The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property!

September 2006

I am in a quandary. Within two years the state of Georgia will require that I be licensed in order to apply my trade in Georgia. This requirement will be in direct conflict with my beliefs, in particular my religious beliefs. I simply cannot, nor will not, be placed in a position where I am required to beg my government for permission to make my living thereby placing me in a position where I am required to beg for permission to live. My government was formed with the charge of protecting my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, not taking it away.

If all the government wished to require of us was an accreditation -- the proof that a person possesses the knowledge and skills professed -- then I would gladly submit myself to these rules and requirements. But Georgia government is requiring so much more. Licensing requires a business to be under the auspices of government. I wish only to be under the auspices of God, the much higher standard.

If government had a good reputation, then accreditation would be enough. No person would foolishly ignore the government's recommendation. But the government does not have a good reputation. It must resort to coercion to justify its programs ostensibly designed to protect the consumer.

Most people believe what they are told. They believe that government is there to protect them. How foolish they are. Government always does what it is in its best interest. Even government programs that start off with the best of intentions end up having the worst of outcomes.

Ronald Reagan made the point on many occasions that government is never the solution to the problem. It IS the problem. He also said -- like many presidents before him -- that the closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program. (He is pointing out that government employees tend to find new ways to justify their jobs rather than admit that they no longer serve any real purpose.) Comparing government to a baby's alimentary canal, he said that government has an insatiable appetite on one end and no sense of responsibility on the other. He also spoke of a fourth branch of government, the sum of all the bureaucracies originally created by Congress, which is now very large and powerful, but is only remotely accountable to the people.

Examining the Application:

One of the first items on the application is a request for your Social Security number, or as my friends prefer to call it, your Socialist Slave number. I am on the verge of revoking this number because of its close resemblance with the Mark of the Beast spoken of by John the Apostle in the book of Revelation. (I don't think I will be giving up much because even Alan Greenspan said there would be nothing there anyway by the time I retire.) There is a strong implication that if you do not furnish this number, you will be denied their stamp of approval. This is another reason why I must oppose this tyrannical law. In the last days, the Christian scriptures revel that a man we call the Anti-Christ will attempt to draw all power to himself through a one-world government. By controlling who can make a living and who can not will be a solid first step toward this goal. We must not allow our own state governments to take this control, so that no world organization will have anything to gain by taking control of our state governments.

This new Georgia license requires that all applicants have a college degree (or equivalent experience), which I am pleased to announce that I already have. But does a college degree guarantee to a customer that a business is able and willing to do a good job? No it does not! Many people trade life skills for college credits. Nor does it evaluate a skilled person's greed factor.

Any licensing process is going to require an exam. Before the state of Georgia will allow its citizens to practice a skill to earn money, citizens must first pass a test. But tests can and will be slanted toward any number of personal private causes. For starters, test takers will find it difficult to pass these tests unless they have been instructed by government approved education facilities. These educational facilities will require yet another fee. And of course, a fee is just another name for a tax.

Another requirement is that you confess to having paid all your state and federal income taxes. Some of my friends would be ineligible for a license because they are tax protestors. They like many have observed that our government is out of control with its spending as it attempts to gain control of every facet of our lives. They believe in, most of all, limited government. By withholding their withholding from government, they exercise their right as American citizens to protest their government in this non-violent manner. By removing also their means of making a living, they will be left with few options.

A person applying for a license must show that they have a "minimum net worth of $150,000.00" and "have a Line of Credit issued by a banking institution in a minimum amount of $50,000.00." Is this necessary if the "homes" being built are Monolithic's IO-20's valued at about $30,000? This is also very discriminatory favoring the rich over the entrepreneur.

A person applying for a license must also verify that he/she does not have a criminal background. Those of us who are aware of our surroundings are aware that the judicial system is corrupt beyond recognition, as Judge Edith Jones so succinctly stated several years ago. No longer is being a criminal an indication that you are in fact a person of poor character. In fact, more and more it will indicate just the opposite. As more and more corrupt laws like this licensing requirement are passed and administered by a corrupt judicial system, more and more Christians who are unwilling to 'sell their soul to gain the world' will find themselves on the "wrong side of the law." Remember that Christ Himself was hung in between two felons.

A perspective licensee is required to send in his completed application along with $200 in hopes that he will be permitted to continue his living. He has no way of knowing if that single DWI in his past will come back to haunt him until the license board comes back with their judgment. Nor will he have any way of knowing if the license board applies its criteria uniformly. Nor will he have any way of knowing if a larger well established competitor paid to have his DWI swept under the foundation.

Licensing Has Been Tried Before... And Failed!:

Florida has had licensing for years. Does licensing protect its citizens? Allow me to tell you a story that I heard several years back:

A young man from Georgia commuted to Florida to look for roofing work. He found a customer, an elderly lady who was desperate for someone to repair her roof. All the other roofers in the area were overwhelmed with the aftermath of a recent storm.

This elderly lady had just been ripped off by a man claiming to be a licensed roofer. This man asked for half the money as a down payment, then disappeared. All the licensing that Florida imposes on its citizens did not protect this elderly lady.

Fortunately, this elderly lady still had enough funds to pay this young roofer from Georgia, so this young man was contracted to repair this woman's roof. Ironically, he charged her less money than a local construction company would have charged. He completed the job as contracted, the woman was pleased with the work, and he was paid.

Several months later he receives a call from Florida's law enforcement agency and charged with the "crime" of performing construction without a license. He would do several years in prison for his "crime."

Did the Florida government protect this elderly lady? No! In fact this government bureaucracy only served to protect the local firms, ones who could afford their fees, from competition, allowing these firms to charge more for their services. The costs to incarcerate this young productive man was funded by the Florida taxpayers at large.

My situation provides even more challenges due to the uniqueness of my product. Do you think that any government bureaucracy agency is capable of determining whether or not I have the skills to build a dome? Bureaucrats have the reputation of being the slowest to adapt to change.

With the umbrella of government covering all aspects of American free enterprise, it is no wonder that we have but a mere visable trace of good old-fashioned American innovation! When this country was formed, it experienced success because it adapted Adam Smith's "invisible hand" philosophy and John Lock's free market principles. Today, American innovation is stifled by the long arm of government. If inventors and men of skill must jump through arbitrary hoops of laws just to apply their trade, then little energy remains for innovation. The men who will be the most successful in complying with the government's arbitrary rules and regulations will be men who are least likely to think outside the box.

Should I be arrested for being productive without a license, I know enough not to expect any Bar Association lawyer to argue my case, which is my case in point. Our government bureaucracy has established that only members in good standing with the Bar may practice law in the courtroom. Does anyone really expect a Bar Association member to argue my case in direct opposition to government policies and procedures? Does anyone expect a Bar Association member to do justice to a case that will undermine and upset the very organization that protects their right to practice law and make their living? This is my adage: "He who controls the paycheck, controls the person." When a government controls licensing, it controls a person's paycheck. Lawyers are slaves to their own system.

We need to also examine what our government has done to the medical industry since it has made "practicing medicine without a license" illegal. Here is another area where the government is responsible for denying consumers real choices for their health care all while driving up the costs. This limits the ability of our nation's poor to pay for health care making it a necessity that our government step in and provide a solution like Medicare. (Thus government again has created a problem that only it can solve.) Medicare will only pay for FDA approved drugs. This excludes many of the less expensive natural medications that are on the market today isolating these solutions to a few health food stores. Any health food store employee making claims that a certain non-FDA-approved product will cure a person's ailment faces the ominous charge of "practicing medicine without a license."

One day, given the ambiguity of this law, we may all fall victims to a felon charge. It is as if our own government is trying to pick us off one by one, rendering the most freedom minded among us as criminals first so as to ensure that the more informed are not respected for their educated positions. This will ensure that the less informed would never be educated.

Part of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the right to experiment with all possible life saving drugs, not just federally approved ones. This I can do... at my own expense. Insurance companies are not likely to pay for natural cures or any non-FDA approved drugs because they too are at the mercy of the federal government. I am forced to carry medical insurance because the system, my own government in collaboration with the medical industry, has driven costs out of range of most consumer citizens. In reality, the right to alternative medicine is all but denied.

I Base My Argument on the Precedent of Our American Forefathers:

William Penn is a man that I seek to model my life after. Here is one of his significant life's moments as captured by the Citizens Rule Book:

It would appear today that the only occupation that is not licensed by the government is that of clergy. But in reality, that occupation too is regulated. It is true that "Congress can make no law regarding the establishment of religion," so Congress came up with a work around. Congress created the IRS and the IRS (a non-federal agency) regulates the churches. It does so by granting the privilege of the 501(c)3 tax-exempt status. (Be aware that any privilege that can be granted can also be taken away.) As a court case long ago determined (though it has been overturned), the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Should a church lose its tax-exempt status, most Americans would wonder if it was a legitimate church or not. Many would avoid such a church and simply go elsewhere. No pastor wants to lose that tax-exempt status, so they will tow the line of the IRS and not speak out from the pulpit against the many evils with which this nation and its elected officials encumbers itself.

I base my argument on Supreme Court Decisions:

Our country was founded on liberty, the individual rights of the citizen. Today we are so far off course from these original principals. There can be no "pursuit of happiness" when citizens must ask "Mother, May I?" for every step that they take like a childish game.

It is only when someone else's rights are violated that our "rights" need to be curtailed. Until I commit a fraud, claiming to be something I am not or until I fail to deliver a product or service as promised, all of my business is between my customer and myself. The government has no business in my business. Until a crime has been committed, government is nothing more than a busybody sticking its nose where it does not belong.

This fundamental concept has been captured in full in the Supreme Court decision Hale v. Henkle (210 U.S. 43 at 74):

This fundamental concept is reiterated in the U.S. Supreme Court case Coppage V. State of Kansas (236 U.S. 1):

The rights of the individual citizen to life are again affirmed in Redfield v. Fisher (292 P. 813, at 819):

When the constant fear of the possibility that government will press criminal charges looms over you, then there is no liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness (property). When it has prevented you from contracting freely with your neighbor or fellow citizen, it has effectively taken away an essential right. When that right is the right to make a living, government has effectively taken away your right to life.

Our country was founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. When the government insists on constantly looking over your shoulder insisting on licensing before a contractor goes to work, the principle at work here is that you are guilty until proven innocent, that is, you will do poor quality work unless we prove you otherwise. This is contrary to common sense and contrary to our forefather's vision.

What? Not even licensed Medical Doctors!?:

Let's look at the natural consequences of doing away with ALL requirements for government licensing. (This is certainly not one of the 17 enumerated powers the federal government has been lawfully given, and it is doubtful that the states have these Constitutional rights either.) What will happen when surgeons are no longer required to be licensed? Do we want to go this far? I say yes!

There will be some, the more timid among us, who will not want to go this route. Like a child fearful of giving up their security blanket, many will want government to provide the security of knowing that the doctor who is about to cut you open is government approved. This is like a child who hides under the bed while the house is burning.

This fear is unfounded. Once government gets out of the unconstitutional role of issuing licenses, many others will step up to the plate. Every profession in seeking its own best interest will start to issue credentials. Establishments will rise up seeking to secure its reputation with the people, its potential customers. There will be Yale doctors and Harvard doctors. Which one has the better reputation will secure the most customers. In the age of information via Internet, these statistics can be made readily available. And there will not be a one size fits all solution here. Perhaps one institution will have the reputation of having a better success rate as measured in percentages of its customers, but the other will be renown for saving more lives as a percentage of the population because it employs newer and thereby riskier solutions. The most important issue here is that individuals will be free to choose what value is most important to them, and even be able to ignore all the statistics if they so choose.

If state governments wish to play a role in limiting quacks from taking advantage of citizen consumers in the various professions, I believe it can provide a valuable service... as long as it is done as a voluntary service. It can acknowledge whether or not a professional has obtained a level of education and/or proficiency and provide that information free of charge to its citizen consumers. As long as government continues to maintain a good reputation by limiting the quacks from its own ranks -- like officials who seek bribes -- no consumer citizen will not want to hire a professional without first consulting with its government's records. It is because government can not be trusted, that its current licenses are meaningless.

When licenses, or rather accreditations, are voluntary, there is no reason for a government official to accept a bribe, nor would there be any reason for anyone to bribe a government official. Government might once again become an agency of integrity and citizens can go back to focusing on making an honest living.

Thus, there is the end of the monopolistic practices of government and society as a whole will benefit. Should one licensing agency not issue a license due to prejudice, that agency will soon earn a sour reputation. More importantly, the professional denied a license would not be without remedy. That person can simply apply to another agency or school for permission/blessing to earn their living.

The most concrete role that government can play in preventing quacks is to hone societies use of language and labels. This will prevent fraud, which does result in an injured party, which is a legitimate function of government. A 'Doctor' may come to mean anyone who has completed 16 years of schooling from an accredited university. If a professional has less, then he/she is not a doctor. Perhaps the term 'medic' would better apply. If a customer is willing pay them for their services, then who is the government to stand in between a professional and his customer? This will reduce the chasm between the haves and the have-nots. Poorer people will always be able to afford health care, though it may not be the same health care as a well-paid politician would receive. Does this sound unjust? Well then, neither is it just for our current health care system that makes quality health care so prohibitively expensive.

The second most concrete role that government can play in preventing quacks is to prosecute them. When a fraud has been committed, there is an injured party. Consequently, government is free to meddle where there is an injured party. In fact, it has the obligation to.

Conclusion:

Most of us believe that America is the free-ist country in the world. We believe this because we have been told this from our earliest youth from our parents, from our government schools, from the major media, and from our politicians. Yet how many of us have lived in other countries long enough to know this for ourselves? Very few of us.

Our president over and over again stands on a platform looking down on the Islamic regimes declaring them to be fascists, which is justified. (Fascism is nothing more than rule of the corporations.) But doing so takes the focus off just how fascist our own nation has become. Why is the partial birth abortion industry still alive and well within America when the vast majority of Americans oppose such horrific procedures? The answer lies in the industries that influence American politics and politicians.

Our American forefathers created our government with the express purpose of protecting our right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In the name of protecting its citizen consumers, today's government is achieving just the opposite. When we depend on government for our right to make a living, we are not as free men. In fact, we are slaves and government is our master. This is epitome of hypocrisy because it our own government that outlawed/abolished slavery with the 13th amendment.

Licenses do not protect the consumer citizen. They protect the corporations who can afford to hurdle the high bar of startup costs, effectively keeping innovators and young companies out of the industry. This enables larger companies to charge more for their services.

Larger companies who are able to charge more are more able to pay off a government official to simply have an inspector 'go away.' Those who believe that licensing and inspections are there to protect the individual consumer citizen are living very innocent and sheltered lives.

Instead of offering licensing, our governments should be prosecuting those who engage in fraud, those who make promises to deliver a bill of goods but fail to do so. Instead, the real fraud is a government that masquerades as an organization devoted to protecting the consumer but in actuality is interested in just the opposite!

Today, American government and policy is being determined by a few special interest organizations which include the Bar, the National Education Association, the American Medical Associations, Planned Parenthood, and various environmental groups. Each of these associations have their own underlying agendas. They influence our government according to their own interests through the many backroom deals that the average citizen consumer knows nothing about. If allowed, corporations will always seek to advance its own agendas rather than the individual citizen. And it has the money to do it.

American society will not continue for long when it provides money to those unwilling or unable to work while at the same time punishing those who are willing to do work that provides quality goods and services. No nation, community, or society can expect to last when it punishes its most productive citizens.

The time is rapidly approaching when we must make a crucial decision: do we serve God or do we serve government? We must ask ourselves where our highest allegiances lie; a man can not serve two masters. As for me, I must follow the dictates of my conscience and serve the God of the Christian scriptures, just as Peter and Paul did long ago (Acts 5). The licensing of my livelihood is in direct violation of my rights, which include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These violations inevitably spill over into my right and ability to worship and serve my God in direct violation of the first Amendment!

Appendix A
The Need for Probable Cause

There is another question to be resolved concerning the issue of law in building and building inspectors. For now, I toss it out like a monkey wrench to jam our political machinery: Does an inspector have the authority of the state? This is a very serious question. Another way of phrasing this question is this: "Is the inspector acting under the color of law?" At a minimum, the answer will determine if an injured party has the right to sue the state as well as the individual responsible for the injury!

If an inspector does not have the authority of the state, then he has no right to come onto your property unless you invite/allow him on. (More on this later.) If he does have the authority of the state, then he must at least abide by the same laws that every other officer of the state must abide by. This includes having a search warrant, which, in turn, requires probable cause that you are involved in some sort of criminal activity, or at the very least, violating a statute of the state. To suppose that the laws of the land which include Constitutional law and Supreme Court case law do not apply to county inspectors is absolutely ludicrous. To suggest that county inspectors have more power than police officers is absolutely ridiculous.

This country was founded on the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. The county inspector works on a very different principle: guilty until proven innocent. The very idea that an inspector has the authority to shut a building project down before it is even begun is absolutely contrary to the laws of this land.

In an ideal world, the county inspector is there to help you abide by all the laws of the land, even if half of them have been created by the environmental wackos. From the time of creation, mankind has been given the task of being the caretaker over both birds of the air and the beasts of the field. If a law has been created to protect the owner or the environment, I am all for it. But if not, then I am all against it. All too often lawmakers pass laws on issues which they know nothing about just to appease the masses or on the recommendation of the "experts." Often in the real world the masses AND the "experts" are bought by those with an invested interest.

Concerning environment, horror stories abound of an unsuspecting buyer purchasing a property only to have an environmental agency "discover" some form of protected wildlife or protozoa. The unsuspecting buyer finds himself holding a title worth a tenth of what he paid for it. This is fraud to say the least. A better term would be Legalized Plunder.

Government agencies that exercise this back door eminent domain do so at someone's bidding. This is a serious offense since most of these agencies are unelected bodies.

Concerning the owner, in an ideal world the county inspector will be there to ensure that building codes are followed. It would not be desirable to build an entire house to discover that the foundation was not laid properly. But this is once again an ideal world. In reality, building inspectors are there to advance their own careers, not to assist the homeowner. I have seen it too many times.

The Dome Home is a case in point. Would a building inspector know if a dome home were not being built properly? Would they or could they dig up some rule or regulation that does not apply in this situation just to harass the builder? Their favorite attack on a novel design is to accuse the architect of being a fly-by-nighter and then asking him to prove his design at each stage. This adds considerable cost to the construction making unique homes unattainable to the average person.

Do you know that all homes bought and sold require a termite inspection? Even homes made entirely of concrete! Someone in government decided on your behalf that supporting your local termite inspector is a worthy cause.

Now if it were a commercial building, this would be a different creature in entirety. You see, an individual has the RIGHT to exist. For a corporation, it is a privilege granted by the government. Extending that same principle, an individual has the RIGHT to his own dwelling, a dwelling being an extension of his right and ability to live. A corporation, however, should meet all the laws required by the government that granted its right to exist. This makes perfect sense because corporation buildings typically house many individuals and a building that is not up to code may threaten the RIGHT and ability of many individuals to live, even those who are not a part of the corporation (e.g. customers.)

It will be in the best interest of a homeowner to build his house to code because one day he/she will wish to sell his home. Certainly, if the building is not up to code, that will need to be revealed to the buyer. Anything less would be fraud! A perspective buyer may decide that the reason it failed (e.g. a termite inspection) is not relevant. Ultimately, it needs to be the buyer's decision, not some government agent!

(I remind you that government takes nearly half our earnings away in taxes. But even with the little you are left with, they still tell you how you can spend it.)

The ability of a government agency to condemn a property is a kind of a back door eminent domain too. Once again, at a very minimum, this power should only be granted to elected officials.

Now let us return to the relevance of having the authority of the state. Police officers have laws that they must abide by. These are principles rooted in Constitutional law, statute law, and common law. It is the Supreme Court in the United States that considers all of the above and issues a ruling on how these laws are to be applied. On the issues of probable cause, there are the Supreme Court cases of Muncy v. Arizona and Brown v. Texas. For the purposes of this essay, I wish to draw from a Georgia Appeals case (State v. Dukes, 2006) that captures and explains the essence of these Supreme Court cases.

The U. S. Supreme Court has sculpted out three tiers of encounters between the police and citizens: (1) communication between police and citizens involving no coercion or detention, (2) brief seizures that must be supported by reasonable suspicion, and (3) full-scale arrests that must be supported by probable cause.(fn3)

In the first tier, police officers may approach citizens, ask for identification, and freely question the citizen without any basis or belief that the citizen is involved in criminal activity, as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave. The second tier occurs when the officer actually conducts a brief investigative Terry stop of the citizen. In this level, a police officer, even in the absence of probable cause, may stop persons and detain them briefly, when the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the persons are involved in criminal activity.(fn4)

Our Constitution and our laws require that our law enforcement have probable cause before they may arrest a person (this also applies to searching a person's property) and they must have a watered down probable cause before they may detain a person. But this does not prevent an officer from interacting with a person on a citizen-to-citizen basis. Not every question that an officer asks is necessarily an interrogation. It may simply be a casual conversation. The difference is that the latter is voluntary.

So when an inspector feels free to investigate your property, does he do so with the authority of the state? Not necessarily. If an officer asks you if he can search your vehicle, and you say, "Sure, go ahead," the officer does not need authority from the state. You have just waived your right to privacy. In the same way, if an inspector comes on your property and you don't ask that inspector to leave, you have just waived your right not to be searched. Anything that the inspector finds that violates law can now be used against you in the court of law.

In summary, by inviting or allowing an inspector to come on your property is only inviting the inspector to find something wrong. To do so without your permission requires probable cause. In this country, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Of course, I don't know of any case where this argument has been used in the court of law, though I would be anxious to be the first. But before I do, I would need to do a lot more research before I could approach the bench with confidence.

Responses

Created & Posted: September 2006
Modified: March 2007