Jarret B. Wollstein Quote

“In Washington, D.C. it costs $7,000 in city fees to open a pushcart. In California, up to eighty federal and state licenses are required to open a small business. In New York, a medallion to operate a taxicab costs $150,000. More than 700 occupations in the United States require a government license. Throughout the country, church soup kitchens for the homeless are being closed by departments of health. No wonder so many people turn to crime and violence to survive.”

~ Jarret B. Wollstein

The Tyranny of Gun Control, 10 (Future of Freedom Foundation 1997).

Ratings and Comments

Mike, Norwalk

WOW, just a scratch on the tip of the iceberg in an expose' of why there is no more manufacturing, jobs, or creation of wealth in Amerika. AND, that says nothing of the taxes on top of that. Editor, thanks ! great research

Mike, Norwalk

Just another thought on the subject; a license is: "A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal" (Bouvier's Law Dictionary) When was it and, how did it become illegal to contract, transport or protect one's self, marry, or labor for the good of self, family, or country? By what lawful nexus or operation of law did the servants become the masters, becoming the competent authority, to give to each of We The People, the individual sovereigns, the privilege to commit such crimes / illegal acts as contracting with our fellow sovereigns, marrying our sweet hearts, transporting or protecting our selves and family or, working for a living ? ? ? Welcome to the occupying statist theocracy's Unified Socialism of Amerika.

J Carlton, Calgary

Mike, it's all about "control". Most of what needs to be licensed (according to the PTB) is due to their need to be notified and out need to pay "homage to our masters". A marriage license for example is required for only one reason...to register two people as one "tax unit", making each responsible for the other's tax position. It is corrupt from top to bottom.

Cal, lewisville

And they do all this to protect us_from whom?

Mike, Norwalk

J Carlton, I think you are a bit optimistic and a little too kind - way too nice. If registration was all that was desired for taxing purposes - the designation 'registration' would be used. If a mere quality assurance was the goal - a designation of 'certification of ability' would be used. Paying homage to our masters is closer to it. For the government to issue just ONE (1) license, would be to legally designate that 'We The People' have NO inalienable / unalienable / Creator endowed rights, are not sovereign, have no political expression (no government exists of We The People, not even the slightest whisper - individually or in concert), etc., etc., etc. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, by claiming the authority, ability, power, and right to issue just ONE (1) license, declares itself to be a god, an organic hegemony, in toto aloof from We The People, complete with each and every, any and all rights as may exist and, those vermin - those of the specie homo sapiens, they have ZERO rights, their mere existence is illegal and expendable. That is just touching what a government license means at law.

J Carlton, Calgary

Points taken Mike. As you say, my comment may be a little simplistic.

E Archer, NYC

Mike makes a great point about licensing. This custom is very old. From the perspective of a monarchy, in which all people are subjects, and all land belongs to the Crown, subjects had to get permission to marry -- the king or lord could even claim his right to have sex with the new bride even before the husband. Women have been treated as property for nearly all of recorded history. In a monarchy, one has to get permission from the Crown to operate any business. Now the proper use of a license is to permit commercial use of the public trust -- that is where the driver's license originated -- using the public roads for commercial gain required permission from the public as the public was charged with maintaining the public commonwealth. But the eternal argument for 'security' and 'insurance' has resulted in all kinds of permits to work in one's trade. Instead the proper way to increase security and help insure against damages is to 'certify' rather than 'license.' The marriage between 2 people is an 'agreement' and 'certifies' that agreement and its terms -- it is not a permit, it merely certifies that the agreement has been made according to certified terms. This puts the responsibility back where it belongs with the individual who is in need of medical services or electrical work or engineering work. Licensing has the effect of creating monopolies -- and the medical and legal establishments end up creating a monopoly that they themselves control. As a result, insurance is forced upon us all whether we want it or not -- all the while insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies rake in huge profits guaranteed by the laws that have been passed to make everyone pay them. As a result, we have lost common law and common sense. Plants are now 'drugs' and commercial statutes are now 'law.' The businesses that insist on licensing do so only to make competition illegal.

Mike, Norwalk

Archer, a slight caveat add on to the commercial use. At common law, the use of land for transportation (private or commercial) by more than a single allodial owner for more than a year designated a free and public thoroughfare (certain easements were recognized at up to 20 year intervals). At that legal status of land use, no one (individually or in concert) owned the thoroughfare. No one (individual or in concert - local municipality or larger) was in charge. No allodial or titled authority was lawfully able to give charge, to maintaining that portion of the public commonwealth. Communities would enter into compacts to enhance the public thoroughfares but, that could not, by action of law or otherwise, limit the use to private or give privilege to commercial. It was free to the public for all uses. Land that was owned by parties (individual or in concert - even a political commonwealth) could then charge a toll or give privilege to commerce as long as there was another way around the privately held thoroughfare. The right of prescriptive easement mandated uninterrupted or privileged-required private and commercial use when no other avenue was possible. The commonwealth's land possession (law of tenancy for a period - resembling joint tenancy at will without survivor-ship), with the designation road / thoroughfare, etc. would exert ownership or title by adverse possession while the prescriptive easement did not address possession or tenancy, only use. Mandating commercial license was an expanse of maritime law onto the land in a society of freemen.

Mike, Norwalk

I just read over what I wrote. I was trying to get it all down in one thought, hope it makes sense to you. For the neophyte, it would require a lot of history and foundation.

E Archer, NYC

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I should have also mentioned that the commercial license to use the roads was a livery license and was not required for public use. From what I can tell, a corporation did not have the rights of a real person -- a corporation could not hold allodial title to land, for example, because there would be no protection against a large wealthy corporation who could easily push its weight around. Again we see that gradually we have lost our common law rights and responsibilities to commercial interests that have co-opted the 'law' to give rights to straw-men (legal fictions like corporations) and living breathing people servitude. Requiring permission to travel, permission to posses the means of defense, permission to treat disease, permission to buy and sell, permission to marry, permission to educate your children, permission to even grow your own food is servitude -- servitude, I might add, that we have to pay nearly 90% of our earnings and purchasing power for. The use of commercial debt instruments as a means of exchange also has strings attached -- permission is required to even get your money out of the bank. How could anyone looking squarely at the facts say that we are in any way free? We own nothing but are liable for everything and must pay our misleaders to keep us in perpetual debt. As George Carlin often said, "People are f$%^g stupid."

Daniel, Ft. Worth

This is the result of Central Planners, who have set themselves up as god, and who think they know better than the People they claim to serve. The real problem here is that all organizations quickly move to protect and enlarge themselves. Bureaucracy proliferates, and every time it does, it takes away a corresponding amount of freedom from someone. "Power corrupts, etc." Vigorous application of Sunset Laws could right a lot of this in a short time. "Re-electing Nobody" could also help!


Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.