Holy crap, and you call me an oppressive commie trying to crush the individual?We the people are free by nature. We eschew some freedoms to the collective for the sake of creating a civil society. I believe we should limit the freedoms to the absolute minimum.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
– George Bernard Shaw
Cute. But you misread the elipsed "we cede to the state" which may quiet your heart. Thus it would read:Quote by: lukas8u
We the people are free by nature. We eschew some freedoms to the collective for the sake of creating a civil society. I believe we should limit the freedoms we cede to the state to the absolute minimum.
And I don't recall ever calling you such. But now that you mention it....... Just kidding.
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.
Those freedoms ceded to the state are an interesting issue and this involved federalism and the arrangements for the administration of government. The overarching theory is that the closer the government is to the citizenry, the better it represents them and is sensitive to their particular needs and interests.
The federal system in the US reflects the theory well and each state has its own set of laws, a three branched government with its own executive (the Governor), legislature (State Assembly) and judiciary systems. Laws passed by state legislatures do reflect local idiosyncrases.
The federal government has increased its scope and its legal primacy over state laws causes friction. The general rule is that Federal laws in the same matter are the base, that state laws can regulate more, but not allow something federal law limits. There are complicated constitutional and judicial tests applied to determine whether state or federal law governs, generally it comes down to enforcement and liability.
People advocating for stronger state government generally see the federal authorities as encroaching on state powers. Advocates for federal laws see a need to assure citizens everywhere have the same rights regardless of what state laws say, while those who would like to limit federal authorities believe state laws better reflect local concerns.
There's a need to balance the competing interests.
Who is going to make these I.D. cards and who is going to pay for it?Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.
I am not too educated on immigration, but I will assume the current system is broke. The reason why immigration is broke is because government is broke.
As far as I am concerned I am documented enough.
"One objection that many critics have is the problem of logistics. However, with technologically advanced aircraft at His disposal, transportation for Jesus was NEVER a problem" ---- loser
Paranoiacs will tell us the new biometrics feature a chip which can be tracked by satellite. If the government wants to know where you are, they just beam your number to the satellite and it instantly pinpoints your location tracking your movements on a map.
That's what cell phones are for. OnStar too.
Some people are just bad at being paranoid. They worry about the wrong things, like that ID cards will be filled with arbitrary information... about what?
I don't know about the guy you were talking to but I can't think of anything they'd be likely to put in a card that I wouldn't want there. What specifically are you afraid of?Are you willing to say that there exists no data that you do not want available in a card that you must carry that is demandable and readable to whomever the government wants to give it to?
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
What bothers me is that advertisers will find a way to access the data and 'target' me with their ads!
Wait, why would I give the card to advertisers?
Is there something I'm missing here?
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
Too late, they don't need the government to do that.What bothers me is that advertisers will find a way to access the data and 'target' me with their ads!
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
– George Bernard Shaw
Note the pejorative use of the word “fear” in the loaded question.
The free citizen need not experience fear to hold disdain for the idea of a federally mandated ID card; said card to be authorized by law, said law not to contain neither a limitation of the scope of information that may at any point be required to be included nor a limit as too whom the information will be provided to.
The free citizen need only recognize that such an ID card, capable of imparting uncontrolled amounts of information to whomever the federal government deems worthy of gaining it, is an unnecessary invasion of one’s security in one’s papers.
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.
And why should the free citizen think himself any less free because that information is on the card.
Nice job on pretending fear isn't the problem when your last paragraph suggests there might be something to fear in the government having all this info on a card. IE. you never know who will read the information.
But still you remain quiet on exactly what information about yourself your scared others will find out about.
As for being unnecessary i suggest you go back and read the OP again.
Thus you see this statement as being based in fear?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks