Licences: Their Purpose, Implications, and the Freeman Perspective
The concept of a licence is deeply entrenched in modern societies governed by statutory law. While the idea of needing permission to perform certain activities might appear reasonable on the surface, from a Freeman on the Land perspective, licences often raise questions about individual sovereignty, natural rights, and the boundaries of lawful governance.
This article delves into the nature of licences, their implications, and their legal and philosophical underpinnings, with a particular focus on the UK, the Commonwealth, and, where relevant, the United States.
What is a Licence?
The definition of a licence is typically a formal or legal permission to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. This definition suggests that without such permission, the act in question—whether driving a car, operating a business, or even fishing—could lead to penalties or sanctions. Therefore, the notion of a licence implies a relationship between the individual and the state, where the latter has the authority to regulate certain actions.
From a legal perspective, a licence grants conditional rights. However, from a Freeman on the Land viewpoint, this concept is contentious. If we, as sovereign beings, are born with inherent rights (our natural rights) then why should we require permission from the state to exercise them? This question strikes at the core of the tension between statutory systems and the freeman philosophy.
Types of Licences
There are myriad licences that statutory systems think we should have, particularly in the UK and Commonwealth countries. Below are some common examples:
- Driving Licence
Issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in the UK, this allows individuals to operate motor vehicles on public roads. Without one, it is illegal to drive. - Marriage Licence
A formal document issued by the state or religious authorities to authorize a marriage. - Business Licence
Permits individuals or companies to operate a business legally, often subject to regulatory compliance. - Fishing/Hunting Licence
Grants permission to engage in these activities, often with stipulations about seasons, quotas, and methods. - Liquor Licence
Regulates the sale and distribution of alcohol. - Broadcasting or Media Licence
Governs the use of public broadcasting frequencies or content distribution.
The Legal Implications of Licences
By obtaining a licence, the applicant enters into an agreement with the state. We often consider this agreement as a form of contract, whereby the individual agrees to abide by the terms and conditions set by the issuing authority. However, several key implications arise:
- Consent to Regulation
A licence can imply that the individual accepts the state’s authority to regulate the licensed activity. This acceptance may come at the cost of relinquishing certain freedoms. - Criminalization of Unlicensed Activity
Without a licence, activities deemed otherwise lawful (such as driving or fishing) become criminal offences. This creates a paradox: how can an inherently lawful act become unlawful merely because permission has not been obtained? - Revenue Generation
Licences often have fees attached, suggesting that they are, in part, a mechanism for revenue generation rather than purely for public safety or order. - Conditioned Rights
Rather than recognizing natural rights, licences impose conditions on what many would argue are inherent freedoms. For instance, the right to travel freely might be seen as being constrained by the requirement to hold a driving licence.
A Freeman on the Land Perspective
The Freeman on the Land philosophy contends that statutory law functions primarily through consent. In this view, requiring a licence to engage in basic human activities represents an overreach of state power. Key arguments include:
- Natural Rights vs. Granted Rights
Sovereign beings are thought to possess natural rights simply by virtue of their existence. These rights include the freedom to move, trade, marry, and engage in lawful enterprise. Licences, however, imply that such rights are privileges granted by the state. - The Concept of Consent
The freeman perspective often asserts that by applying for a licence, individuals tacitly consent to the state’s jurisdiction and its terms. This raises the question: Is the state’s authority over such activities valid without the individual’s explicit consent? - Unlawful Without Permission?
The notion that an act is unlawful without a licence is seen as a contradiction. If an act is inherently lawful—such as travelling on public roads—then no permission should be necessary to perform it. Conversely, if an act is harmful or violates others’ rights, no licence should make it lawful.
Differences in America
In the United States, the principles are largely similar, though the federal system creates additional complexities. Many freemen in the U.S. invoke constitutional arguments, claiming that licences infringe on rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to travel (under the “privileges and immunities” clause) or the right to bear arms.
The argument often hinges on the distinction between rights and privileges, with freemen contending that rights cannot be licensed without undermining their fundamental nature.
Why Do We Need Licences?
Proponents of licensing argue that it ensures safety, fairness, and public order. For instance, a driving licence demonstrates competence, and a business licence ensures compliance with health and safety standards. However, from a Freeman on the Land perspective, these justifications are often seen as veils for state control and revenue generation.
The underlying issue is the presumption that individuals are incapable of regulating themselves or resolving disputes without the state’s oversight. This paternalistic view clashes with the freeman ethos, which emphasizes personal responsibility and the ability to govern oneself according to common law principles.
Challenging Licences: Lawful Rebellion
The Freeman on the Land movement promotes lawful rebellion as a means to challenge the legitimacy of licences and the system that enforces them. Your right to rebel remains intact, so strategies could include:
- Withdrawing Consent
Declaring oneself as not subject to statutory laws unless there is a valid contract or explicit consent. - Common Law Jurisdiction
Operating under common law principles rather than statutory regulations. This involves asserting that no harm, loss, or fraud has occurred, and thus no crime exists. - Demanding Proof of Authority
Questioning the authority of the state to require licences and asking for evidence that such authority is lawful under common law.
In Conclusion
Licences represent a battleground between state authority and individual sovereignty. While they are often justified as mechanisms for order and safety, their broader implications—particularly when viewed through the Freeman on the Land lens—suggest a system that prioritizes control and revenue over natural rights and freedoms.
By questioning the need for licences and asserting sovereignty, freemen challenge the very foundations of statutory law. However, such challenges require a deep understanding of law, careful navigation of legal processes, and a commitment to peaceful and lawful dissent.
Whether or not one agrees with the freeman philosophy, the questions it raises about the balance between governance and liberty remain vital in any discussion of licences and their implications.
Finally, what are your thoughts about licences? Let us know below or start a thread in the freedom forum.
