The Threat and Coercion Game
They want you to submit to their jurisdiction. They threaten that if you don't sign this agreement, that contract, get this license, or fill out this form or that form, that you "may be the subject of legal action and/or criminal prosecution".
That word "may" is very important. It's a word meant to intimidate you into doing something that's not good for you, but is beneficial to the bureaucrats running the game. The goal of a bureaucrat is to keep the parasitic bureaucracy alive. If people start opting out of the game, the bureaucracy withers and dies.
So if a counselor opts out of the game by letting his license expire, the bureaucracy (the board) will sends a letter stating that if you continue practicing counseling (or whatever they want to call it), that you "may" be the subject of legal action and/or criminal prosecution.
But we already saw yesterday in this post that the Deputy Director of BHEC (Texas has no Executive Director) stated that it's basically a big game of chicken, and if the individual in question ignores the board, basically the board has little recourse but to revoke his license.
And if they revoke his license, they have no other recourse because that counselor is no longer under the jurisdiction of the board.
"You may be the subject of legal action and/or criminal prosecution".
"Stop doing what you're doing, or renew your license, or else."
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed.
"It may be actual, direct, or positive...or implied, legal or constructive, as where one party is constrained by subjugation to other to do what his free will would refuse....It may be actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposedly possessed."
Look at that last paragraph (bolding) added by me:
"To constitute "compulsion" or "coercion" rendering payment involuntary, there must be some actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposedly possessed, by payee over payer's person or property, from which payer has no means of immediate relief except by advancing money."
"But the government has a right to compel a person to get a license."
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed.
"A permission, by a competent authority to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."
"...to do some act that without such authorization would be illegal..."
Is it illegal to have a private conversation with somebody? No.
Is it illegal to meet with somebody in private? No.
Is it illegal to exchange money between two people for meeting in person and having a conversation? No.
No license needed.
Another quote from Black's Law Dictionary on Licenses:
"A permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful."
Private conversations in private settings with money being exchanged are not unlawful without a permit.
The licensing boards in the case of (but not limited to) counseling, psychology, therapy, social work, are trying to compel and coerce people into getting licenses for things that are not unlawful without a license.
Unlawful means there is a law against it. There is no law against having private conversations on any topic. There is no law against two or more people meeting in private. There is no law against the exchange of money, for knowledge and expertise or otherwise. Counseling, psychology, therapy, coaching, consulting, lawn care advising, etc. is not unlawful.
And for those of you who have been playing at home, according to Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943) :
A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce.
So when the state sends a letter to a counselor who has opted out of the system by letting his or her license expire or lapse, and the letter says, "you may be the subject of legal action and/or criminal prosecution," if he continues counseling without a license, the board is either bluffing and trying to coerce or compel him back into the administrative law game, or they're far overstepping the bounds of their authority that they're opening themselves up to lose a court case.
