Right to Work vs. Licensure
Posted: Sat May 07, 2016 8:28 am
I found an article I want to share, but it needs a little preface. I'm not feeling overly ambitious for research right now, so my preface lacks a little precision. Please forgive my laziness, and look to the point I'm putting across:
One of government's favorite protection racket schemes is embodied in the Occupational Code (OC). To the best of my knowledge, every State has an OC, although it varies from State to State as to which occupations are regulated. The excuse used for the OC is always "safety", or "the public good", but as everyone knows who has ever had to deal with the agencies which administer this code, the only protections it offers are to special interests and bureaucrats.
Here is a partial list of occupations regulated, for example, by the State of Alaska:
The OC requires people who want to work these jobs to first obtain a license from the State's own regulating agency. If a man works in a regulated industry without first obtaining a license, the State appears to claim the right to fine him, imprison him, and/or regulate him anyway.
Such a stance on the part of government clearly stands in direct opposition to every man's right to work and, by extension, feed himself and his family. If a man cannot support himself and his family; cannot feed himself and his children, because he is not allowed to work, clearly the State prefers that such people starve. If this same principle is applied to society as a whole, then it is not an exaggeration to say that OCs contemplate genocide.
But wait... I said "appears to claim", didn't I? Yes. When it comes to matters of genocide, legislators usually leave themselves an out. An example with which I'm personally familiar is the Real Estate license. Years ago, I researched the Michigan statutes (I just tried a search online and couldn't find what I was looking for, but readers are welcome to post any research you find).
Person Required.
I wanted to know who was required to have a Real Estate license in Michigan. To paraphrase what I found:
Anyway, the crux of my point is this: The OC has a Definitions section. Any words which are defined in that section, take on the meaning as defined, NOT the meaning of common usage. When I read through the definitions, again to paraphrase, here is what I found:
The bottom line here is that I learned the State cannot require me to have a license to sell real estate. At least, that's my opinion. It also seems to be the State's opinion, since they gave up after a year of trying to get me to obtain a license. It was also my dad's opinion. Dad once had a closed-door offer from Michigan's then attorney general, who offered to give Dad a real estate broker's license on the spot-- no fee, no test, nothing but Dad's signature, if Dad would accept the license. Why? Because without the license, the State couldn't regulate him.
There is one rub though: Let's say you agree to sell someone else's property for them, for a fee (commission). You perform by obtaining a buyer and closing the sale as agreed, but the seller refuses to pay your commission. So you take the seller to court. The first thing the judge will ask you is, "Do you have a real estate license?" When you answer, "No," the judge will dismiss the case. In other words, the courts will not enforce your contracts if you don't have a license.
Still, if you are clever, there are ways around this. And for certain professions, such as the one described in the following article, workers might not care so much about the enforcement of contracts. If you style someone's hair and they don't pay you, then simply never style their hair again. No huge loss, right?
One of government's favorite protection racket schemes is embodied in the Occupational Code (OC). To the best of my knowledge, every State has an OC, although it varies from State to State as to which occupations are regulated. The excuse used for the OC is always "safety", or "the public good", but as everyone knows who has ever had to deal with the agencies which administer this code, the only protections it offers are to special interests and bureaucrats.
Here is a partial list of occupations regulated, for example, by the State of Alaska:
- Accountants
- Acupuncture
- Attorneys
- Audiologists and Speech Pathologists
- Barbers
- Barbers and Hairdressers
- Basic Sciences
- Construction Contractors and Home Inspectors
- Chiropractors
- Collection Agencies
- Private Professional Conservators and Guardians
- Cosmetologists and Hairdressers
- Licensed Professional Counselors
- Dental Hygienists
- Dentistry
- Dietitians and Nutritionists
- Electrical and Mechanical Administrators
- Morticians
- Embalmers
- Naturopaths
- Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors
- Explosives Handlers
- Big Game Guides and Related Occupations
- Hearing Aid Dealers
- Hotels and Boardinghouses
- Junk Dealers and Junk Yards
- Marine Pilots
- Marital and Family Therapy
- Medicine
- Direct-Entry Midwives
- Motor Vehicle Dealers and Buyers' Agents
- Mobile Home Dealers
- Nursing
- Nursing Home Administrators
- Dispensing Opticians
- Optometrists
- Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers
- Pharmacists and Pharmacies
- Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists
- Psychologists and Psychological Associates
- Real Estate Appraisers
- Real Estate Brokers and Other Licensees
- Concert Promoters
- Social Workers
- Veterinarians
- Board of Welding Examiners
The OC requires people who want to work these jobs to first obtain a license from the State's own regulating agency. If a man works in a regulated industry without first obtaining a license, the State appears to claim the right to fine him, imprison him, and/or regulate him anyway.
Such a stance on the part of government clearly stands in direct opposition to every man's right to work and, by extension, feed himself and his family. If a man cannot support himself and his family; cannot feed himself and his children, because he is not allowed to work, clearly the State prefers that such people starve. If this same principle is applied to society as a whole, then it is not an exaggeration to say that OCs contemplate genocide.
But wait... I said "appears to claim", didn't I? Yes. When it comes to matters of genocide, legislators usually leave themselves an out. An example with which I'm personally familiar is the Real Estate license. Years ago, I researched the Michigan statutes (I just tried a search online and couldn't find what I was looking for, but readers are welcome to post any research you find).
Person Required.
I wanted to know who was required to have a Real Estate license in Michigan. To paraphrase what I found:
Okay, let me please emphasise, this is paraphrased. I can't remember the percentage listed, or the maximum number of sales per year, but this was the gist of it. If anyone wants to post an actual quote, please go for it.Person Required. Any person within this State, who derives more than 40% of his annual income from the sale of real estate, or who sells more than four properties in a given year, is required to obtain a license under this section.
Anyway, the crux of my point is this: The OC has a Definitions section. Any words which are defined in that section, take on the meaning as defined, NOT the meaning of common usage. When I read through the definitions, again to paraphrase, here is what I found:
Do you see the circular logic here? You are a person required to obtain a license if you sell real estate above a certain quota, but only if you are already licensed.Person. Any natural or artificial being who is licensed under this Section.
The bottom line here is that I learned the State cannot require me to have a license to sell real estate. At least, that's my opinion. It also seems to be the State's opinion, since they gave up after a year of trying to get me to obtain a license. It was also my dad's opinion. Dad once had a closed-door offer from Michigan's then attorney general, who offered to give Dad a real estate broker's license on the spot-- no fee, no test, nothing but Dad's signature, if Dad would accept the license. Why? Because without the license, the State couldn't regulate him.
There is one rub though: Let's say you agree to sell someone else's property for them, for a fee (commission). You perform by obtaining a buyer and closing the sale as agreed, but the seller refuses to pay your commission. So you take the seller to court. The first thing the judge will ask you is, "Do you have a real estate license?" When you answer, "No," the judge will dismiss the case. In other words, the courts will not enforce your contracts if you don't have a license.
Still, if you are clever, there are ways around this. And for certain professions, such as the one described in the following article, workers might not care so much about the enforcement of contracts. If you style someone's hair and they don't pay you, then simply never style their hair again. No huge loss, right?