PRO SE PMA Forum - By using our website and services, you confirm your understanding of and agreement to our Terms of Service.

Essay 3: The Guilds of Control
Subtitle: How Professional Associations Turned Private Freedom into Public Servitude

Introduction: When the Private Became the Gatekeeper
In my study of private membership associations—PMA for short—I found one truth that stopped me cold: what began as a lawful mechanism of freedom was gradually weaponized into a machine of control. The guilds, the universities, the professional “societies” that adorn themselves with prestige—all of them began as private associations. Yet somewhere along the line, they transformed from sanctuaries of free men into the gatekeepers of servitude. What once protected private enterprise now shields monopolies.

What once nurtured craft and conscience now enforces conformity and coercion.

This is not a mere accident of time. It was a deliberate inversion. The rulers of each era discovered that if you cannot suppress private liberty, the next best thing is to monopolize it. And so, the ancient PMA—the lawful foundation of human association—was inverted into the modern professional body. The Law Society, the Medical Association, the Bar, and the Universities became not expressions of freedom, but prisons built in the language of it.
In this essay, I want to explore how that shift occurred, and why understanding it is vital for anyone seeking true sovereignty today.

I. The Birth of the Guilds
To understand how our modern institutions gained their stranglehold, we must return to the earliest guilds of Europe. A guild was, at its core, a private membership association. It was formed by skilled tradesmen—blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, or merchants—who banded together for mutual aid, education, and fair exchange. Membership was voluntary, based on reputation and skill. A man joined by merit, not by state decree. Within that structure, the guild acted lawfully, not legally. It governed itself under contract and conscience, without interference from kings or clerks.

The early universities of England and Europe were likewise PMAs. They were private collectives of scholars who sought to preserve and expand knowledge. Their entry was selective, not compulsory, and their funding came from private patrons, not tax revenue.

They were free because they were private.
But as monarchies evolved into centralized governments, these independent guilds became problematic. Free men organizing among themselves, controlling trade and knowledge, were seen as a potential rival to state power. So, the crown began to regulate them. Charters were imposed, licenses introduced, and the old guilds were absorbed into the legal machinery of the realm. The private became “public,” and public soon became political.
By the time of the British Empire’s expansion, the pattern was set.

The Law Society of London, once a voluntary association of legal minds, became a gatekeeper for who could and could not “practice” law. The Medical College, which once gathered physicians of conscience, was recast as a state-sanctioned monopoly, outlawing any healing that did not bear its seal. The same fate met every field of independent skill—education, architecture, accounting, even ministry.

The guilds of freedom became the guilds of permission.

II. The Law Society and the Legal Cage
If you want to see how power entrenches itself, study the history of the Law Society. Its origins lie not in government, but in the private chambers of barristers who met in the Inns of Court in London. They were private clubs—lawful, exclusive, self-funded. To “pass the bar” originally meant being accepted into their circle, both socially and professionally. The “bar” was literally the wooden barrier separating the members from the public gallery.

But over time, something insidious occurred. The British crown realized that by converting this private system into a mandatory one, it could control all lawful expression. By declaring that only members of the British Accredited Registry—the B.A.R.—could practice law, it effectively monopolized justice. What had been a voluntary PMA became a compulsory cartel. No longer could a man speak in his own defense or represent another without the state’s blessing.

This same model spread through the colonies and later the commonwealth nations. Every country now has a “Law Society,” yet each one still operates as a private membership association. They have simply donned the costume of public authority. A lawyer must “apply” to join—meaning, in legal terms, he must beg.

He must “register” his credentials—meaning, he must surrender ownership of them to the registry. In exchange, he receives a license, a temporary permission slip to act in commerce.
This perverse inversion turned freedom into privilege. The right to defend oneself, to speak in court, or to contract lawfully—natural rights of every man—became professional privileges restricted to the initiated few. And thus, through the camouflage of professionalism, the private guild became a public cage.

The tragedy is that most lawyers don’t even realize it. They believe they serve justice, when in truth, they serve jurisdiction—the jurisdiction of the corporate state, not of natural law.

III. The Medical Monopolies and the War on Healing
The same pattern unfolded in medicine. For centuries, healers were lawful practitioners of natural arts—midwives, herbalists, apothecaries. They belonged to informal PMAs built on reputation and trust. A village healer needed no license; her authority came from her results and her moral conduct. But when industrial chemistry and profit-driven “science” began to rise, the old healers became competition to be eliminated.

So the same mechanism was deployed: licensing, registration, accreditation. A central medical association was formed, claiming to “protect the public” from unqualified practitioners. In reality, it created a monopoly over the definition of health itself. Once the healers were driven underground or branded as criminals, medicine was no longer a moral calling—it became an industry.
Hospitals, once charitable PMAs, were nationalized and bureaucratized. Natural medicine was outlawed or marginalized. Those who continued to practice outside the corporate system had to reassert their freedom lawfully—by forming private membership associations once again.

That cycle—private, then public, then private again—is history’s recurring rhythm of freedom versus control.
In the modern day, we see a faint echo of the Prohibition era in health freedom movements. Many healers and wellness groups have reclaimed the PMA structure to practice lawfully without state interference. Within these associations, adults of full capacity contract for services by consent, under the principle of “do no harm.” They are not in rebellion; they are simply outside the jurisdiction of public permission.

The same model applies to private education, farming, and even faith. Every time a profession becomes captured by the state, the PMA offers a way out—a return to the lawful foundation of contract and conscience.

Conclusion: From Permission to Principle
When I examine the lineage of the professional guilds, I see not progress, but possession. The state did not create our professions—it captured them. The private associations that once fostered excellence and mutual aid were transformed into bureaucratic fortresses. The bar became the barrier; the college became the cage.

But I also see something hopeful. The lawful spirit of the PMA never truly died. It merely went dormant, waiting for men and women of conscience to reclaim it. Today, as public institutions crumble under their own corruption, a quiet exodus is underway. People are forming new lawful associations—schools, clinics, farms, studios—governed by contract and trust, not by corporate decree.

And this, I believe, is the way forward. To live privately is not to hide; it is to stand upon the higher ground of responsibility. The guilds of control may continue their masquerade of authority, but their power ends where lawful men and women draw the line of consent.

The PMA restores that ancient boundary. It says to the world: “I will do no harm, and I will not be governed by those who do.”
From this foundation, freedom rises again—not as a political demand, but as a living practice. The guilds of old, twisted though they became, remind us that power always begins privately. The only question is whether that power serves tyranny—or truth.
in practice?