Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Occupational Licensing Violates the Golden Rule
Ever since I began my efforts in the locksmith industry back in 1976 there were rumors of the eventuality of licensing. I was convinced the rumors would become reality and prepared for that day by joining a national association, one which would have the effect of acting as a buffer, a means to be “grandfathered” if and when licensing took hold.
In our heart of hearts each of us knows the difference between right and wrong. Freemen recognize the simple beauty of this nation, its founding documents and our constitutional form of government which support the idea of inalienable God given rights for all individuals. There’s a short video on Fox’s website under their Freedom Watch section with senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano regarding the use of occupational licensing to limit competition.
Why is it then, we as freemen labor so intently, through PACs and other forms of lobbying, to destroy that form of government in favor of totalitarian impositions on man’s agency ?
I ran across a book written by H. Verlan Andersen, Many are Called But Few Are Chosen (ISBN: 1-57636-043-1, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 97-68785), which contained the following passage in chapter 7 entitled, Acts of Government Which Constitute an Exercise of Unrighteous Dominion :
“Men use a variety of arguments to justify the use of the police power to restrict competition. Some claim there is over-production of the commodities or services they are offering. When one considers the millions who are classified as paupers in every nation on earth with death and want in many places, how can it be asserted that there is an oversupply of any form of organized wealth? True, there are raw materials, and energy in abundance but man’s desire for the finished product is insatiable and always exceeds the supply.
Still others argue that open competition in their field should be prohibited because, if this were not done, the unlearned, the unskilled, and the inexperienced would be serving the public. But this argument assumes it is possible to classify men into two groups—the qualified and the unqualified. Is this assumption valid?
Let us investigate this matter by first observing that no one is perfect. There never was and there never will be a professional or business man who could not benefit from more knowledge, training, experience, skill, and better facilities with which to serve the public. This fact must be faced: there are not two groups of men—the qualified and the unqualified; there is only one group and every member of it is unqualified to some extent.
This being true, the only choice open is between varying degrees of incompetence, inexperience, and ignorance. Now is there a man living who can honestly claim that he is able to make a division of this group, confer special privileges on one segment which are denied to the other, and still be fair to everyone? What rational basis exists for determining where the line should be drawn? How much training or experience should be required before permitting a person to offer his services to the public—6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, or double one of these periods? It is impossible for men to reach agreement on this problem or for any person to say with certainty he is right in his opinion and all who disagree are wrong.”
It would seem my natural instincts regarding the DPS/PSB are not without merit and they certainly aren’t original. Those who would impose their will on others through licensing of the locksmith industry, supposedly to protect an unsuspecting public from unscrupulous tradesmen and the criminal element, violate the Golden Rule through deceitful measures which act as a barrier to free trade and unwanted competition. Rules and Regulation imposed on those already licensed intended to promote professionalism are nothing more than flawed and expensive hurdles.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
Posted by T. F. Stern at 12:36 PM