Why Licensing should be a Crime

Licensing betrays the Constitution, violating both the Right to Work, and the Constitutional Right to sue for redress. It violates your freedom to choose a line of work in which you know yourself to be capable. It places precise limits on what you can hold a businessman or contractor liable for, in case he proves incapable of doing that job. Licensing, like warrenties, specifies what sorts of things the "professional" may be held accountable for. If it is not in there, you can't sue.
I submit that this is the grant of a title of nobility.

Licensing grants dictatorial power over your work. It places demands on the way you conduct business, how you keep your books, how much tribute you have to pay to the associate authorities, and all innovation is prohibited without a lengthy approval process.
I submit that this is a "protection" racket, and it makes a mockery of our legal system and has corrupted the moral principles on which business is built, replacing them with the moral code of organized crime.

Licensing places legal redress for damages under a foriegn legal jurisdiction, under which the Constitution of the United States does not apply.
I submit that this is treason against the people and Constitution of the United States.

Face it, the best, most competent people in any profession are not the ones formally trained for it. The best, most competent professionals grew up playing and tinkering in their future professions. The best auto mechanic is not the one with a wall full of credentials, but the one who grew up souping up and modifying his car every which way he could, and replaced all his own parts when they broke or warrented an upgrade. The best electronic technicians grew up building crystal radios, logic circuits, and electronic-based practical jokes. Formal training doesn't create this kind of competence. At best, it rounds it out.
I once knew a man who claimed to have worked on computers from the days of the UNIVAC. He boasted that in every computer-related job he ever held, he was the man the engineers came to for help when they got stumped on a problem. He also got passed over for promotions in favor of the guy with the wall full of credentials. The engineers who got his help didn't usually give him proper credit, lest they lose that promotion. The last I heard, he was out of work and could not find anything in his field, because everyone now requires formal credentials.
I grew up in construction. I have done almost everything connected with construction, from design to final cleanup. While I have met some competent architects, I have also met a lot who struck me as being seriously deluded or absolute con artists.
I onced worked on a major resort project. Two architectural firms, both high-profile California firms, had completed working drawings for this project. The project encompassed several large buildings, of which I was in charge of one of the smaller. Both sets of plans for this building looked outwardly professional. Inwardly, they were both filled with contradictory descriptions and details. It was my responsibility to distill those descriptions into a coherent and buildable plan. I could do that. Several other experienced draftsmen could do that. Two certified and licensed architectural firms could not do that.
On the flip side, in an effort to build some stability in my life, I went back to school and got an associates degree in Electronics Engineering Technology, with honors. My former labpartner has a friend who got into computers the same time we started classes. Bob learned by digging, experimenting, reading and applying, more about computers than my labpartner or I learned in classes. Bob is now more qualified as a computer technician than either of us is, with associates degrees. We have the certification, but certification of what? That we could memorize and regurgitate? I learned in Psych 101 that that doesn't stick. I remembered that tidbit, because I applied it. For this, we're discriminated against?