Do you think that you need the government's permission to get married?
I would assume (and hope) not. Yet, it seems to me that practically nobody objects to the idea of getting a marriage license.
Bear with me for a moment in this line of thinking because it is relevant for the topic of this newsletter's subject line: medical licensing.
I, for one, did object to the idea of getting a marriage license after I got engaged back in 2004. My wife and I got married without one.
In fact, while still engaged, we had a pastor refuse to marry us because we wouldn't acquiesce to the idea that we required permission from the government -- i.e., a "license" -- to enter into this contractual relationship whereby we committed to spending the rest of our lives together and being there for each other through whatever challenges life would throw our way.
The pastor of the 501(c)(3) church that my family attended while I was growing up told us he could not marry us unless we got a marriage license. Trying to be respectful of his predicament, I told him I understood his position and that I would therefore be willing to compromise: I would go ahead and obtain a marriage license that I would sign "under duress" and "without prejudice, all rights reserved".
His response to that suggestion was to refuse and dismiss me as having committed my life's course to "rebelliousness".
I responded to his insult by saying that, actually, from a Christian perspective, he was the one given into rebelliousness by elevating the state in the place of God in the marriage relationship.
I'm sure that many of my subscribers went through the process of obtaining a marriage license without ever really thinking about it. If you did, I'm not aiming to make you feel bad about it or anything. We all do what we feel we need to do.
My purpose in bringing this up is simply to get you to think about it.
A "license" is defined as a permission or privilege granted to you by another. But, I ask you again, do you really think that we need the government's permission to get married?
I assume that your answer to this question is "No" because it would defy reason to answer "Yes". To answer "Yes" would be to take up the position that no two individuals have right to marry each other, that marriage is instead a government-granted privilege -- and I cannot imagine that anyone who is enough of a free thinker to have found me online and subscribed to my newsletter could actually believe this. 😉
(Just so as not to risk miscommunication, that's a compliment to my reader community.)
My view is that our society could do with much more "rebelliousness". We need to stop accepting things that shouldn't be and tolerating intolerable states of affairs.
So, assuming you agree with me on that point, here's the next question I'd like to ask you to challenge your thinking:
Do you think you need the government's permission to engage in voluntary exchange with others for mutual benefit?
Take a moment to seriously consider that question, and answer it for yourself before you continue reading.
I, for one, do not recognize that voluntary exchange is a government-granted privilege rather than an inherent right.
Yet, if you want to start a business to sell goods or services to others, states require you to obtain a license.
With few exceptions, to my knowledge, your kid cannot even have a roadside lemonade stand on your property without risking fines for not first obtaining a "license" to operate.
To me, this is unacceptable. I look around and see this great perversion in what it means to be free individuals. It seems like everything we do requires permission from the government.
We are supposed to be sovereign. We are supposed to be the masters of the government, not vice versa. This is the whole founding principle of the United States of America.
I assume that most if not all of you agree with me that it is ridiculous for it to be considered a crime for children to sell lemonade, and yet this is precisely how most states view this commercial activity.
It is wrong. It is sick. It is perverted.
If my son wishes to make and sell lemonade, and if other people wish to buy his lemonade, who is the state to tell all concerned parties that we may not do so without its permission?
I assume that most of you also agree with me that we have a right to earn a living, a right to produce and sell goods and services, and a right to make voluntary exchanges for mutual benefit.
But the system we are living in aims to indoctrinate us with the contrary belief that we are not free individuals exercising God-given rights, that we are instead mere slaves who enjoy privileges granted by the government.
So, if you're with me so far and agree that we do not need the government's permission to get married or to engage in trade with others, here's my next question:
Do you think that the government's permission should be required for individuals who sell goods or services specifically for the purpose of helping others maintain or improve their health?
I submit to you the proposition that the system of medical licensing is perverse, and that we should no longer accept or tolerate it.
After all, what's the difference in principle whether we are talking about lemonade or medical opinion?
If I think that a person can help me with my health, why should I not be able to pay them for their help if they do not have a piece of paper on their wall signifying that they have the government's approval to help me?
This system is, in my view, insane.
We are supposed to believe that, if it weren't for the government's ostensible "regulatory" apparatus, we would all be at the mercy of scammers taking our money for either no benefit or for our own detriment.
Nonsense, I say.
On the contrary, we can literally see with our own eyes how the medical licensing system harms our own interests.
Just look at how doctors who advocate holistic and natural approaches to health are persecuted by the "public health" establishment for serving their clients instead of acting as glorified salespersons for the pharmaceutical industry.
Look at how doctors who actually tried to provide early treatment to COVID-19 patients, as opposed to doing nothing except waiting until they got severely sick and then putting them on a ventilator that was more likely to kill than to help them, were not merely demonized but prosecuted by the government.
Look at how Dr. Paul Thomas lost his medical license for the sin of respecting parents' right to make their own informed choice about childhood vaccinates (the subject of my book The War on Informed Consent).
Look at how Dr. Meryl Nass similarly had her license suspended for
doing something doctors do all the time, prescribing medications for off-label uses, which is perfectly legal, but which in her case posed too great a challenge to the "public health" establishment's approach of disastrously harmful lockdown measures and their coerced mass vaccination endgame.
Earlier this month, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny had her license similarly suspended. As Dr. Nass commented,
"As in my case, Dr. Tenpenny had her license suspended before a hearing, before the Ohio Medical Board had heard from her, and in the absence of patient complaints, in order to make an example of her and frighten other doctors who might challenge the narrative."
Dr. Thomas was forced to surrender medical practice, but that doesn't mean he's given up the fight against medical tyranny. He has filed a lawsuit against the Oregon medical board for persecuting him without any cause other than to punish him for achieving better health outcomes among his pediatric patients than the general population of children who receive "standard of care".
Dr. Nass is also fighting back by suing the Maine medical board.
The law firm representing Dr. Thomas has this to say about his case:
"Dr. Thomas has published scientific results showing that unvaccinated children are much healthier that children vaccinated according to the CDC recommended schedule. A few days after his results were published, the Oregon Medical Board issued an emergency suspension of Dr. Thomas' license. The Oregon Medical Board had no justification for ordering an emergency suspension of Dr. Thomas' medical license—and the Oregon Medical Board violated its own rules when it did so. The Oregon Medical Board’s behavior has been so egregious that it is the subject of an entire book: 'The War on Informed Consent, The Persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board,' by Jeremy R. Hammond."
(This book of mine is currently out of print, but I still have a few copies, so if you act fast, you can buy
a signed copy directly from me here.)
In his Substack newsletter, Dr. Thomas shared one of Dr. Nass's recent posts on the subject with the salient comment:
"The state medical boards continue their pattern of removing doctors licenses when doctors are not following arbitrary and often wrong guidelines from the WHO or the CDC. In every case I have looked at and am aware of, these doctors have had zero patient complaints and in fact they tend to have far superior patient health outcomes. Who is attempting to silence the best and most creative doctors? Why?"
Why, indeed?
I posit that the answer to that question is that the system of medical licensing exists precisely for the benefit of monied interests who collude with the government to obtain a monopoly power in the marketplace.
I leave you with that thought to ponder. It shouldn't be too hard to imagine a world in which the idea of a doctor-patient relationship would actually be meaningful.
|
