I think the idea with a license is generally, to regulate who’s doing potentially dangerous stuff based on people’s competence and/or attitude. It’s to stop people getting killed so much. I’d rather the pilot of my flight had a license.
Fair enough, I’m not wholesale against the concept. I personally am in favor of at least some building and utility regulations, especially considering things like what happened in Merrimack Valley in 2018.
At the same time, where should the line be drawn? And to what extent should government be allowed to decide these things without direct agreement from the people (e.g. in the absence of a direct and obvious danger, should deciding that something needs licensing/regulation in the first place be decided by a government or by a ballot option?).
Are there cases where government has overstepped their bounds (some argue that restricting full auto, flame thrower, silencers, etc to people who register and pay exorbitant fees to the ATF for a special permit is unconstitutional as it prevents citizens from being able to resist the military in the event of tyranny and makes it so that only known, wealthy individuals can do so without courting prison sentences).
If one wants to be a barber, they need a license. If one wants to hunt practically anything these days - even fish - then you are required to purchase a license. Depending on how and what you wish to do, licensing costs can vary wildly (a basic fishing license is generally pretty cheap but if you’d like to go bow-fishing, it might be disallowed by the state or much pricier to do so, despite the fact that it is often more difficult and also requires more expensive gear)
Many states even regulate rain water collection, which IMO is pretty fucking stupid.
deleted by creator
first mistake: you gave up your guns
