• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National ID?

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The concept of a national ID, similar to the driver's license at the state level, just at the federal level, has been met with lots of opposition from those who think that a national ID system is the hallmark of a totalitarian system.

However, the Passport Card - which allows you to travel to and from Canada and Mexico without tourist visas, and is $40 cheaper than a full-fledged passport - has been a lot better received, largely because it is voluntary. Don't want the Passport Card? Fine, just don't expect to go to Canada or Mexico without a tourist visa. Simple as that.

Ok, so, voluntary national IDs are a lot better received, eh? Well, let's take that approach.

You will need a national ID before you can participate in any optional government programs. Any at all.

You want to sue someone in federal court? Show your national ID along with your complaint.

Subject to federal criminal charges, and want a public defender? Flash your national ID.

Want welfare money? Show your national ID with the application.

You can file your taxes without a national ID, but, if you want to claim ANY deductions, even yourself as a dependent, you'll need a national ID.

Want to apply for any federal job? We're talking, just APPLYING for the job, even if you don't get a formal job offer. Guess what you'll need?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People already have a SIN card which is required for taxes, opening bank accounts, applying for jobs, etc. The only thing the national ID will accomplish is let the Fed track even more of your activities, especially if you make it mandatory for all of the services you mention. What's the point? To block illegals? You can't anyway because most are paid with cash.

There's no reason for a national ID card. If you want something Federal, then get a passport.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
People already have a SIN card
What is an SIN?

If you mean, SSN, as in, social security number, then yes, I am well aware of that. However, it has no picture, which makes the forging of the document (or the using of a legitimate one on the Internet or over the telephone) extremely easy.

The only thing the national ID will accomplish is let the Fed track even more of your activities,
I assume that you are drawing comparisons to the Big Brother aspect of the novel 1984.

I beg to differ. Big Brother went way, WAY over the edge. Big Brother had GPS devices surgically implanted in your bodies so that the government could watch you take a piss!

How, exactly, does a CARD do that?

What's the point? To block illegals?
Yes.

you can't anyway because most are paid with cash.
That only counts if you expect to track their bank records, which private entities are already doing.

There's no reason for a national ID card. If you want something Federal, then get a passport.
But, you only need the passport for international travel, which makes it quite unreliable as a universal method of identification.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you mean, SSN, as in, social security number, then yes, I am well aware of that. However, it has no picture, which makes the forging of the document (or the using of a legitimate one on the Internet or over the telephone) extremely easy.
This is the argument that is always put forth as the reason to create some kind of new government registry. People will always be able to forge ID unless we use biometrics or bodily implants, and even then your data is still in vulnerable databases. And the fact is, identity theft is not at epidemic levels like we are being scared into believing.

I assume that you are drawing comparisons to the Big Brother aspect of the novel 1984.

I beg to differ. Big Brother went way, WAY over the edge. Big Brother had GPS devices surgically implanted in your bodies so that the government could watch you take a piss!

How, exactly, does a CARD do that?
How exactly would a new card prevent forgeries? Why is a federal registry necessary when state ID cards are just fine?

That only counts if you expect to track their bank records, which private entities are already doing.
Great, then a federal ID isn't necessary. "Security" and "safety" are not valid reasons for this kind of ID.

But, you only need the passport for international travel, which makes it quite unreliable as a universal method of identification.
If there's a problem then the states should increase the security features of their cards. That's no excuse to make a federal ID.
 

Cyberhwk

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
52
Reaction score
36
Location
Kennewick, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah, I'm with you on this one.

I live in Washington State and like vacationing up to BC. For the longest time you could get up with just a Birth Certificate and your ID. Then there was some big controversy about them requiring Passports. Low and behold look what ends up happening but now you can use your ID again but only if you apply for the ENHANCED ID CARD! Containing reference numbers to a central database including biometric stats used to confirm your identity.

But look at how CONVENIENT it is!
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm very much against the national ID. It is nothing less than more government in our lives.

The Passport Card is more or less a Passport.

A national ID does nothing to make us anymore safe and secure so I see no justification in it's implementation. It's loss of privacy and bigger federal government.
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We already have state ID's, we will still need passports to travel, still need our SS cards, still need birth certificates and all other forms of documentation.

What purpose does this serve?
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is the argument that is always put forth as the reason to create some kind of new government registry. People will always be able to forge ID unless we use biometrics or bodily implants,
No, we don't have to do that.

As long as the documents are supposed to have either photos, or physical descriptions, then said physical likenesses can be stored in federal archives, so, if someone gets suspicious about the legitimacy of an ID, they can look it up and compare the description that's supposed to go there, to the one that is there.

Forged documents would not stand up to close inspection.

and even then your data is still in vulnerable databases.
And, how, exactly, do you define "vulnerable?"

And the fact is, identity theft is not at epidemic levels like we are being scared into believing.
Really?

I don't suppose you could provide some citation to back up that claim.

How exactly would a new card prevent forgeries?
By including a physical description of the person who owns it.

Duh.

Why is a federal registry necessary when state ID cards are just fine?
Because there are 55 different states giving them out (50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam). Also, some states (such as my own) have multiple versions of the driver's license, each of them equally official. For example, my state, will design the driver's license differently if you are under the age of 21, so that bartenders who check your ID can instantly tell if you're old enough to drink.

There's a LOT of confusion, there!

Great, then a federal ID isn't necessary.
What?

How do you draw that conclusion. You're making some HUGE leaps in logic!

"Security" and "safety" are not valid reasons for this kind of ID.
And, how do you feel that security and safety are not valid reasons?

If there's a problem then the states should increase the security features of their cards. That's no excuse to make a federal ID.
There is.

State cards are sufficient, as long as you don't go down to Florida, get pulled over, and some cop thinks "Is this Oregon driver's license legitimate?"

Yeah, I'm with you on this one.

I live in Washington State and like vacationing up to BC. For the longest time you could get up with just a Birth Certificate and your ID. Then there was some big controversy about them requiring Passports. Low and behold look what ends up happening but now you can use your ID again but only if you apply for the ENHANCED ID CARD! Containing reference numbers to a central database including biometric stats used to confirm your identity.

But look at how CONVENIENT it is!
Which one are you siding with? Orion, or me?

It is nothing less than more government in our lives.
And, how do you figure that it will simply be "more government," rather than making the existing government's jobs easier?

If the national ID can make the feds' jobs easier, then they have to do less work. If they do less work, that's less government in our lives!

What purpose does this serve?
Centralizing it. It will reduce it all to one form of identification that anyone will take.

Go to a medicare-taking doctor, they can simply look up your national ID number, and verify that you do, indeed, participate in Medicare.

A cop pulls you over. You give him your national ID. The cop verifies that this national ID was, indeed, given license to drive a motor vehicle, and credits you as having a valid drivers' license.

Now, you won't have to keep a wallet full of identification documents for each little itty bitty purpose.

It's not intrusion. It's the same thing we're used it; just centralized.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, we don't have to do that.

As long as the documents are supposed to have either photos, or physical descriptions, then said physical likenesses can be stored in federal archives, so, if someone gets suspicious about the legitimacy of an ID, they can look it up and compare the description that's supposed to go there, to the one that is there.

Forged documents would not stand up to close inspection.
How is a federal ID any more secure than other forms of ID?

And, how, exactly, do you define "vulnerable?"
You can get them. It's difficult, but cyberattacks do happen.

Really?

I don't suppose you could provide some citation to back up that claim.
I don't see how a federal card will make theft less likely.

By including a physical description of the person who owns it.

If a person can look at an ID, I'm sure that they can look at a picture. Besides, what happens if you gain wight, get surgery, lose your hair. This is pointless.

Because there are 55 different states giving them out (50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam). Also, some states (such as my own) have multiple versions of the driver's license, each of them equally official. For example, my state, will design the driver's license differently if you are under the age of 21, so that bartenders who check your ID can instantly tell if you're old enough to drink.

There's a LOT of confusion, there!
ID's aren't th most complicated thing in the world. It's a name, address, date of birth, picture, and sometimes a little more information. Not hard to figure out. If they're standardized, then forgers will just switch to that.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Forged documents would not stand up to close inspection.
Inspection is largely not that thorough unless random people are sampled (like in airport security) and happen to get caught. In order for it to be more thorough, more people would have to be hassled and scrutinized, and I'm not in favor of that.

If someone has stolen your identity and you have proof, that is more than enough to make a case. There's no need for another federal registry that can still be faked. It's just giving the government further powers it doesn't need.

And, how, exactly, do you define "vulnerable?"
This was more of a side argument, but you should look at the means in which identities tend to be stolen: it's either because people have their cards directly stolen or third parties that are retaining the information (like banks, phone companies, etc.) get hacked and databases are lifted.

I don't suppose you could provide some citation to back up that claim.
No, just simple observation. We live in the digital era and there will always be people who foolishly give up their info. to the wrong people. That shouldn't be my problem or an excuse to create another registry.

By including a physical description of the person who owns it.

Duh.
Why does the federal government need that information in the form of a new ID card if the states also have it? Furthermore, why does ANY government body need my biometric information?

Because there are 55 different states giving them out (50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam). Also, some states (such as my own) have multiple versions of the driver's license, each of them equally official. For example, my state, will design the driver's license differently if you are under the age of 21, so that bartenders who check your ID can instantly tell if you're old enough to drink.
And?

The federal ID would just be one more to the pile of crap, only difference is that the Fed would have its own database instead of just your state.

And, how do you feel that security and safety are not valid reasons?
Because a Federal ID does not make anyone more secure or more safe. It just gives the Federal government one more means to pry into your life which it should have no business doing. Each state has its own ID because each state has its own sovereignty, its own ID requirements, and its own laws.

State cards are sufficient, as long as you don't go down to Florida, get pulled over, and some cop thinks "Is this Oregon driver's license legitimate?"
Inconvenient, but hardly a crisis.

If the national ID can make the feds' jobs easier, then they have to do less work. If they do less work, that's less government in our lives!
Speaking of strange twists in logic.

It's the opposite. There is no real reason why the fed needs another registry, another ID system, or another way to track your activities. If you are suspected of something, then they need to deal with the state level and get your information that way. The fed should not be going above the individual states.

Centralizing it. It will reduce it all to one form of identification that anyone will take.
As far as I know, the full faith and credit clause requires each state to accept the IDs of all other states, so your point here is kind of moot. If different states are too incompletent to recognize the IDs of other states, then that is their problem. The fed should not be called on with its own ID to solve that problem. The expansion of power is unnecessary.

Go to a medicare-taking doctor, they can simply look up your national ID number, and verify that you do, indeed, participate in Medicare.
Which they can do anyway by using your medicare file number.

A cop pulls you over. You give him your national ID. The cop verifies that this national ID was, indeed, given license to drive a motor vehicle, and credits you as having a valid drivers' license.
Full faith and credit clause.

Now, you won't have to keep a wallet full of identification documents for each little itty bitty purpose.

It's not intrusion. It's the same thing we're used it; just centralized.
I don't think you understand the difference between state and federal power. You just view this as simplifying people's lives and making them more convenient, but you don't understand what it means for implied federal powers vs. state sovereignty.

Please think about it.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How is a federal ID any more secure than other forms of ID?
Because it's centralized.

You can get them. It's difficult, but cyberattacks do happen.
They would be a lot MORE difficult if the "social security card" bore either a picture, of a physical description.

I don't see how a federal card will make theft less likely.

By including a physical description of the person who owns it.
Then, here it is:

Joe Shmoe goes into an RV dealership and buys an $80,000 RV, using Bob's name and credit.

However, the national ID's physical description calls for someone who is 5'8" tall, Caucasian, and brown eyes. Joe has the Caucasian part, but he's 6 feet tall and has blue eyes.

The dealership knows that something is amiss. Bob gets a telephone call; Joe gets arrested. End of story.

Comprende?

If a person can look at an ID, I'm sure that they can look at a picture.
I agree.

Besides, what happens if you gain wight, get surgery, lose your hair
You can update your national ID.

ID's aren't th most complicated thing in the world.
Still, it never hurts to streamline it even further.

If they're standardized, then forgers will just switch to that.
But, it would be a lot harder for forgers to convince people that they rightfully own this ID if the people looking at it had federal archives to compare it to.

Inspection is largely not that thorough unless random people are sampled (like in airport security) and happen to get caught. In order for it to be more thorough, more people would have to be hassled and scrutinized, and I'm not in favor of that.
Who said that I advocate increasing the number of random searches?

This merely makes the current random searches more likely to yield accurate results.

If someone has stolen your identity and you have proof, that is more than enough to make a case.
Yeah... complete with months and months of court battles and tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. In the meantime, personal lives must be set aside. Personal relationships must suffer.

It's better to prevent identity theft than it is to recover after it's been committed.

There's no need for another federal registry that can still be faked.
It would replace all the existing identification-based federal agencies.

We're not going up one and going down zero. We're going up one, and going down about ten or twelve.

It's just giving the government further powers it doesn't need.
No, this is merely a new type of exercise of an existing power: The Necessary and Proper Clause.

This was more of a side argument, but you should look at the means in which identities tend to be stolen: it's either because people have their cards directly stolen or third parties that are retaining the information (like banks, phone companies, etc.) get hacked and databases are lifted.
Perhaps, but, if the guys looking at the national IDs can see if it's fake or not, just by comparing it to the archives, it would stop a lot of ID thieves in the process of doing it.

No, just simple observation. We live in the digital era and there will always be people who foolishly give up their info. to the wrong people. That shouldn't be my problem or an excuse to create another registry.
Even if the registry that we're creating would eliminate the need for various other registries?

I mean, I can think of five different registries, merely at the federal level, that specialize in identification documents.

1. Social Security Office
2. Identification cards for soldiers in the military
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. Passport office (typically, a subdivision of the Post Office, but not always).

So, if the Federal ID system were to replace all previous ID systems, we would have a net reduction of at least four.

Why does the federal government need that information in the form of a new ID card
Because it will replace old ID cards.

Furthermore, why does ANY government body need my biometric information?
Who said anything about biometric information?

Look on your driver's license. It's the exact same information.

The federal ID would just be one more to the pile of crap,
That would replace a lot of other piles of crap.

Only difference is that the Fed would have its own database instead of just your state.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense!

Grammatically, it doesn't even make sense!

Because a Federal ID does not make anyone more secure or more safe.
Unless it stands less chance of standing up to close inspection.

It just gives the Federal government one more means to pry into your life
While getting rid of all the other means of prying into your life.

Each state has its own ID because each state has its own sovereignty, its own ID requirements, and its own laws.
And so, the federal ID cannot simply work with the states to make sure that the federal ID can serve their purpose?

Inconvenient, but hardly a crisis.
I agree, but, imagine, trying to take out a loan online. The creditor that you're applying for lives in a different state, and requests that you xerox your driver's license and send that to them. You do so. How do they know that this state's driver's license is legitimate. If the state has a registry that can be used to verify your physical description, what if they don't KNOW about that registry, or they know about it, but don't know how to use it.

A FEDERAL registry would merely take all that confusion away.

There is no real reason why the fed needs another registry, another ID system, or another way to track your activities.
Unless that one registry/system/tracking method can do the jobs of five of them.

If you are suspected of something, then they need to deal with the state level and get your information that way.
That would compromise federal supremecy.

The fed should not be going above the individual states.
The Federal Supremecy clause says the exact opposite.

As far as I know, the full faith and credit clause requires each state to accept the IDs of all other states,
That won't stop them from making careless errors, nor will it stop private entities from thinking that other states' IDs are illegitimate.

If different states are too incompletent to recognize the IDs of other states, then that is their problem.
It's not just their problem. It's the people's problem!

The expansion of power is unnecessary.
I already told you: It's not an expansion. It's a centralization, streamlining, and condensing of power.

Which they can do anyway by using your medicare file number.
Yes, but it's not centralized.

Full faith and credit clause.
That only works if it's intentional. It doesn't do much if it's out of negligence.

It also does absolutely jack squat for negligence of private entities.

I don't think you understand the difference between state and federal power. You just view this as simplifying people's lives and making them more convenient, but you don't understand what it means for implied federal powers vs. state sovereignty.
Let me put it this way:

Does the government have a legitimate interest in knowing who you are?

Is a national, centralized ID system a legitimate means to achieving that interest.

If you answered "yes" to the above questions, then, the government has business having a national ID system.
 
Last edited:

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Because it's centralized.
That doesn't answer the question.

They would be a lot MORE difficult if the "social security card" bore either a picture, of a physical description.
Then have that bear a picture or description.

Then, here it is:

Joe Shmoe goes into an RV dealership and buys an $80,000 RV, using Bob's name and credit.

However, the national ID's physical description calls for someone who is 5'8" tall, Caucasian, and brown eyes. Joe has the Caucasian part, but he's 6 feet tall and has blue eyes.

The dealership knows that something is amiss. Bob gets a telephone call; Joe gets arrested. End of story.

Comprende?
Or the guy looks at another ID and sees that Joe looks nothing like Bob. Guy gets arrested End of story. Comprende?

You can update your national ID.
So I have to go to my courthouse and pay a fee if I get colored contacts or lose weight?

Still, it never hurts to streamline it even further.
This isn't streamlining. It's just adding another layer of bureaucracy.

But, it would be a lot harder for forgers to convince people that they rightfully own this ID if the people looking at it had federal archives to compare it to.
Things like SS cards already are federally databased.
 
Last edited:

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think we should have a national ID as a form of "stacking" other forms of ID on it.

IE: Everyone gets a card at birth but as you go through and get other official forms of ID and licensing, they get added digitally to the ID correlated to a DNA registry to verify the identity of the user.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think a national ID is a good, but only is used in a manner that actually protects privacy. Currently, the birth certificate and SSN are both de-facto national ID's, despite being insecure. The purpose of national ID should be a root form of trust used to issue other forms of identification. So while you use your national ID at the DMW in order to get your drivers license, a cop who pulls you over never asks for your national ID card. Optimally, you would have multiple secondary ID's for various purposes like banking, employment, government aid and so-forth. That way, stealing your pass-port wouldn't make it easy to loot your savings account.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The concept of a national ID, similar to the driver's license at the state level, just at the federal level, has been met with lots of opposition from those who think that a national ID system is the hallmark of a totalitarian system.

However, the Passport Card - which allows you to travel to and from Canada and Mexico without tourist visas, and is $40 cheaper than a full-fledged passport - has been a lot better received, largely because it is voluntary. Don't want the Passport Card? Fine, just don't expect to go to Canada or Mexico without a tourist visa. Simple as that.

Ok, so, voluntary national IDs are a lot better received, eh? Well, let's take that approach.

You will need a national ID before you can participate in any optional government programs. Any at all.

You want to sue someone in federal court? Show your national ID along with your complaint.

Subject to federal criminal charges, and want a public defender? Flash your national ID.

Want welfare money? Show your national ID with the application.

You can file your taxes without a national ID, but, if you want to claim ANY deductions, even yourself as a dependent, you'll need a national ID.

Want to apply for any federal job? We're talking, just APPLYING for the job, even if you don't get a formal job offer. Guess what you'll need?

Thoughts?
I will only support a national ID for the federal level when federal laws can be repealed by popular initiatives.

If a FedID can be used to track the movements of it's people even more than they do now, then the people deserve the right to repeal the federal laws that the federal government can use to arrest and detain them.

Fair is fair, after all, and I'm willing to compromise.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I will only support a national ID for the federal level when federal laws can be repealed by popular initiatives.
Why? Your average voter is misinformed and ignorant. Why give them control over what our federal government can and cant do?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm very much against the national ID. It is nothing less than more government in our lives.

The Passport Card is more or less a Passport.

A national ID does nothing to make us anymore safe and secure so I see no justification in it's implementation. It's loss of privacy and bigger federal government.
can you explain what privacy you are losing?

Thanks.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think we should have a national ID as a form of "stacking" other forms of ID on it.

IE: Everyone gets a card at birth but as you go through and get other official forms of ID and licensing, they get added digitally to the ID correlated to a DNA registry to verify the identity of the user.
OH EM GEE!!!!!

Requiring everyone to put their DNA in a government database....

EVIL!?!?!?!?!@##$#!@!

OMG!!!! NO PRIVACY BIG BROTHER BLAH BLAH BLAH.

lol

:roll:
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why? Your average voter is misinformed and ignorant. Why give them control over what our federal government can and cant do?
The average politician is usually just as misinformed and ignorant, and they write laws based on what their campaign contributors tell them to think. Considering that, I think the people deserve a right to recall unpopular votes.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What a valid federal id does is consolidate the varous local id's that all use the same identifying data, (name, dob, ssn, address, biometrics) and creates a unified central database that makes it easier to find the ID theives and Invaders.

The goverment ALREADY tracks all of us with our SSN and drivers licenses and our taxes. The opponents of national ID lost their war in the 1940's, so get over it already.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The average politician is usually just as misinformed and ignorant, and they write laws based on what their campaign contributors tell them to think. Considering that, I think the people deserve a right to recall unpopular votes.
Except the reason many votes are unpopular is because people dont understand them
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Except the reason many votes are unpopular is because people dont understand them
Neither do the Congressmen and Senators most of the time.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Neither do the Congressmen and Senators most of the time.
Which doesnt change the fact that PEOPLE are generally ignorant thus giving them veto over things like the function of our government is a BAD idea.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That doesn't answer the question.
Yes it does.

Then have that bear a picture or description.
Then, what is the difference between that, and the national ID that you hate so much?

All that would do is cause the Social Security Card to BECOME the national ID.

Or the guy looks at another ID and sees that Joe looks nothing like Bob. Guy gets arrested End of story. Comprende?
That's what I said.

So I have to go to my courthouse and pay a fee if I get colored contacts or lose weight?
Who said anything about paying a fee?

Do you have to update your driver's license every time you gain weight or get colored contacts?

This isn't streamlining. It's just adding another layer of bureaucracy.
While getting rid of lots of other layers of bureaucracy.

Things like SS cards already are federally databased.
But, they are insufficient.

I think we should have a national ID as a form of "stacking" other forms of ID on it.

IE: Everyone gets a card at birth but as you go through and get other official forms of ID and licensing, they get added digitally to the ID correlated to a DNA registry to verify the identity of the user.
That's what I've been saying, all along.

I will only support a national ID for the federal level when federal laws can be repealed by popular initiatives.
In a way, you can already do that.

All but seven states have some method for the people to bypass the legislature and pass stuff on their own.

If two thirds of the states use whatever method is at their disposal and force the state legislatures to vote to call a federal constitutional convention, then, for the first time, a federal constitutional convention is called. At that point, we can pass a federal amendment to allow a more direct voter initiative.

Why? Your average voter is misinformed and ignorant. Why give them control over what our federal government can and cant do?
For the same reason that I think voter initiative is a good thing, even when it's abused in situations such as California.

As long as a SUPER majority is needed to pass constitutional amendments, like they are at the state level, then most voter initiatives will be reduced to simple statutes, which the legislature can repeal, no fuss no muss.

Requiring everyone to put their DNA in a government database....
First of all, what CURRENT form of identification uses the person's DNA, you paranoid nut!

Second, what if a mother "voluntarily" decides to have her newborn son's DNA put in such a database? What choice would the child have?

And, what if the federal government offered each person (or parent of each person) five thousand dollars as an incentive to "sell" their DNA information, thereby giving the mother a pretty interesting incentive to say "Aw, to hell with what my son might want when he's old enough to understand."

How is that any different?
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't hate the national ID that much. I just think that it's unnecessary. If a someone is having issues with existing IDs that's their own problem. They're not that hard to figure out. It's also wouldn't be much if at all more difficult to forge a federal ID. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy and cost to a system that already is fine. Federal IDs would still be stolen, forged, and not much if at all easier to recover than other forms that already exist.
 
Top Bottom