A Conversation with License

Walking down the street, Freeman caught sight of someone approaching him out of the corner of his eye. Turning his head, he saw that it was a humanoid being with a confident demeanor as if he owned the entire street. The being kept coming closer. He locked eyes with Freeman and eventually stopped in front of him. Although Freeman found this behavior suspicious, he didn’t want to jump to conclusions prematurely and decided to ask what was going on.

Freeman: Can I help you?

License: Yes, you can. Show me your ID.

Freeman: My what?

License: ID.

Freeman: Excuse me?

License: Your personal document, the one that proves you are a member of this Society. Everyone needs to have one.

Freeman: Who are you anyway? Isn’t it impolite to approach someone and ask them to prove something to you?

License: I am License. I don’t know if it’s impolite, but that’s how we do things here. Let me see your ID.

Freeman: I don’t have any ID.

License: Well then, tell me your full name.

Freeman: At this point, I am not sure I want to.

License: I can apprehend you for that. You need to identify yourself to me.

Freeman: You want to kidnap me just because I’m not identifying myself to you? I’m just walking around, what’s wrong with you?

License: Those are the rules.

Freeman: The rules are such that I have to prove myself to you, so that you won’t kidnap me and put me in custody? Get lost!

License: If you go on like this, I will apprehend you immediately.

Freeman: You go around demanding people to show you proof for what exactly?

License: For various things… the ID I would like you to show me now is proof that you are a member of our Society, because you are on our territory. If you want to leave this territory, then another document, a passport, is required. Like I said, those are the rules.

Freeman: Well, the rules are bad then. Imagine if I harassed people and demanded that they identify themselves to me and have to show me some document if they want to move freely. This sounds like something a psychologically unwell person would do.

License: Maybe you’re just not used to it, but that’s how it is. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know who you are and where you’re going.

Freeman: Why do you even need to know that? You’re trying to forcibly extract information from me and pretending to be all righteous while doing it.

License: We need that information so that we can keep track of everything. That way, we can easily reach you if you do something you shouldn’t.

Freeman: Well, I haven’t endangered anyone, so there’s no need for you to reach me.

License: But you could do something wrong, something that is not according to our rules.

Freeman: Well, anyone can. What kind of reasoning is that?

License: Exactly, anyone can. That’s why it’s important for us to have everyone’s information, because anyone can do something that doesn’t follow our rules.

Freeman: I would say that you’re the one threatening innocent people by forcing them to justify themselves to you.

License: You’re making a fuss about nothing. It’s not hard to just give me the information I’m asking for. I only demand a little bit from you so that we can all be safer.

Freeman: Your whole approach is problematic. You want to decide which information is important and punish me if I don’t provide it. You’re trying to obligate me to justify myself to you, and I don’t see why I should be obligated to justify myself to anyone. What you’re doing is manipulation. You act as if you’re somehow more important and significant, as if justice doesn’t apply to you.

License: Everything I say is well-thought-out, and this is how we, as a Society, have organized things. My approach is not problematic.

Freeman: So if I determine that certain information that someone has is important to me, it’s okay for me to punish them if they don’t want to give it to me? You’re saying I have the right to extract information from someone based on the fact that they are human and are therefore capable of doing something bad, even if they haven’t actually done anything wrong?

License: You don’t have that right. I do. And I didn’t tell you, but there are other things that I require proof for, as well. For example, you need licenses for most motor vehicles. Different types of vehicles require different licenses.

Freeman: So I have to provide proof of what I’m driving, too?

License: The reason I ask for that is for the safety of all drivers on the road. Imagine that you don’t know how to drive, but you go ahead and do it anyway. You could endanger yourself and others. In order to prevent that, I ask for proof that you know how to drive.

Freeman: I see… So people who possess this license cannot endanger others? Or are they simply allowed to?

License: They can, of course. They’re not allowed to. They would face consequences if they endangered someone. Fear of consequences serves as an incentive for people to be more cautious.

Freeman: If you endanger or harm someone, you’ll face consequences regardless of any license. That’s the incentive for people to be more cautious. What’s the point of the license then? Just for me to prove myself to you?

License: To prove to all of us that you’re not a danger to other drivers on the road, that you possess basic knowledge of vehicle operation, and that you know the rules of the road.

Freeman: Can’t that be seen by the way that I drive? I don’t see how else you could determine that.

License: By pulling you over and checking if you have a license.

Freeman: Right, you can’t know if someone has a license until you stop them, but if you do that without a valid reason, then you’re the one bothering them. If there’s a justifiable reason to stop them—for example, if their driving has put others at risk—then whether they have a license or not becomes irrelevant.

License: I don’t understand how having the license is irrelevant.

Freeman: Stopping someone is justified only if the driver displays harmful or negligent behavior while driving, and consequences should be based on that. The license doesn’t factor into it.

License: It’s important for drivers to know that someone can just pull them over to make them more cautious while driving. Imagine what it would be like if people thought no one could pull them over. Many would drive recklessly. Do you want us all to die due to highway accidents?

Freeman: You’re not hearing me. If someone puts others at risk, pull them over. It’s okay for anyone to stop them in that case. However, what you’re doing is imposing rules, not to prevent actual danger, but so that you can stop anyone at any time without repercussions, just to demand proof. That’s authoritarian.

License: Stopping someone for the sake of safety is not authoritarian. I do it because we all have a right to be safe.

Freeman: And how does us proving ourselves to you make us safer?

License: There are two aspects to it. The first one is on a psychological basis. People start feeling like they really know how to drive only when they receive the license. They are not inclined to believe they can drive without that document.

Freeman: Alright, but that seems manipulative and something that can easily be figured out upon closer examination. Knowledge and experience with driving should be what gives the driver a sense of security, not some document. Also, people who have that document can also feel like they are better drivers than they actually are.

License: The second, more important thing is physical. If someone doesn’t have that document as proof, they will be penalized. That’s about it.

Freeman: Okay, but as I said, isn’t it enough to warn people that they will be penalized if they endanger or harm someone?

License: Well, no, because people can still try. Maybe the consequences are not important to them at all.

Freeman: If the consequences aren’t important to them, they can just drive without a license. Again, it seems to me that you just want to punish people who don’t prove themselves to you.

License: You should feel safer knowing that I require proof from everyone.

Freeman: When it comes to something that I own, even partially, I understand that I have a say. But generally speaking, why should I have a say about someone else’s transportation and how they do it? If someone endangers someone else, then we have a problem. If that’s not the case, everything is fine.

License: The transportation you are talking about is movement within the territory of our Society.

Freeman: Is it okay for anyone to stop me and demand proof that I know how to drive, citing safety as a reason?

License: Not anyone, only authorized individuals can ask for your license.

Freeman: Who authorized them?

License: We all did. You are one of us, so you have authorized them in a way, too.

Freeman: How can I give any sort of authorization to someone else that I myself don’t possess? Can I just give various authorizations to anyone?

License: Here’s how it works: the rules regarding licenses are defined by the people we, as a society, have chosen to do so. They are our representatives. All of us, including you, have authorized those individuals to determine what licenses are required for. We are all obliged to follow those rules. Otherwise, we face the consequences.

Freeman: Again, this doesn’t make sense to me. You say that we all authorized these representatives. However, none of us have the authority to ask for any kind of transportation license. So how can we, who don’t have that authority, give authorization to the representatives to do that? It seems bizarre and highly illogical to me.

License: It needs to be this way for reasons of safety. It doesn’t matter whether it seems bizarre to you or not.

Freeman: Are there any other things you demand justification from innocent people for?

License: Yes, there are other things. Firearms, for example. Would you want me not to require a license for the use of dangerous weapons?

Freeman: If someone intends to commit violence, they are already willing to risk being punished. Why would the consequences of not having a license scare them? They will find a way to acquire weapons without a license, or they will take them from someone who already has them. Or they will just get a license and commit the violence anyway.

License: You need to understand that certain weapons give the holder much more power in a situation. With firearms, one can quickly and efficiently kill multiple people. How would you solve the problem of violence committed with firearms?

Freeman: I don’t know how one person can solve that, but you certainly haven’t solved that problem either.

License: In any case, we must take a stance that it is not acceptable to possess a weapon that can easily kill a person.

Freeman: In a violent world, violence and murder will be present even without firearms. This was the case before firearms were invented. In a just and non-violent world, possessing weapons would not be a problem because they would not be used for violence. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the problem is not the weapons; the problem is the violence.

License: But the world is violent, and you can’t just let people carry or have weapons. If someone wants to, it must be strictly controlled, and they must go through a thorough, specific process first.

Freeman: As I said, someone who intends to commit violence can, but doesn’t necessarily have to, go through your processes and prove themselves, before committing the violence anyway. I don’t see why that is even relevant.

License: Well, we want to make it harder for people to have access to dangerous weapons.

Freeman: You’re making it easier for criminals, who will have weapons anyway because they are already willing to risk imprisonment, and giving them an advantage over people who are not willing to do so. People who would use weapons to defend themselves against criminals are prevented from doing so, or they have to go through a burdensome process and prove themselves, which acts as a disincentive.

License: The philosophy is clear. If you punish people for the possession of weapons and make it more difficult for people to own weapons, fewer people will have weapons.

Freeman: Fewer people will have weapons, but the weapons will also be proportionally more in the hands of people who don’t care about risking punishment.

License: There will definitely be fewer weapons. The fewer firearms there are out there, the safer we all are.

Freeman: How will you prevent people from owning guns?

License: If I find out that someone possesses a weapon without a license, my people will come and take them to jail.

Freeman: How will they do that if the person is armed?

License: Well, they will also come armed.

Freeman: Oh, so armed individuals will come and put another innocent armed person in jail. That is violent.

License: All of my people have undergone training. They need to carry firearms for our safety. People would be less afraid of the consequences if my people were not armed.

Freeman: You said earlier, that we are safer when there are fewer firearms, and yet now you say we are safe precisely because your people possess firearms. Can’t you see the contradiction?

License: Well, you should trust my people. They won’t harm you. They are protecting you.

Freeman: I can’t blindly trust anyone. Your people can also commit violence. I, for example, don’t feel safe when the majority of firearms are in the hands of your people. Then you can easily force anything onto us all. Furthermore, I wouldn’t do anything wrong either. I would use firearms solely for defense.

License: Prove that to me!

Freeman: How can that be proven at all? A violent person wouldn’t tell you that they intend to commit violence. The only thing that you can prove is that you know how to use a weapon.

License: Yes, that is also required.

Freeman: This has nothing to do with preventing intended violence. And just like for driving, consequences should be enforced if you endanger someone. “I didn’t know how to use it” is not a valid excuse for causing damage. However, as I mentioned earlier, nobody has the right to demand justification whenever they feel like it. By the way, do you require a permit for knives and hammers, for example?

License: No. Mostly for firearms, but not exclusively.

Freeman: And those things can’t kill a person?

License: They can, but fewer people at once and not as easily.

Freeman: You also can’t defend yourself as easily against one or more attackers without more effective weapons. It goes both ways. Firearms actually provide an equal, or at least very similar, chance for a small woman and a large man in a physical confrontation. Otherwise, the stronger one would always dominate. You’re helping the bullies of our world by preventing people from defending themselves.

License: We can go on like this all day. You probably don’t know that licenses are also required for buildings. What do you think about that? Should everyone be allowed to build whatever they want and risk collapse and people dying as a result?

Freeman: The only thing that matters is that everyone involved is aware of what’s going on.

License: So you don’t want everyone to be safe, then?

Freeman: Of course I do, but different people have different priorities. Everyone should choose for themselves what is most important. As I said, what is crucial is that they are not deceived. Beyond that, I don’t believe I have the right to make decisions on their behalf without their consent. Let them choose according to their own priorities; I have no right to take away choice from others.

License: The problem is that people wouldn’t even know which buildings are safe and which are not. Every property purchase would come with unnecessary risk due to ignorance about the safety of the building.

Freeman: I didn’t say that buyers, or someone on their behalf, shouldn’t demand a safety check for the building they want to purchase; I just said that no one should be forced in any way. If the people responsible for construction don’t want to bear the cost of assuring safety, they will most likely lose customers and go out of business.

License: But if we agree that the vast majority of people want to live or work in a safe building, why would you oppose compelling investors to guarantee a certain level of building safety?

Freeman: Because different people demand different levels of safety—some require a lower level of safety, while others demand even more than what you force people to comply with. Let everyone choose for themselves what they want, if they manage to find what suits them best.

License: Everything you’ve said so far sounds somewhat inadequate to me. The only conclusion I can still draw is that you don’t care about safety. How do you justify that?

Freeman: I’ve already told you that safety does matter to me.

License: How can you say that when you’re asking me not to force people to prove themselves to me?

Freeman: The principle is simple: innocent until proven guilty. What you’re doing is violence. You treat others as if they’re guilty, even though they haven’t done anything wrong, and you threaten to kidnap them and take away their freedom if they don’t prove themselves to you. Someone doesn’t become guilty because of someone else’s feeling of insecurity. They must do something wrong or negligent to actually be guilty.

License: So what would you do, just let people do whatever they want without any imposed checks?

Freeman: It’s perfectly fine to warn people that there will be consequences for endangering and initiating harm against others—and no authorization is required for that. The right to self-defense and defending others is universal and applies to everyone.

License: This is how things work. I require various proofs, and they are all for your own good. You’re not even aware of everything I require proof for. I don’t know how you would solve all of the problems that I am solving by demanding licenses.

Freeman: It’s simple. An act is either just or unjust, and this applies to everyone. If an act is just, you don’t need any license. On the other hand, a license cannot justify a wrongful act. What matters is the nature of the act itself.

License: I don’t see why I should question anything I’ve said. You say someone should face consequences after causing harm, but by then the harm has already been done. I want to reduce the chance of harm occurring in the first place.

Freeman: I want to minimize the risk of harm as much as possible, but I won’t violate the personal boundaries of others to achieve that. I won’t demand innocent people to prove their innocence just to make myself feel safer, nor will I punish them if they fail to prove this to me.

License: That would be unjust, to disturb people like that, to take up their time and threaten them with punishment if they don’t prove something to you. But you’re just an ordinary person. As I said, certain individuals have authority.

Freeman: You see, you acknowledge that such behavior is unjust, even in the name of safety, but you’ve come up with some terms, like “authority,” to try to justify what you otherwise consider unjust.

License: What you’re talking about is radical and requires radical changes.

Freeman: This is getting tiresome. Changes, even radical ones, don’t have to be bad. In this case, they would be positive. That’s not an argument; things need to change for the better.

License: They would be worse. We would all be less safe.

Freeman: You’re authoritarian, while insisting that you’re just. I understand the need for safety, but the desire for control is what is more prevalent in you. I have to go, just stay away from me.

License: It’s important that I control things for us to be safer.

Freeman: I can’t waste any more time with you. Goodbye!