In the interest of full disclosure, I am a licensed psychologist. Yet I oppose licensing. I remain licensed because I wish to continue to practice my profession. My opposition to both general and specialty licensure is the subject of this paper.To understand my position requires knowing that state governments, under the umbrella of their police powers, grant licensing to a profession to protect the welfare of the public. The licensing act reserves either a title (i.e., psychologist) or a practice (i.e., psychotherapy) to persons who meet particular requirements approved by the state. Doing so creates a monopoly which in turn grants certain economic advantages to licensees. The history of licensure is replete with evidence that economics, not protection of the public, drives licensing. In fact, with rare exceptions (i.e., stockbrokers, detectives), professions have sought licensing-the public has not demanded it.My review of the empirical research shows no substantial relationship between licensing and quality of service measures. Evaluations of the work of licensing agencies also show they do not protect the public (Gross, 1984(Gross, , 1986:(a) Assessment of initial competence relies on invalid criteria, emphasizing credentials and cognitive skills over performance and person over context.(b) Monitoring of ongoing professional competence has not progressed beyond the questionable mandating of continuing education.