“You cannot make a phone call without a license.” Does that sound just fine in a free society? The Federal Communications Commission in May 2026 formally proposed that law. Everyday citizens would not be allowed to have telephone service unless they provide a government‑issued ID, legal name, physical address, and any existing phone numbers. Those requirements mimic any government-issued licensing scheme: Before using a product or service, prove who you are and how we can find you.

The issue might seem minor, yet it reveals a war of worldviews. It also foreshadows AI policing every phone call everywhere. The proposal touts providing “Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls.”  There’s nothing “advanced” about requiring all telephone users to register themselves with a government proxy.

Here’s the FCC’s own words explaining why they want phone licensing:

Combatting illegal calls is our top consumer protection priority, and we are taking a holistic approach by attacking them at every point in their lifecycle. This includes stopping illegal calls before they enter the phone network …  The most effective way to prevent illegal calls from reaching American consumers is by ensuring they never enter the network. Originating voice service providers are best positioned to do that by screening new or renewing customers before they make calls.

Also per the FCC, the new law would require telephone service providers to “at a minimum, obtain and retain the name, physical address, government issued identification number, and an alternate telephone number of any new and renewing customer before granting access to its services.”  They say they’re applying “the standard to prevent money laundering.” Like every phone user is a criminal to be tracked.

Worldviews in Conflict

Here’s the worldview conflict: A free society does not treat all its citizens as would-be criminals. Words and deeds are private concerns unless they meaningfully harm someone else. A society where the government tries to mandate thoughts and behavior to achieve its goals, a police state, is the opposite. Thoughts and actions are either required or prohibited.

In a free society, government power is applied when there is probable cause to believe a crime is about to occur or has occurred. Government doesn’t try to prevent misconduct by throttling everyone’s access to private communications.

The police state, to the extent of available technology, deploys power constantly to prevent citizen misconduct. In prior eras, that ethic appeared with the phrase, “your papers, please.” Prove who you are, why you’re here, where you’re going, and why. Police states in the 20^th century routinely monitored telephone calls of even slightly suspected citizens. The goal: Prevent misconduct. The method: Get government approval for everything you say and do.

Some folks might respond, “I don’t care, I have nothing to hide.” That view vanishes when tested. Place a wiretap on all such persons’ phones and publish transcripts of every conversation. Video monitor every room in the house, too, and publish the tapes on YouTube. Then watch the social media posts and comments from worldwide. We’ll see if the surveilled people reject the concept of privacy after that.

Internet policy watchdog Reclaim the Net explains the serious, even life-or-death, reasons for having anonymous pre-paid phones:

Right now, you can pay cash for a prepaid phone and SIM card without showing identification. Journalists use prepaid phones to protect sources, domestic violence survivors use them to avoid being traced, and whistleblowers, activists, or anyone with a reason to separate phone activity from legal identity relies on them.

Privacy matters, and it doesn’t need government approval. Otherwise, it isn’t privacy anymore.

Enforcement Creep

Of course, requiring licenses for phone purchases does not actually control the content of conversations. The authorities won’t know whether the user makes calls to solicit for businesses or scams. Licensing doesn’t stop unlawful or annoying phone calls; it only sets up a legal way to prosecute violators more easily. Somebody has to detect and report phone use misconduct. Some governmental agency has to fire up an enforcement and adjudication system. None of these is automatic or free.

But wait, we have AI. Current AI technology allows real-time monitoring of conversations, voice recognition, and transcription. That technology scales up easily. There is no tech obstacle to AI continuously monitoring and transcribing millions of phone conversations simultaneously. For AI, spotting questionable words, phrases, and topics is a cinch. So is instantly reporting such findings to thought-and-talk policing agencies.

It’s a worldview question. Does our society so dislike robo-calls and spam texts that it will welcome universal telephone monitoring by AI? And invite government scrutiny of every phone conversation everywhere?

If the goal is to totally stop all phone misconduct, then licensing phones is only the first step. When the “problem” isn’t solved that way, government will naturally call for more enforcement. AI talk-police provide the cheap, efficient “solution.” Everything you say gets recorded and analyzed. Nothing could go wrong with that idea.

Lest we forget, government efforts to remake societies and enforce uniform compliance with approved thoughts, conduct and speech have a dismal record. I commend to readers R.J. Rummel’s Death by Government (1997) and the academic coverage in The Black Book of Communism (1999).

Dealing with robo-calls and spam texts presents technical problems that software can and should address in people’s individual phones. That’s the free society approach that works without power exerted top-down to control everyone’s private communications. History won’t smile on a civilization that empowered AI thought-and talk-police because the people didn’t like spam calls.