• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

No Rings, No Drama, Just Dominion

"Wrong." "Sin." Not words I'd pick. It's a choice that - in FAR too many cases - the Constitution forbids Big Brother to make. Often explicitly.

It will be, virtually without question, the mechanism that enables the 'Mark of the Beast,' based on the legal concept of 'commerce.' (Forbidding to 'buy or sell' - as is already being done for too many businesses and professions - without 'permission.')

It was one of the truly Evil mechanisms used to enforce the COVID BS. Suspending the 'licenses' of any physicians, nurses, or others who might have objected to Medical Malpractice on an international level.

I got what is actually called an "Airman's Certificate," and later an 'endorsement' for Instrument Certification (PPSEL-Inst) because I wanted to learn to fly. And while I can argue that the FAA (especially now) often does more harm than good (and allowed 'pilots' to be MANDATED to take an injection that their OWN "Federal Aviation Regulations" for Medical Certification say explicitly should ground EVERY single 'licensed' pilot who took them: "Do NOT Issuse - Do NOT Fly" - so how's THAT for caring about "safety" and the flying public?) - I will acknowledge that mistakes in aviation get people killed.
 
steve said:
You could say that personal ballistics should also be regulated for the common good, but we have a very specific Constitutional law that prohibits such restrictions.
Click to expand...
Some do, and that's a separate issue, but related.

It turns out that most (I would argue - the VAST majority!) of "government regulation" by way of 'licensing' is not only at least implicitly (marriage, trades, agriculture) but explicitly (arms) forbidden.

The 'argument' above began based on whether something that should NOT be 'licensed' at all from a legal standpoint is whether or not something people (who often don't know any better) should SUBMIT to. I contend that we all have a choice, but that it often amounts to a direct submission to "another master," sometimes at greater cost than the subject-slave is aware of.

Steve brings up a different issue, specifically with regard to the "Right to keep and bear arms," but with more general application.

MOST 'government regulation' (and licensing) is not only unlawful, but outright COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

This is particularly obvious when it comes to 'firearms' (a term of art used to sidestep the Second Amendment - note what it says carefully.)

To quote Thomas Jefferson:
"Laws which forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
...But such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
"On Crimes and Punishment," 1764

The obvious but oft-unreported fact that well over 90% of all "mass shootings" occur in what I properly refer to as "Gun-Free Killing Zones" brings that point home.

I can, and have, make a similar argument that licensed marriage is not only counter-productive, but leads to outright evil. Not only broken families, "forbidding to marry," [more than the licensed 'one'] and rampant 'divorce' - but licensed abomination (sodomy++) as well.

There seems to be a more general principle at work here...
 
I agree with you @Mark C that the government should not have a role in licencing anything, and if some day you or I are in a government we might be able to do something about that. But given we are not, the question more relevant is "how then shall we live" given we are in countries ruled by regimes that do issue licences for things.

My perspective on that question is simple - relax, use the system you find yourself in, but without seeing its rules as morally binding. Avoid prosecution, by avoiding being caught if you have to very occasionally do something that would require a license, and by getting the relevant license if you do it regularly or simply require the license to practically do the thing. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis in my mind. The legal landscape is like any other landscape, follow the track that will most efficiently reach the goal. If the whole system is invalid anyway, I see no personal moral problem with either having or lacking a licence.

I am struggling to understand your perspective. Some licences you seem to view pragmatically as I do - such as a pilot's license by whatever name it goes by, we're basically on the same page there. But others you have a severe moral objection to - marriage and firearms licences for instance. This dichotomy confuses me.

If getting a marriage or gun licence constitutes a form of idolatry, bowing to the state instead of God (which is ultimately what ceding authority is), then would not getting a pilot's, driver's or commercial trading license also mean bowing to the state instead of God? We surely have a God-given right to both travel and trade also. I can't understand how you compartmentalise these issues in your mind and see them as so different.

I on the other hand am happy to be married with no license, or get one if it has practical advantages, just as I'm happy to get a gun licence if it's the only way to buy one, or a driver's license if it will avoid getting fined or jailed for exercising my God-given right to travel. I'd prefer they didn't exist but I'll tick the box to live in the world, while remaining not of the world.
 
All I can say, @FollowingHim, is to take a look at Braveheart again. I have said this for years on radio shows:

I'll get on my knees and beg for permission to protect my family (from those that want them dead to begin with) the same day I beg for permission to speak.

William Wallace objected to "First Night." Why? He might have had a nice wife thereafter...

There are things worth fighting for. I don't expect you to fight if you don't see that, just recognize that many Americans fought and died for Rights that others now aren't even willing to speak up for.
 
So if it's worth fighting and dying for, you object to getting a license for it, but you don't think any other freedoms are worth fighting and dying for other than marriage and guns?
 
Last edited:
Honestly Mark I think you just haven't thought this through far enough yet. That's ok. Please just ponder it a bit more before just automatically responding defensively. I think there's something here for you to refine.
 
PS> I fought tooth and nail against mask idiocy (I never ONCE put one on) - against the injection pseudo-mandate - against lockdowns, and against the censorship. I fought - and still do - censorship virtually anywhere (including here). I've done radio shows for a quarter century because it's a more effective way to fight than protesting on some street corner (which I organized in my 'miss-spent youth' as a leader of the Tyranny Response Team in Colorado, where we put thousands on the Capitol steps, and in front of the Governor's Mansion, etc) - and far more effective that an easily-rigged vote.

There are many things worth fighting for. Some worth more than that. But I will not ask permission to exercise a Right, because -- by definition - then it is NOT; it's a mere privilege.

And PPS> Don't ask for a list of those God-given Rights. Patrick Henry gave the proper response there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top