Posted by
michael
on from the you'll-get-one-anyway dept.
The Rev writes "Well after the previousarticles on this subject the BBC is carrying a story about how the UK Home Office has finally admited that the overwhelming public response to its public consultation was against the idea of a National ID Card System."
When does the givernment ever listen to the general public? And why should they. Inmates running the asylum? I've always heard that was a bad idea. If the givernment listened to public outcries, no one would pay taxes, and weed would be legal.
If you live in a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" as Abraham Lincoln said; then, yes, the govenment should listen to the opinions of it's citizens. After all, your congressional representatives exist to represent your opinions.
Cost of a Free Society
by
digime
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The question to the government should not be whether or not the public would favor an ID card, but whether or not they would like to keep their society free. Implementing a national ID system would be a huge victory for terrorists, not the people of the UK. Terrorism would still happen, it would just happen in a society where the people had some of their freedom removed.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I'd be willing to bet that if the people voted for decriminalization of music sharing it would pass. There's not a representative or senator today who will take the other side and say the people should be allowed to download music if they want to.
Which is precisely why we're a republic and not a democracy and why the US government has (well, is supposed to have) a very limited scope of power. Most people can't or won't keep up with all the legislation that passes through Congress, so can you imagine them not only keeping up but having a deep understanding of every bill that's introduced? For as often as slashdot posts about a new bill, hundreds more are introduced that you never hear about.
Now, as dumb as I think Hatch is being about this, he does have a duty under the Constitution to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". To that extent, he is talking about a way of securing the exclusive right, whereas the other side would completely eliminate that right. If you're one of the ones who insists that the RIAA shouldn't be able to demand the user information attached to an IP address without a warrant because of the fifth amendment, you have to take the rest of the Constitution with the parts you like.
The interpretation of Abe Lincoln was wrong - the federal government doesn't exist to serve the people, but to regulate interstate affairs (including coining of money) and international affairs. It's not there to hand out money to special interest groups or to hand out subsidies. In fact, the federal government's role was never meant to have much bearing on the life of an individual at all because it's too easy for a distant bureaucrat to use the might power of a centralized government against people without really having to answer for it.
Back to the topic. Yes, the RIAA's model is horribly outdated but that doesn't mean we have the right to terminate their copyright. If you want them to change, don't steal their music, thinking you're on some holy cause, you're just removing sympathy for your cause. Instead, don't support the RIAA in any form at all. Go to concerts, buy CDs from your local bands, etc. The best way to get the RIAA to change or disappear is for them to not have anyone but themselves to blame for their business model failing. Make them fail, don't give themselves someone to blame.
Now, as for an ID card. I don't mind a government mandating a certain look/details for the card. It's hard for someone from NY to know if they're looking at a valid WI license because they've probably never seen one. The feds can get away with that much based on the interstate commerce clause (if you're driving outside of your state, they can claim that, by crossing state lines, you fall under the federal purview). However, under the Fourth Amendment, the federal government doesn't have the right to warehouse personal information about you, barring action of due process.
-- Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
" The interpretation of Abe Lincoln was wrong - the federal government doesn't exist to serve the people, but to regulate interstate affairs (including coining of money) and international affairs. It's not there to hand out money to special interest groups or to hand out subsidies. In fact, the federal government's role was never meant to have much bearing on the life of an individual at all because it's too easy for a distant bureaucrat to use the might power of a centralized government against people without really having to answer for it."
As politically incorrect as this may sound (not that I'm usually worried about that) but it's almost time to start another revolution. The British left England when they felt things weren't right with the government. They came here to setup a new form of government, in which the states could be individual, where freedom from oppression existed, and the federal government would watch things from the inside toward the outside, and let the states handle things internally.
Contrast that with what our government currently looks like. State laws get passed because federal money won't be allocated if they don't. States could set their own drinking age, smoking age, etc. but because of the fear of losing federal funding, they just go along with the federal guidelines. Our federal government is more worried about what its citizens are doing on the inside, that it doesn't seem to care about what other countries are doing on the outside.
Then again, I could be way off base. But, I don't think I am.
Slashdot Mirror
Theyre gonna do it anyways, wanna bet?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
If you live in a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" as Abraham Lincoln said; then, yes, the govenment should listen to the opinions of it's citizens. After all, your congressional representatives exist to represent your opinions.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
The question to the government should not be whether or not the public would favor an ID card, but whether or not they would like to keep their society free. Implementing a national ID system would be a huge victory for terrorists, not the people of the UK. Terrorism would still happen, it would just happen in a society where the people had some of their freedom removed.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Which is precisely why we're a republic and not a democracy and why the US government has (well, is supposed to have) a very limited scope of power. Most people can't or won't keep up with all the legislation that passes through Congress, so can you imagine them not only keeping up but having a deep understanding of every bill that's introduced? For as often as slashdot posts about a new bill, hundreds more are introduced that you never hear about.
Now, as dumb as I think Hatch is being about this, he does have a duty under the Constitution to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". To that extent, he is talking about a way of securing the exclusive right, whereas the other side would completely eliminate that right. If you're one of the ones who insists that the RIAA shouldn't be able to demand the user information attached to an IP address without a warrant because of the fifth amendment, you have to take the rest of the Constitution with the parts you like.
The interpretation of Abe Lincoln was wrong - the federal government doesn't exist to serve the people, but to regulate interstate affairs (including coining of money) and international affairs. It's not there to hand out money to special interest groups or to hand out subsidies. In fact, the federal government's role was never meant to have much bearing on the life of an individual at all because it's too easy for a distant bureaucrat to use the might power of a centralized government against people without really having to answer for it.
Back to the topic. Yes, the RIAA's model is horribly outdated but that doesn't mean we have the right to terminate their copyright. If you want them to change, don't steal their music, thinking you're on some holy cause, you're just removing sympathy for your cause. Instead, don't support the RIAA in any form at all. Go to concerts, buy CDs from your local bands, etc. The best way to get the RIAA to change or disappear is for them to not have anyone but themselves to blame for their business model failing. Make them fail, don't give themselves someone to blame.
Now, as for an ID card. I don't mind a government mandating a certain look/details for the card. It's hard for someone from NY to know if they're looking at a valid WI license because they've probably never seen one. The feds can get away with that much based on the interstate commerce clause (if you're driving outside of your state, they can claim that, by crossing state lines, you fall under the federal purview). However, under the Fourth Amendment, the federal government doesn't have the right to warehouse personal information about you, barring action of due process.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
As you said above, and I couldn't agree more,
As politically incorrect as this may sound (not that I'm usually worried about that) but it's almost time to start another revolution. The British left England when they felt things weren't right with the government. They came here to setup a new form of government, in which the states could be individual, where freedom from oppression existed, and the federal government would watch things from the inside toward the outside, and let the states handle things internally.
Contrast that with what our government currently looks like. State laws get passed because federal money won't be allocated if they don't. States could set their own drinking age, smoking age, etc. but because of the fear of losing federal funding, they just go along with the federal guidelines. Our federal government is more worried about what its citizens are doing on the inside, that it doesn't seem to care about what other countries are doing on the outside.
Then again, I could be way off base. But, I don't think I am.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation