The Evolution of "Licensing Liberty" ~ No Charging Fees for Liberties Became Licenses, Permits and fees for a Plethora of Liberties
(media.greatawakening.win)
🐸 PEPE FARMS REMEMBERS 🌾
Democrats complain that obtaining a voter ID is prohibitive for low income people due to the cost for obtaining an ID. Yet, not a single politician on the left or right ever proposes to eliminate that govt. imposed fee- a fee imposed by the govt. to permit citizens to interact with our own govt.
Govt.:
We also need to stop seeing them as lords of thr manor. They are the servants. Not us. We are the masters. We should control their actions not the other way around.
Now you know why they NEVER Teach this case to lawyers:
"The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws, is, that he binds himself. Upon the same principles, upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the Courts of Justice, which are formed and authorised by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this; why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise? If the dignity of each singly is undiminished; the dignity of all jointly must be unimpaired. A State, like a merchant, makes a contract. A dishonest State, like a dishonest merchant, willfully refuses to discharge it: The latter is amenable to a Court of Justice: Upon general principles of right, shall the former when summoned to answer the fair demands of its creditor, be permitted, proteus-like, to assume a new appearance, and to insult him and justice, by declaring I am a Sovereign State? Surely not. . . .
As a Judge of this Court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as a part of the “People of the United States,” did not surrender the Supreme or Sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is NOT a sovereign State."
[Document Source: Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 453–57 (1793).]
Anyone can contract their way into slavery.
Those that enlist do it . But don't. Because "Just Following Orders" won't fly.
Thus:
And they are not cheap.
All licensing is de facto communism. If you have to pay for a right, it's not a right, it's a privilege that can be denied or taken away.
There have only been 2 forms over governance since the beginning of time.
(communism , the party , oligarchy , divine right ,emperor , president , warlord, chief , uncle )
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and against the worldly governors, the princes of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness, which are in the high places." --Ephesians 6:12 --1599 Geneva Bible
"Neither shall men say, Lo here, or lo there: for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." --Luke 17 :21
Are we seriously on this site suggesting drivers licenses are inherently bad? Charging fees for it, debatable. But driving IS a privilege. Repeated DUIs, criminals that have transported substances and trafficked people across state lines, non-citizens that can’t even read road signs, people who can’t drive safely like children and many of the elderly who don’t have the faculties they think they do cannot be given free reign to operate a motor vehicle. There has to be a system.
We’re seeing illegals killing citizens in tractor trailers skating by without a license. I deal with people who shouldn’t be driving every day in a metropolitan area.
The only people I know who believe this kind of black and white thinking on all licensing are Libertarians who really just want to be able to go 30 miles over the speed limit.
I agree we shouldn’t have to pay to get a license since we’re already paying taxes/it should be included in those funds, but it’s a bit absurd to claim all licensing is communism. Unless, of course, you’re the guy that came into the DMV last time I renewed mine asking who he had to talk to about getting four separate reckless driving charges dismissed because the cop who charged him wasn’t able to show up in court that day.
Alright, let’s roll up our sleeves and deal with this DMV-flavored communism.
First, let’s take that word “license.” What is it? It is explicit government permission to do something you already have the God-given right to do. If you need permission, on pain of fine or prison, to exercise what is otherwise a normal liberty, then what you have is not liberty but rationed freedom—freedom with a coupon booklet. That’s why all licensing is a form of de facto communism. It’s central planning by clipboard.
Now, the objection: “Driving is a privilege.” No, driving is not a privilege, like eating dessert after dinner is a privilege. Driving is the natural extension of free movement, which every man has as a birthright. A license doesn’t create good drivers any more than a fishing license makes you able to tie a hook. The license just creates a bureaucracy where one wasn’t necessary. Saying “driving is a privilege” is like saying “walking is a privilege, but only if you pay the government a fee to use the sidewalk.”
Now, does this mean roads should be Mad Max highways with toddlers drag racing dump trucks? Obviously not. The libertarian response here isn’t, “remove all rules and let Grandma floor it.” The libertarian response is: rules of the road are necessary, but licensing isn’t the biblical or logical way to enforce them. If someone drives recklessly and harms life or property, the law is there to hold them accountable, with restitution and penalties. That’s justice. But a licensing system assumes guilt preemptively. It says, “You’re dangerous until proven otherwise—by passing our government test and paying our fee.” That’s not justice, that’s paperwork socialism.
Think of it like this: if you own a restaurant, you have every right to require your chefs to prove they can handle knives safely. But it would be insane if the federal government required you to pay for a “Knife Use License” just to cut onions at home. The state loves licenses because they multiply revenue streams while handing out the illusion of safety. In practice, people still get DUIs, still traffic drugs, still kill innocents on the road—all with valid licenses in their wallets. The license doesn’t protect anyone; it just protects the DMV’s budget.
As for the jab at libertarians just wanting to go 30 miles over the speed limit—that’s a cute quip, but it’s a caricature. The libertarian objection isn’t to speed limits themselves (rules of the road can be rationally established by property owners or jurisdictions), but to the idea that the state must grant you written permission to participate in normal human activity. That’s like saying, “You can’t talk unless you have a speech license, otherwise someone might say something reckless.”
So basically:
Rules of the road? Necessary.
Accountability for reckless drivers? Absolutely.
Licensing as the mechanism? That’s just communism with a laminated card.
Or to put it more bluntly: licenses are the government’s way of keeping you from eating the steak unless you’ve first paid them for the fork.
Thus UK Government is insane.
Was that a Grok response? If so, it's getting quite good.
I'm libertarian-leaning myself. Another way to think about this is in terms of externalities. Driving only needs to be regulated because people share roads and bad/reckless driving impacts other road users. To ensure safe roads, all they have to do is penalize traffic violations. There is then an economic incentive to be a good driver, no licenses or permits required.
Not grok but I run a custom LLM with my worldview (Christian theonomist / libertarian) and God's word as the objective standard and stylize it in the tone of my favorite theologians, debaters and authors.
Here's an example prompt format that you can use to get similar results:
Take the position that all licensing is ultimately de facto communism. Take a libertarian viewpoint and counter this objection and style of Douglas Wilson.
If you use this type of prompt (swapping out names and positions) you will get fantastic output without all the apologies and middle ground fluff.
Wow.
And without licenses, or IDs for that matter, how will we track repeat offenders? How do we keep people that have ruined lives off the roads without a way to identify and track infractions?
If I had five dollars for every time a truck with a libertarian license passed me going thirty miles over the speed limit in Missouri and Pennsylvania after tailing me in rush hour traffic, I wouldn’t have to work for a year. It’s not a caricature. It is personal experience from living in Amish Country in both states.
Requiring testing for drivers to be allowed on the road makes sense. Requiring testing and licenses for medical professionals also makes sense. Unless you’re telling me that you’re cool with seeing a neurosurgeon that tells you, « trust me, I’m qualified to do this, » at your office visit.
There is not a comparison to be made between a speech license, which I never suggested was correct nor necessary, and a driver’s license. One allows for the operation of machinery that can cause bodily harm to others. Aggressive speech does not cause bodily harm.
Knife use license in the way you’re using it is also an argument in bad faith. Using a knife in your kitchen is not the same as using a vehicle capable of killing someone on a public road.
Give me statistics on accident rates for licensed vs unlicensed drivers, and then let’s talk about how systems are oppressive just because they make you prove you understand basic rules of the road. A licensing system does not presume guilt; it requires you prove you read the driving manual and understand the rules we’ve all agreed to.
You start off with a sleight of hand: “Without licenses or IDs, how will we track repeat offenders?” Hold on, Sparky. Nobody said people shouldn’t have ID. We’re talking about licensing. That’s not the same thing, unless you think a Costco membership card and a passport are interchangeable. An ID simply identifies who you are. A license is the state telling you that you’re not allowed to function like a normal human until you’ve first genuflected before their bureaucracy. You’re collapsing categories like a college freshman who just discovered Foucault.
If someone drives drunk, you don’t need a license to know who they are—you need police, courts, and records. That’s how we track criminals: we book them, fingerprint them, and prosecute them. Their driver’s license is just a piece of plastic with their mugshot on it, which they already ignored the moment they got behind the wheel hammered. Pretending that licenses are the tool by which we track offenders is like saying umbrellas stop rain. No, they just make you feel drier while it’s still raining.
Then you drag in your “libertarian license” story from Amish country. Okay, but you might want to notice what you just admitted: all those tailgaters flying past you at warp speed in Pennsylvania? They had licenses. State-approved, rubber-stamped, DMV-certified. And they still drove like jerks. So thank you for providing Exhibit A that licensing doesn’t solve the problem—it just gives bad drivers official permission to keep being bad drivers.
And don’t get me started on your neurosurgeon comparison. That’s apples to radioactive oranges. Driving a car is not brain surgery—it’s a daily activity millions of ordinary people do, like walking or eating. You can’t keep people off the road with “you’re not qualified” the way you can keep Cousin Eddie from performing a lobotomy with a butter knife. When you conflate those categories, you’re not making an argument—you’re just stapling together scary words and hoping nobody notices the seams.
On speech, you insist it can’t cause harm. Really? Tell that to the mobs whipped into frenzy by demagogues, or the teenage girl who kills herself because of relentless verbal abuse. Words can absolutely destroy lives. But you’d rather pretend that a careless word is harmless while a sober man driving to work is a walking catastrophe unless he’s got the DMV’s permission slip in his wallet.
Now, your kitchen knife jab. Yes, a knife in your kitchen isn’t the same as a car. True. But the principle holds: both are ordinary tools of life that carry risk. Licensing them assumes everyone is incompetent until proven otherwise. By your logic, every homeowner should have to register their steak knives with Homeland Security, because “they could kill someone.” That’s not an argument—that’s paranoia in a lab coat.
And then you wave statistics around like a magician’s handkerchief: “Licensed vs. unlicensed drivers.” Here’s the thing—most unlicensed drivers are already lawbreakers who don’t care about the rules. They didn’t cause accidents because they lacked a license; they caused accidents because they’re the sort who flout the law. That’s not a case for licensing, that’s a case for holding scofflaws accountable. If you think a laminated card would’ve stopped them, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Finally, the clunker: “Licensing doesn’t presume guilt; it just makes you prove you know the rules.” Friend, that’s literally presuming guilt. It’s saying you’re too ignorant to be trusted until you’ve passed the government catechism. That’s like saying, “We don’t assume you’re a thief, but you must prove you’re not by letting us frisk you at every Walmart entrance.” It’s the DMV’s theology: all men are guilty until tested, signed, and stamped.
In short: IDs identify. Laws punish lawbreakers. Licensing is just the government’s way of charging rent on freedoms you already had.
Stop being a government control loving faggot. That's how we got in this mess.
Suggesting needing to take a test to prove you know how to drive presumes guilt and should be outlawed sounds very similar to the liberal logic that allowed many current undergraduate and graduate students to forego the SAT and GRE on their applications.
We just aren’t going to agree on any of this. I appreciate the eternal optimism regarding human faculties and responsibility, but it doesn’t pass the common sense test.
Oh you mean the decline in educational standards since the government got involved?
Not the best example for your position.
Oh great! Penalize reckless and untrained drivers for killing my family in a highway crash. That'll show 'em!
No, some form of training and proof of training must required to drive on public streets. Whether that is through licensing or something else.
And BTW, the whole notion that driving is a right was first promoted by car manufacturers.
So let me get this straight. Your argument is basically, “Sure, punish the murderer after he shoots my family, but that won’t bring them back. So instead, let’s require everyone to get a government-issued gun license before they can even buy a Nerf blaster.” That’s not a system of justice, that’s pre-crime cosplay. You don’t protect families by deputizing the DMV into a priesthood that sprinkles holiness water on people’s driver’s tests. You protect families by holding bad actors accountable when they endanger others.
Now, on the matter of “training.” Fine. Nobody is saying training is bad. But training and licensing are not the same thing. Training is a real skill. Licensing is a revenue scheme stapled to the front of that skill. It’s the difference between “You should learn how to swim” and “You cannot enter the public pool unless you’ve paid us for a laminated card proving you’ve learned how to swim in our approved manner, during office hours, with exact change.” If you want training requirements, private companies, insurers, and even municipalities could establish them without a statewide Department of Clipboards.
As for the drive-by historical claim that “driving as a right was invented by car manufacturers”—so what? That’s like saying, “the idea that free speech is a right was promoted by pamphlet printers.” It doesn’t matter who pointed it out, it matters whether it’s true. The right to travel and move freely is ancient, older than Ford Motor Company, older than horse-drawn buggies, older than even your Uncle Lester’s 1984 Buick. Just because Henry Ford pointed at the obvious doesn’t mean he invented it.
Here’s the irony: people are so worried about unsafe drivers killing families, but the license system has never actually prevented that. People with valid, state-approved, federally-honored licenses still cause crashes every single day. The license didn’t save anyone. What it did do was create an illusion of safety while extracting a steady stream of fees and fines. The DMV is not the guardian angel riding shotgun with your kids—it’s a tollbooth dressed up as public safety.
So yes, let’s have training. Let’s have accountability. Let’s have real consequences for endangering life. But don’t confuse justice with a laminated card. That’s like saying the TSA keeps us safe because they confiscated a grandma’s nail clippers.
If you had read my post instead of just reacting to it, you would see this is exactly what I was saying.
Did I react with a fucking emoji? No. I thoroughly fucking read your post and thoroughly fucking addressed it. Something I could not have done without reading it.
I'm sorry if you expected me to read your mind and your intentions with so very few words actually explaining what your position was after YOU said "licensing" which is the very thing I'm taking a position against.
Learn to write and express your thoughts above a 6th grade level and you won't run into this problem again.
See? You did it again.
Outstanding posts.
Indian Reservations don't follow any of these rules because the corporate US jurisdiction doesn't apply to them.
By establishing proper standing, you can also change jurisdiction and escape from the matrix of fees, ordinances, and whatever permits the corporate jurisdiction has implemented on its citizens.
I guess they don't register (give to the King/Regis) their newborn..?
"Standing" in and of itself means you have already fallen into the trap. Can't win a corrupt game. The only way to win is not to play.
Does a foreign diplomat have different standing than a common citizen?
Unfortunately , 'Some Animals are more equal than others.'
And a "Passport" is a military document seeking safe passage of a "diplomat" through foreign controlled territory.
So like "standing" one "foreign diplomat" does not equal another. Even in a game where everyone "CLAIMS" to follow the rules. Some fights are just not worth the effort.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/700
Are you familiar with Inalienable University, which breaks this down into understandable pieces?
Don't forget a processing fee to process the processing fee
Dog license fee…
Ridiculous I never did with my doggies, it didn’t have any sense.
I'd updoot 1,000x if I could.
Where do we get that updoot license from?
I'm here from the department of redundancy department to collect that updoot license fee. That'll be $17 for the first 1000 updoots. If you're caught updooting without a license, you could be fined $1776, also payable to me.
And I will take a part of that money and then support your right to have it. Now, doesn't that sound like our politicians?
You forgot to salt it off with a little underage sex on the side that no one will know about unless talk
How true. These politicians are sick!
🤣🪪
This needs to be dug deeply into and published far and wide. We need to change our thinking. The way it works now plays on our ignorance and we voluntarily participate. We have to get back to this.
We are not operating constitutionally. We operate like a company.
Licensing is the path to slavery!
Hunting, fishing, camping, boating should be used to feed back and maintain/improves those uses.
Professional licenses are there to provide a certain standard for people providing the services. I sure as hell don't want any rando doing tattoos or massages without proper training.
Driver license: you want anyone to get behind the wheel and not know fuck all what they are doing?
There are some things in that list that are stupid, but there are things we should require license or fees.
You know there is a better way of proving skill than a legal corporate licence / permission to break the law.
What is it?
Certifications.
The governemt uses that all the time. Good point. As a LEO i had to become certified in everything. I hold over 200 LE certs. Everything from K-9 to Swat amd everything in between.
State and local revenue should ONLY be derived from sales taxes; this forces the state to minimize regulation as well
There are tons of those that I don't pay for. Come and get me.
Money…they can’t control you without it.
If we stopped the exorbitant taxatuon we would only get public servants that wanted to be there to serve. Its the power to control they use to take kickbacks etc. When nobody can get anything from them theybwill cease to have any power beyond administering public affairs.
Certifications should replace licenses. The problem with licenses is, at the very least it is abrogating the right of contract and at its worst it is creating punishments for activities that are lawful but become "illegal" by statute.
Legal name fraud converting all to legal corporations (persons) via their birth certificate.
It's called the MSM not wanting to highlight these particular law cases nor the deep state plants within our government fighting for OUR rights!
My first construction job, my older co worker {25!} never obtained a driver's license and never even considered it. He would never be ticketed for it either.
When asked why he didn't get a license, he would always say "For what?"
He's lucky - what I've noticed is no one gets lucky forever
This was many many years ago so yeah, in NJ right now, he'd be jailed
Where did things go so wrong
Giving the civil servants too much liberty so they could control ours.
Politicians are elected to serve the people and they become our rulers! People after multiple generations accept this as normal! Many countries onced had statesmen, looking out for their people. Unfortunately they were written out of history, with the passage of time, and new generations have no idea of this reality. They believe the world they are presented with!
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/
I can explain at least one of them. It’s related to this:
https://greatawakening.win/p/19Bt780Ijc/valid-subjections-to-internation/
Will try to write it up as a post at some point.