Study Shows Govt Licensing Kills 31,000 Jobs Costs Consumers $2 billion In 1 State AloneBy Justin Gardner A new analysis from the Wisconsin Institute for Law Liberty (WILL) found that in Wisconsin alone, the rapid expansion of licensing requirements over the past 20 years caused 31,000 fewer jobs to be had, and cost consumers almost $2 billion. The study, the first of its kind to examine the economic and social impact of the more than 240 different types of credentials issued by DSPS, shows a dramatic surge in the number of regulated occupations and license holders. Across the country, a bipartisan consensus from the Obama White House to the Koch Brothers has formed that occupational licensing is arguably one of the most substantial barriers to opportunity in America today. While some credentialing serves to protect public health and safety, much is rank protectionism a device to fence in those who already have permission to work and fence out those who do not. As this writer posited earlier this year, government licensing is just another extortion racket with no real purpose in making things safer or better. These licenses involve paying government to take some sort of test and/or provide documentation of state-approved training, and then paying government every yearat steadily increasing ratesuntil 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. 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. As the Institute for Justice (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 states 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. In 17 states, African hair braiding requires a cosmetology license which costs $5,000-15,000 and thousands of hours of classroom training. In Wisconsin, government absurdly requires licensing for things such as auctioneering, beekeeping, selling Christmas trees, dance therapy and peddling ice cream. Since 1996, according to the WILL report, the number of occupation licensing categories in Wisconsin has ballooned by 84 percent. Licensing puts an average $754 burden on the households in that state; nationwide, the burden is up to $1,600 per year for the average household. The WILL report comes just in time for the January legislative session in Wisconsin, where several in the Assembly seek to eliminate licenses in Wisconsin that do not provide legitimate public safety benefits. Dedicated campaigns carried out by organizations such as WILL and IJ have forced the issue to the attention of state lawmakers. Lawsuits are having success at forcing authorities to back down from pointless licensing requirements that obviously serve only to protect industry monopolies and raise revenue. Case law has spelled out, quite simply, the farce of licensing, such as Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore. Another issued a clarion call in the fight for freedom. 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) There are other ways to achieve the goals of licensing without the State extortion racket, as IJ explains. 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. Whats more, such voluntary certification can be coupled with online reviews and recommendations to further guide consumers to the best service providers. Justin Gardner writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared. This must end immediately. While I agree licensing is out of control please vet your case quotes. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 says nothing of the sort. This sets people up for failure when they try to cite it for their own cause. Consent, the Primary Victory Consider the above for some time. Licensing is just extra taxation. Im sure there must (might) be a clause (no not santa) in the agenda 21/30 that keeps certain peoples from working. Sure dont want the plebes owning anything. The federal government is now nothing more than a corporation, and we are all under corporate (admiralty) law as our individual fictitious entity (see: Capitis Diminutio Maxima, or our names in all capital letters which designates the most severe loss of legal status, to that of slaves in bondage to uphold their massive debt in the international stock were chattel, or stock only market), where we have no rights, because corporations have no rights, only privileges for which we must pay via licenses and registrations, etc., and if we dont comply, pay fines and penalties. Corporations may only interact with other corporations, so the federal government can ONLY interact with our legal fictions via some sort of contract, agreement, license, or stipulation with these legal fictions which they happen to own outright because they copyrighted our names when we were licensed, or registered at birth (berth admiralty law is a nautical nightmare of words, see river-banks, current-cy, etc.). These legal fictions represent a cestui que trust account and ONLY a cestui que trust account, they do not represent the men and women that we really are. We must don these fictitious masks in order to even participate in their courts, which when you think about it is fraud, because we are NOT these illusory, creature of the mind entities, were us! In these trust accounts there are three positions, the trustee (who pays any fines or fees), the beneficiary (who receives any benefit like the fines and fees) and the executor (the administrator who does the paperwork, in most cases this is the clerk in costume masquerading as a judge). So what theyve done is make EVERYTHING, including making a living, illegal so that we must be licensed or registered or certified giving us special permission to do something. Like driving, for instance. Since when is driving illegal? Or getting married, or giving birth, etc. We are in effect asking the federal government for permission to do stuff thats wholly legal to do otherwise! So by learning these simple facts, we can all deduce they have made EVERYTHING illegal to do without their permission (contract or stipulation of some sort), so we must learn how to avoid them and avoid stipulating with them or creating the joinder that puts us into their illusory jurisdiction. We need to stop asking them for permission to do stuff thats perfectly lawful! Great job by the author he knows who he is, and he knows what they are (frauds) and he knows what they do to us its one massive fraudulent racket. Admiralty = Contract. Brown, Vol. 2, 100, lays down the rule in these terms: The general rule, however, at present, is, that the admiralty acts only in rem, and that no person can be subject to that jurisdiction but by his consent, expressed by his entering into a stipulation. Ramsey v. Allegrie, 12 Wall 611, p 409. In Krebles Reports, p. 500, quoted by Brown, it is expressly said, that without a stipulation, the admiralty has no jurisdiction at all over the person. Ramsey v Allegrie, 12 Wall 611, p. 410. It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as voluntary subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear on record of the court. Pipe Line v. Marathon. 102 SC 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22. It is well known that in civil cases, in courts of equity and admiralty, juries do not intervene, and that courts of equity use the trial by jury only [as opposed to common law trial WITH jury] in extraordinary cases to inform the conscience of the court. Parsons v. Bedford, et al, 3 Pet 433, 479. License = Contract. No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105. Where a person is not at the time a licensee, neither the agency, nor any official has any jurisdiction of said person to consider or make any order. One ground as to want of jurisdiction was, accused was not a licensee and it was not claimed that he was. ONeil v. Dept. Prof. Vocations, 7 CA 2d 398; Eiseman v. Daugherty 6 CA. [Its ALL about contracts, commerce. The ONLY way they can get jurisdiction is through a contract.] License, contracts, is a right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin.Ab 92; Ang.Wat. Co, 61,85. [So driving your car is illegal in their jurisdiction.] A license is express or implied. An express license is one in which in direct terms authorizes the performance of a certain act; as a license to keep a tavern by public authority. An implied license is one which though not expressly given, may be presumed from the acts of the party having the right to give it. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1843 Edition, Volume 2, page 53. [Express license is like a drivers license, an implied license is an excise tax youve just bought a license to do something that is otherwise illegal to do without one.] 2. The requirement of payment for such licenses is only a mode of imposing taxes on the licensed business, and the prohibition, under penalties, against carrying on the business without license is only a mode of enforcing the payment of such taxes. US Supreme Court. Right to Travel A license is a privilege granted by the state and cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right to ride and drive over the streets. If we allow the City of Chicago to require the licensing of horseless carriages, how long be the City of Chicago would want to require licenses to ride a horse or to walk upon the streets? City of Chicago v. Cullens, et al., 51 N.E. 907, 910, etc. (1906) The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed. Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 284 P. 461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931) The claim and exercise of a Constitutional (guaranteed) right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. US, 230 Fed 486, 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. 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 US 262. Those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege. City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910. Lastly, and this one really frosted my cookies when I learned it, lawyers do NOT hold licenses in their respective states! No one needs a license to practice law, were ALL supposed to do it (common law). Lawyers ONLY hold memberships in their trade union, the Bar Association, which isnt even an American organization, its British. Lawyers are called to the bar via Inns of Court out of City of London (the Temple Bar), and we only have branches of this organization here in the states. So lawyers are ONLY registered with their unions, and these unions have ZERO to do with our federal or state government or any government body in this nation. Lawyers are the ones that have facilitated this fraud of maritime/admiralty/Roman Canon civil law on us, proof of such is weve had 25 of them in the White House so far (both recent candidates chose lawyers as their running mates). Thing is, lawyers all must give up their US citizenship in order to accept their titles of nobility (which puts them above the law, btw), those of Esquire, one degree above a Gentleman and one degree below a Knight (yes, Knight Templar, connecting the dots yet?). Now the mind-blowing truth of all truths lawyers may NOT hold public office in our government (so why do they?). The practice of Law is an occupation of common right. Sims v. Aherns 71 S.W. 720 (1925) The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239. If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, shall without the consent of congress accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatsoever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power (Inns of Court? Crown Corporation? Vatican, which owns Crown Corporation?), such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit (oaths) under them, or either of them. Constitution FOR the United States of America. 