Slashdot Mirror
US Lawmakers Eyeing National ID Card
According to Wired (and no big surprise, considering the practicalities of implementing massive changes in medical finance), US lawmakers "are proposing a national identification card, a 'fraud-proof' Social Security card required for lawful employment in the United States. The proposal comes as the Department of Homeland Security is moving toward nationalizing driver licenses."
The basic problem with this and many similar measures is not that people disagree with the *intent* of the changes, they disagree that there is a connection between the intent and the action.
Having IDs which are harder to fake is probably a good thing. Fake IDs are the source of much fraud, and fraud is a big problem. Let's do something about it.
Now ask yourself the following question: Would you support this measure if it cost money and made IDs easier to fake?
See Bruce Schneier for a thoughtful analysis.
Here, let me quote from that article:
Whenever anything like this comes up we keep asking the wrong questions. "We should ban liquids to make us safer", "we need to take naked pictures of all airline passengers to make us safe", "we should let border guards rifle through everyone's PCs to make us safe".
Everyone wants to be safe, there's absolutely no doubt about that, we should be in favor of all these measures.
But do you support expensive naked-photo camera systems if they make us *less* safe? Again, thoughtful commentary from people who have to actually make a living at this sort of thing is instructive.
Stop distracting us with the intent and convince us of the effectiveness.
Despite what you learn from fables in grade school, rights come from society. You have a right to life- but that right won't stop a bullet. You have a right to free speech- but that won't stop a bullet, or a broken jaw. Rights are an ephermal idea with no basis in nature. The only natural "rights" are the laws of physics. Rights only have any force when society organizes itself in such a way as to enable enforcement of them. The way it does so is via a government. Which does put government in an interesting dual position- its job is to enforce the rights of all, but its great power makes it possible for it to be a horrible violator of them as well. That's why it requires constant citizen oversight and correctional systems.
That also means what your rights are is a reflection of what society decides they should be. This list can expand or contract over time. For example, progressives believe that the right to life must include a right to health (or at least health care, which is as close as humans can come to a right to health) or else proclaiming such a right is meaningless rhetoric. And it looks like we just won that one. Sixty years ago blacks didn't have the right to go to a white school, only the lunatic fringe would argue against that now. 200 years ago you had the right to own the most powerful weapon of the day, I doubt many people would argue for the right of a private citizen to own a nuke now. Yet many people do argue for a right to own lesser weapons (guns), and society has mostly agreed on that. Seventy years ago you didn't have Miranda rights, now you do and have a right to be informed of them. Rights change over time, as society dictates. Nothing will change that, all you can do is argue for those that you truely believe to be important, such as free speech, be preserved or added.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
What?!?! We have the highest per capita healthcare costs in the world!. Yes, higher than Germany, UK, Canada, and all the other "socialist" European countries.
Geez, educate yourself before you make a comment. It bothers the hell out of me when I see one of my fellow countrymen spewing out utter nonsense about foreign healthcare.
Ride the skies
And unless he was threatening you with a weapon, you'll be tried, found guilty, and executed for murder as you deserve.
Maybe in your state, but not in mine.
There are several states in the US in which an intruder in a habitation is presumed to have hostile intent, regardless of whether he is threatening you or has a weapon.
Wrong. Here in Arizona, if someone enters my house, I can shoot him dead on sight. His actions and intent are unimportant; only his presence beyond my front door has any bearing. Texas is the same way, as are many other US states.
Please stop spreading false information. Maybe your crappy state (probably IL or NJ) doesn't allow you to defend yourself against intruders, but most states do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine In many states, you can indeed use lethal force without further provocation.
There are a lot of big problems in our mishmash of vested interests that leads to so much wasted money.
* We have a legal system that allows for excessive damages in medical malpractice suits. This makes it mandatory for doctors to carry a heavy burden of insurance and that gets passed on to whoever is paying for the medical care. Doctors over-perform tests and over-prescribe drugs because of fear they may be sued.
* Prescription drugs are allowed to be marketed to consumers, driving demand and insurance costs where covered.
* Pharmaceutical prices are unregulated, allowing excessive profiteering.
* Hospitals are allowed to operate for profit. WTF?
* Hospitals are able to milk patients with inflated fees for basic items.
* Medical insurance companies are allowed to operate for profit.
* Mutual insurance companies are allowed to convert to for-profit status.
* Employer provided health insurance reduces the competitiveness among insurers because the employees don't directly feel the brunt of the costs and lack options from different providers that would drive costs down. This unnecessarily raises costs for private insurance. It remains to be seen how the new plan will save money here.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Please stay away from Arizona. I like the law here a lot, why do you want to protect the intruder? If you don't belong in a house then don't enter it, how hard is that to follow? Whenever places pass laws against Castle Doctrine there are always asshole criminals who break into someones house, get shot up but not killed, and then end up suing the poor homeowners. Also look at gun control stats and you will find that anywhere in the US that has increased gun control there is an increase in criminal behavior and places with less gun control usually have much lower rates of crime.
While you may feel safe calling the police and waiting for them to arrive when an intruder breaks into your home I prefer to actually be able to protect myself and if the intruder does not respond and run the other way after my warning then they will be having a close conversation with a bullet not long after. Many home invasions in Arizona result in the homeowner and others seriously injured or dead and many are also kidnapped (Phoenix is number 2 in the WORLD for kidnappings, Mexico City is the only other city in the world with more), I won't be messing around with any intruders that is for sure. Here is a link to an article about how Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the USA:
http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-17/news/hc-freshperez-mexico-drug-carte.artmar17_1_drug-cartels-ciudad-juarez-border-town
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
The correct term for such invaders is illegal aliens. Please stop referring to them as illegal immigrants, as immigrants enter the country legally. Illegal aliens do not.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Lemme tell you a little story:
I have an "authentic, long-form birth certificate, signed by the physician who delivered him and bearing an authentic raised seal". It was issued in California when I was born.
You know who won't accept it of proof of my birth? The State of California. Or, for that matter, any of the other 49 states, nor the federal government.
Why? The thing is a forger's wet dream. The blank form was a xerox of a xerox of a xerox (and so on), that was filled out on an IBM Selectric typewriter. There is an indecipherable scrawl in the space for the doctor's signature. Yes there's a seal, but it's really hard to make out after being compressed by a stack of papers in my parent's safety deposit box for decades. And I could order a copy of that seal from thousands of places on the Internet for less than $40.
What will these states take as proof of my birth? A certified abstract of birth, issued by the State of California. Much like the one Obama put out on the Internet. Why? It actually has some anti-counterfeiting technology in it.
You know who doesn't have a birth certificate from a US state? John McCain. He was born in Panama (he's a citizen, since he was born to US parents).
So, can we stop the birther bullshit and get on with trying to govern?