- Then we can assume the US Constitution presents a duty of government to protect the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`
- Since `happiness` meant "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"
- Since "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing" requires work
- Then outlawing of work is unconstitutional

You want me to hang out a shingle as a doctor and diagnose your next illness?
You want an "electrician" to install the wiring in your home when he hasn't been able to pass any of his classes at the trade school for electricians?
Licenses have a reason.
I agree, some like hunting and commercial fishing licenses, are just a fancy way to tax people in order to generate money to enforce laws about hunting and fishing, but most licenses for work have a specific public safety reason.

 

[capego]

I have yet to use ignore. Excepting the Chinese spammers.

The idiots must be seen for who they are.

Theory: Outlawing of work (requiring a permit/license) is unconstitutional:

- US Constitution : `To define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations`
- Declaration of Independence: `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.`
- Bill of Rights, Amendment 9 : `The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.`
- Wikipedia on what the word `happiness` meant in 1776 :
- `the common meaning may have been "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"`
- `In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".`

So, it reasons:
- Since a sovereign's duty in the "Law of Nations" is to protect the rights of its citizenry
- Since failing to do so is an offense against the Law of Nations
- Since punishing offenses against the Law of Nations is a duty presented in the US Constitution
- Since the same people were involved in both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and thereby recognize the same rights of the citizenry
- Since the Declaration of Independence includes a recognition of the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`,
- Then we can assume the US Constitution presents a duty of government to protect the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`
- Since `happiness` meant "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"
- Since "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing" requires work
- Then outlawing of work is unconstitutional

You want me to hang out a shingle as a doctor and diagnose your next illness?
You want an "electrician" to install the wiring in your home when he hasn't been able to pass any of his classes at the trade school for electricians?
Licenses have a reason.
I agree, some like hunting and commercial fishing licenses, are just a fancy way to tax people in order to generate money to enforce laws about hunting and fishing, but most licenses for work have a specific public safety reason.

It's almost as though freedom has been stricken from the imagination of people.

Providing guarantees about quality is different than outlawing work by requiring licensing. If the state governments wanted to, and it was within their constitutions, they could provide certifying entities.

For instance, in the absence of the state licensing electricians, I would look for electricians who were certified by the state or some other reputable entity, and if an electrician presented false certification, that would be fraud.


PS:

And stop subtly misdirecting my threads. Where's a mod when you need one.

 

[OldLady]

I have yet to use ignore. Excepting the Chinese spammers.

The idiots must be seen for who they are.

Theory: Outlawing of work (requiring a permit/license) is unconstitutional:

- US Constitution : `To define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations`
- Declaration of Independence: `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.`
- Bill of Rights, Amendment 9 : `The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.`
- Wikipedia on what the word `happiness` meant in 1776 :
- `the common meaning may have been "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"`
- `In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".`

So, it reasons:
- Since a sovereign's duty in the "Law of Nations" is to protect the rights of its citizenry
- Since failing to do so is an offense against the Law of Nations
- Since punishing offenses against the Law of Nations is a duty presented in the US Constitution
- Since the same people were involved in both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and thereby recognize the same rights of the citizenry
- Since the Declaration of Independence includes a recognition of the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`,
- Then we can assume the US Constitution presents a duty of government to protect the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`
- Since `happiness` meant "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"
- Since "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing" requires work
- Then outlawing of work is unconstitutional

You want me to hang out a shingle as a doctor and diagnose your next illness?
You want an "electrician" to install the wiring in your home when he hasn't been able to pass any of his classes at the trade school for electricians?
Licenses have a reason.
I agree, some like hunting and commercial fishing licenses, are just a fancy way to tax people in order to generate money to enforce laws about hunting and fishing, but most licenses for work have a specific public safety reason.

It's almost as though freedom has been stricken from the imagination of people.

Providing guarantees about quality is different than outlawing work by requiring licensing. If the state governments wanted to, and it was within their constitutions, they could provide certifying entities.

For instance, in the absence of the state licensing electricians, I would look for electricians who were certified by the state or some other reputable entity, and if an electrician presented false certification, that would be fraud.


PS:

And stop subtly misdirecting my threads. Where's a mod when you need one.

westwall Did I subtly misdirect this thread?

Okay, what is the difference from "certified by the state" and "licensed by the state?" When I was certified as a teacher there was a long application process involving supplying information on education, required testing, criminal background checks, fingerprinting, etc. When I was licensed as a social worker, the process was similar. Both cost a generous amount of change and need to be renewed (more money coughed up) every few years. So what's the difference?

 

[westwall]

I have yet to use ignore. Excepting the Chinese spammers.

The idiots must be seen for who they are.

Theory: Outlawing of work (requiring a permit/license) is unconstitutional:

- US Constitution : `To define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations`
- Declaration of Independence: `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.`
- Bill of Rights, Amendment 9 : `The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.`
- Wikipedia on what the word `happiness` meant in 1776 :
- `the common meaning may have been "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"`
- `In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".`

So, it reasons:
- Since a sovereign's duty in the "Law of Nations" is to protect the rights of its citizenry
- Since failing to do so is an offense against the Law of Nations
- Since punishing offenses against the Law of Nations is a duty presented in the US Constitution
- Since the same people were involved in both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and thereby recognize the same rights of the citizenry
- Since the Declaration of Independence includes a recognition of the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`,
- Then we can assume the US Constitution presents a duty of government to protect the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`
- Since `happiness` meant "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"
- Since "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing" requires work
- Then outlawing of work is unconstitutional

You want me to hang out a shingle as a doctor and diagnose your next illness?
You want an "electrician" to install the wiring in your home when he hasn't been able to pass any of his classes at the trade school for electricians?
Licenses have a reason.
I agree, some like hunting and commercial fishing licenses, are just a fancy way to tax people in order to generate money to enforce laws about hunting and fishing, but most licenses for work have a specific public safety reason.

It's almost as though freedom has been stricken from the imagination of people.

Providing guarantees about quality is different than outlawing work by requiring licensing. If the state governments wanted to, and it was within their constitutions, they could provide certifying entities.

For instance, in the absence of the state licensing electricians, I would look for electricians who were certified by the state or some other reputable entity, and if an electrician presented false certification, that would be fraud.


PS:

And stop subtly misdirecting my threads. Where's a mod when you need one.

westwall Did I subtly misdirect this thread?

Okay, what is the difference from "certified by the state" and "licensed by the state?" When I was certified as a teacher there was a long application process involving supplying information on education, required testing, criminal background checks, fingerprinting, etc. When I was licensed as a social worker, the process was similar. Both cost a generous amount of change and need to be renewed (more money coughed up) every few years. So what's the difference?

NO, you did not.

 

[capego]

I have yet to use ignore. Excepting the Chinese spammers.

The idiots must be seen for who they are.

Theory: Outlawing of work (requiring a permit/license) is unconstitutional:

- US Constitution : `To define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations`
- Declaration of Independence: `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.`
- Bill of Rights, Amendment 9 : `The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.`
- Wikipedia on what the word `happiness` meant in 1776 :
- `the common meaning may have been "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"`
- `In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".`

So, it reasons:
- Since a sovereign's duty in the "Law of Nations" is to protect the rights of its citizenry
- Since failing to do so is an offense against the Law of Nations
- Since punishing offenses against the Law of Nations is a duty presented in the US Constitution
- Since the same people were involved in both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and thereby recognize the same rights of the citizenry
- Since the Declaration of Independence includes a recognition of the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`,
- Then we can assume the US Constitution presents a duty of government to protect the inalienable rights of `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`
- Since `happiness` meant "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing"
- Since "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing" requires work
- Then outlawing of work is unconstitutional

You want me to hang out a shingle as a doctor and diagnose your next illness?
You want an "electrician" to install the wiring in your home when he hasn't been able to pass any of his classes at the trade school for electricians?
Licenses have a reason.
I agree, some like hunting and commercial fishing licenses, are just a fancy way to tax people in order to generate money to enforce laws about hunting and fishing, but most licenses for work have a specific public safety reason.

It's almost as though freedom has been stricken from the imagination of people.

Providing guarantees about quality is different than outlawing work by requiring licensing. If the state governments wanted to, and it was within their constitutions, they could provide certifying entities.

For instance, in the absence of the state licensing electricians, I would look for electricians who were certified by the state or some other reputable entity, and if an electrician presented false certification, that would be fraud.


PS:

And stop subtly misdirecting my threads. Where's a mod when you need one.

westwall Did I subtly misdirect this thread?

Okay, what is the difference from "certified by the state" and "licensed by the state?" When I was certified as a teacher there was a long application process involving supplying information on education, required testing, criminal background checks, fingerprinting, etc. When I was licensed as a social worker, the process was similar. Both cost a generous amount of change and need to be renewed (more money coughed up) every few years. So what's the difference?

The PS part was a joke referencing my previous joke on the other thread. Look how misdirected this thread has become.

Certifying is when some entity makes a guarantee about the qualifications of something/someone. Other people can then choose whether to hire certified or uncertified people.
License is when a government outlaws an activity and decides who gets to partake in it. Other people can not choose whether to hire licensed or unlicensed people.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You want me to hang out a shingle as a doctor and diagnose your next illness?
You want an "electrician" to install the wiring in your home when he hasn't been able to pass any of his classes at the trade school for electricians?
Licenses have a reason.
I agree, some like hunting and commercial fishing licenses, are just a fancy way to tax people in order to generate money to enforce laws about hunting and fishing, but most licenses for work have a specific public safety reason.

Some licensing is acceptable, but there is a lot out there that exists simply to keep out competition. Nevada has loads of them.

As for your electrician example, trade unions do a pretty good job of self regulating. I've used plenty of people over the years to do work in my homes that were not occupationally licensed by the state and I've had few problems.