That's fantastic, but what does that have to do with the short-term economic incentives to shortchange on security and maintenance?
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said, even though I specifically stated it, so I will state it again: I care a lot about aircraft maintenance. I also said lawsuits can help to disincentivize any short term shortsightedness, then gave an example.
So if a almost blind "free" idiot decides to drive a car and kills me, or a dirty restauranteur makes me get thypoid or some other east sickness, there is nothing to defend the innocent, unsuspecting public?
Oh, like laws protect you from getting hit in an accident now? HAHA, years ago as a student in college I was riding my bike after class when I was hit by one of those "apartment movers" vans. While in a coma the docs told my family it wold be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! Anyway, it came out the driver who hit me had a record of causing other accidents. He moved from one state to the state I lived in because the state he used to live in issued an arrest warrant out for him.
Just because government makes a law doesn't mean it won't happen. All that may happen is the guilty party may be forced to pay the price latter. And lawsuits can do this as well. I bet the company the person who hit me worked for when he hit me will be more careful in who they hire now.
The U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of screening points
The government can't stop "illegal aliens" from crossing the US Mexican border. Yet crossing the US Canadian border is much easier. There are a lot of roads crossing the border between the Great Lakes and Puget Sound in Washington, British Colombia. And many of them don't have any check points. Living in Minneasota I can drive right into Canada and back without seeing any border agent. And there's hundreds if not thousands of miles I can hike across the border.
The President should direct the Department of Homeland Security
BS, the Department of Homeland Security, which sounds like the Department of the Fatherland, or Motherland, Security should be abolished.
Extending those standards among other governments could dramatically strengthen America and the world's collective ability to intercept individuals who pose catastrophic threats.
As well as track political dissidents or those the authorities don't like.
Want further proof?
Proof? That's no proof, all it is is recommnedations. Meanwhile, by all data being in one database it means anybody who cracks the db will have access to all the ifo instead of having to break into a bunch. It also allows the authorities to track political dissidents easier.
God save us from libertarians who only look at long-term effects.
Yes, I care more about the long term more than the short term unlike too many in business. Only this and next quarter matter, whereas I care more about the seventh generation. If I cared about the next quarter more I'd be dead.
in the meantime the discount airline with no security and maintenance
I said nothing about maintenance, especially of aircraft. Actually I wanted to be a pilot since I was a kid, so I care a lot about aircraft maintenance. Flying is in my family. My dad was a mechanic on planes, he retired from the US Airforce where he worked on B52s, and an uncle built his own plane and has his pilot's license. Like him I'd like to build my own plane and fly it.
If a law is created by the government, or even a proposition by a different political party... it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. It will be picked apart due to the political side who created it, just to make them look bad.
One way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad is to imagine your political foes having the same power. If you don't want them having it it probable bad. Some of the laws we have after 911 Clinton asked for as well, they were bad then and they still are.
What's the problem with having a national ID system?
Papers please!
From the programming/database aspect alone all of us (especially on this site) should recognise the need for a better system.
Yea, one database to go down, get corrupted, or broken into.
All of my information is currently stored in about 15 different state/federal databases already.
And if soemone wants to break in and steal the info they need to break into 15 different databases instead of one.
What's wrong with putting them in one database and giving me a card to access all of my information?
Answered above.
Are you worried about the federal government having control of that information? do you think they dont already?
They have to go through 15 different databases to get it all. And yes I am afraid of government having all that control, I fear government, which has pertetrated the worst human right violations in the world in history. Government isn't supposed to be our masters, it's supported to be our servant. All that "By the People, for the People" stuff.
But i'm sure that's just flamebait.
I hope you're not but if not I totally disagree with you. As it is now government has too much power, I don't want to give it more.
License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format
Yes different states have different license plates. I have license plates from two different states and though they are basically the same size and shape the design is different.
Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.
BS! Papers Please!
People are fighting this shit because of politics, not because it's a good or bad idea.
I am against any national id because I believe in the Constitution of the USA and because I believe in liberty and small government, ie I am a Classical Liberal
So, civil services and social security are non-constitutional because they're not run by each state?
It depends on what civil services you're talking about. As for social security, there is no Constitutional authority for it. Nor is it needed. From the tyme people start working fulltime they should be saving and investing. If a person starts saving $2000 a year from the age of 18 until they reach 25 by the tyme they are 65 they will have almost a million dollars invested at 10%. If they delay work to go to college and get a BA or BS they start saving a few years later but then they can invest more once they start working. Of course the sooner they start investing and the more they do the more they will have. When money is taken out of a person's paycheck though for social security they will not have anywhere near the same rate of return. And because more money would be invested without social security the economy woud be better, more money invested means more jobs created at higher pay.
You are right on. The discussion of identities in the US is a very emotionally charged issue(i.e. not rational). When the average American hears "National ID" they instantly think of how they were utilized by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia to carry out atrocities rather than all of the positives and practical aspects you outlined.
That's right, because they can just as easily be used for one as for the other. In both NAZI Germany and Stalinist Russia it was supposedly used to begin with for "safety" and security. It was only after people got used to them that they were used for bad reasons.
[Btw, The countries part of the European Union have a "unified" passport, in fact, apart from specification of country of origin (in several ways, some to help prevent counterfeits, most of which were demanded by the US after 9/11 (not meant as a complaint, just giving some "historical" information:-))) and nobody in Europe is complaining those passports are used to "track everyone".]
Are those passports required for anything other than international travel? I bet not, however there are a number of things the Real ID Act will require this id for. Such as to open a bank account. Then once people get used to it there'll come "Papers please" while just walking down the sidewalk.
I guess my question is: what do people have against a national ID?
Two things, "Papers please" and the Constitution of the USA does not give the government any power to mandate a national id.
I am at least as anti-Big Brother as the next guy:-)
I wouldn't say you're that much anti-Big Brother if you can't see the ramifications of a national id. But then again coming from Europe I'm not supprized the way things are there.
Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
Why not question why government wants to mandate ids, especially when they haven't proven ids will make anyone safer and more secure. And like Benjamin Franklin said, paraphrasing, "Anyone willing to give up a little freedom for security will neither get nor deserve either."
The Texas Legislature just recessed until January 2009; by the state constitution, the legislature can only meet for 140 days every two years
It used to be like this in many states. Most people elected actually worked for a living and they couldn't afford to be away from work too long. I would fully support a similar admendment to the USA Constitution. Shorter though maybe, say like from January through March. Then require a test to make sure every politician reads each bill before they can vote on it.
there are actually some tangible benefits to this system. Better information sharing between states, harder to forge drivers licenses
You want a national id because of these? Prove it a natioanl id will make it harder to forge any id not just drivers licenses. Though I've read studies showing a national id will make id theft easier I haven't seen any that shows it will be harder.
If you're found wandering about as an adult without adequate ID in my state (Florida), that alone is enough to send you to jail until such time as you can produce some documentation confirming who you are
This must be new, less than 10 years old. I grew up in FL and while living there there was no requirement to carry id, you only needed a dl while driving.
I do understand the state's right to require it
I don't, it's only needed if you want a police state. And requiring an id is an assault on anonymity, which some Supreme Court rulings have said is essential to the First Admendment's right to free speech and free assembly. If the state, political entity, can require a person to show id at any tyme this limits their willingness to engage in political actions or protests.
I don't ever remember an 18 year old drinking age.
I do. When I was 18 I was legally able to drink alcohol for one month before a new law came into effect that raised the age limit to 19. Latter it went to 21. And the thing is is I spent tyme in Germany and there parents could order wine or beer for the children in a restaurant legally. That's a big problem in the US, because parents are no longer legally able to serve teens an occasional alcoholic drink they don't learn to drink responsibly then all of a sudden when they turn 21 they go on a drinking bing.
Perhaps you've forgotten the fact that all US Passports will eventually (within the next few years) contain an RFID chip, so you'll already be tracked wherever you go with that.
Until the passport is dropped in the road then runover.
You'd probably get a significant increase in visitors from outside the US as well. I can't speak for terrorists, but I know that I have declined to visit the US on both professional and personal grounds since 9/11 -- and not because I think terrorists are going to fly my plane into a building.
Last night CNN had a report on this. Because of the tightening of airport and airplane security foreigners are coming to the USA less than before 911. Travel industry officials said this reduction in foreigners coming to the USA has hurt them financially.
So you're saying that nobody should have to implement security standards that the government issues?
Which government? Does it have the Constitutional authority to create those standards or mandates?
What would happen if the airlines or other vulnerable operations refused to follow security standards, or just came up with their own?
The market will decide a winner. If an airline doesn't have a good enough security policy they will be subject to lawsuits and/or will have little if any passengers. Those airlines with a tough security policy will get those passengers while passengers who don't want to fill out application forms and have their background investigated will fly an airline that doesn't do these.
Ok I switched NH and Vermont around, then again due to a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, my memory isn't as good as it used to be. However looking at another map, I see NH only has a small coastline near Boston. I much prefer Florida's coastline which offers a lot of places to scuba dive, which I love to do.
I assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?
The aim of the Free State Project was to find a state where liberty loving people could move to who would then turn the state around on it's head and eventually get rid of all these laws, rules, and regulations. NH comes as close to this already as most any state, and the project organizers wanted to get thousands to move there who would then tip over politics there.
While I support the Free State Project I'd find it hard to live in New Hampshire for that long as I love being on the coast. Now if it were in Vermont, or NH and Vermont were switched around, I could.
"Government is not the solution to our problem; Government *is* the problem" -R. Reagan |
Yet Reagan expanded federal government especially federal law enforcement.
most states require you to have uninsured motorist coverage as well
I've never seen or heard states require uninsured motorists coverage for auto insurance. The only tyme I've seen it required is when a loan is taken out to buy the vehicle, the loan companies require uninsured coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I care more about the long term more than the short term unlike too many in business
What does that have to do with anything? I'm not talking about profitability in the short term, I'm talking about people dying in the short term.
You were the one who said, and I quote:
" God save us from libertarians who only look at long-term effects". You brought up the long term and I responded to it.
That's fantastic, but what does that have to do with the short-term economic incentives to shortchange on security and maintenance?
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said, even though I specifically stated it, so I will state it again: I care a lot about aircraft maintenance. I also said lawsuits can help to disincentivize any short term shortsightedness, then gave an example.
FalconSo if a almost blind "free" idiot decides to drive a car and kills me, or a dirty restauranteur makes me get thypoid or some other east sickness, there is nothing to defend the innocent, unsuspecting public?
Oh, like laws protect you from getting hit in an accident now? HAHA, years ago as a student in college I was riding my bike after class when I was hit by one of those "apartment movers" vans. While in a coma the docs told my family it wold be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! Anyway, it came out the driver who hit me had a record of causing other accidents. He moved from one state to the state I lived in because the state he used to live in issued an arrest warrant out for him.
Just because government makes a law doesn't mean it won't happen. All that may happen is the guilty party may be forced to pay the price latter. And lawsuits can do this as well. I bet the company the person who hit me worked for when he hit me will be more careful in who they hire now.
FalconThe U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of screening points
The government can't stop "illegal aliens" from crossing the US Mexican border. Yet crossing the US Canadian border is much easier. There are a lot of roads crossing the border between the Great Lakes and Puget Sound in Washington, British Colombia. And many of them don't have any check points. Living in Minneasota I can drive right into Canada and back without seeing any border agent. And there's hundreds if not thousands of miles I can hike across the border.
The President should direct the Department of Homeland Security
BS, the Department of Homeland Security, which sounds like the Department of the Fatherland, or Motherland, Security should be abolished.
Extending those standards among other governments could dramatically strengthen America and the world's collective ability to intercept individuals who pose catastrophic threats.
As well as track political dissidents or those the authorities don't like.
Want further proof?
Proof? That's no proof, all it is is recommnedations. Meanwhile, by all data being in one database it means anybody who cracks the db will have access to all the ifo instead of having to break into a bunch. It also allows the authorities to track political dissidents easier.
FalconGod save us from libertarians who only look at long-term effects.
Yes, I care more about the long term more than the short term unlike too many in business. Only this and next quarter matter, whereas I care more about the seventh generation. If I cared about the next quarter more I'd be dead.
in the meantime the discount airline with no security and maintenance
I said nothing about maintenance, especially of aircraft. Actually I wanted to be a pilot since I was a kid, so I care a lot about aircraft maintenance. Flying is in my family. My dad was a mechanic on planes, he retired from the US Airforce where he worked on B52s, and an uncle built his own plane and has his pilot's license. Like him I'd like to build my own plane and fly it.
FalconIf a law is created by the government, or even a proposition by a different political party... it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. It will be picked apart due to the political side who created it, just to make them look bad.
One way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad is to imagine your political foes having the same power. If you don't want them having it it probable bad. Some of the laws we have after 911 Clinton asked for as well, they were bad then and they still are.
Falcongo grab a history book (or two) and read up on how America got to be where it is today.
While I generally agree with this post of your's the history book part is tricky. Depending on what books are picked they may say different things.
FalconWhat's the problem with having a national ID system?
Papers please!
From the programming/database aspect alone all of us (especially on this site) should recognise the need for a better system.
Yea, one database to go down, get corrupted, or broken into.
All of my information is currently stored in about 15 different state/federal databases already.
And if soemone wants to break in and steal the info they need to break into 15 different databases instead of one.
What's wrong with putting them in one database and giving me a card to access all of my information?
Answered above.
Are you worried about the federal government having control of that information? do you think they dont already?
They have to go through 15 different databases to get it all. And yes I am afraid of government having all that control, I fear government, which has pertetrated the worst human right violations in the world in history. Government isn't supposed to be our masters, it's supported to be our servant. All that "By the People, for the People" stuff.
But i'm sure that's just flamebait.
I hope you're not but if not I totally disagree with you. As it is now government has too much power, I don't want to give it more.
FalconLicense plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format
Yes different states have different license plates. I have license plates from two different states and though they are basically the same size and shape the design is different.
Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.
BS! Papers Please!
People are fighting this shit because of politics, not because it's a good or bad idea.
I am against any national id because I believe in the Constitution of the USA and because I believe in liberty and small government, ie I am a Classical Liberal
. FalconAside from all the legalities, do you think that having a unified ID across the states is a bad idea?
Yes.
I'm just saying that rather than fighting it, it should have been something that was done a long time ago.
I totally disagree!
FalconSo, civil services and social security are non-constitutional because they're not run by each state?
It depends on what civil services you're talking about. As for social security, there is no Constitutional authority for it. Nor is it needed. From the tyme people start working fulltime they should be saving and investing. If a person starts saving $2000 a year from the age of 18 until they reach 25 by the tyme they are 65 they will have almost a million dollars invested at 10%. If they delay work to go to college and get a BA or BS they start saving a few years later but then they can invest more once they start working. Of course the sooner they start investing and the more they do the more they will have. When money is taken out of a person's paycheck though for social security they will not have anywhere near the same rate of return. And because more money would be invested without social security the economy woud be better, more money invested means more jobs created at higher pay.
FalconYou are right on. The discussion of identities in the US is a very emotionally charged issue(i.e. not rational). When the average American hears "National ID" they instantly think of how they were utilized by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia to carry out atrocities rather than all of the positives and practical aspects you outlined.
That's right, because they can just as easily be used for one as for the other. In both NAZI Germany and Stalinist Russia it was supposedly used to begin with for "safety" and security. It was only after people got used to them that they were used for bad reasons.
Falcon[Btw, The countries part of the European Union have a "unified" passport, in fact, apart from specification of country of origin (in several ways, some to help prevent counterfeits, most of which were demanded by the US after 9/11 (not meant as a complaint, just giving some "historical" information :-))) and nobody in Europe is complaining those passports are used to "track everyone".]
Are those passports required for anything other than international travel? I bet not, however there are a number of things the Real ID Act will require this id for. Such as to open a bank account. Then once people get used to it there'll come "Papers please" while just walking down the sidewalk.
I guess my question is: what do people have against a national ID?
Two things, "Papers please" and the Constitution of the USA does not give the government any power to mandate a national id.
I am at least as anti-Big Brother as the next guy :-)
I wouldn't say you're that much anti-Big Brother if you can't see the ramifications of a national id. But then again coming from Europe I'm not supprized the way things are there.
Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
Why not question why government wants to mandate ids, especially when they haven't proven ids will make anyone safer and more secure. And like Benjamin Franklin said, paraphrasing, "Anyone willing to give up a little freedom for security will neither get nor deserve either."
FalconA secure ID would help keep us much safer than a few extra bombers.
Prove it.
it is likely that a secure ID would have made it much more difficult for the terrorists and may have prevented the attacks altogether.
Prove the real id requirements will be more secure. Then prove that's all it will be used for.
Thomas Jefferson didn't trust government and neither do I. It's government that has acted out the worst atrocities throughout history.
FalconThe Texas Legislature just recessed until January 2009; by the state constitution, the legislature can only meet for 140 days every two years
It used to be like this in many states. Most people elected actually worked for a living and they couldn't afford to be away from work too long. I would fully support a similar admendment to the USA Constitution. Shorter though maybe, say like from January through March. Then require a test to make sure every politician reads each bill before they can vote on it.
Falconthere are actually some tangible benefits to this system. Better information sharing between states, harder to forge drivers licenses
You want a national id because of these? Prove it a natioanl id will make it harder to forge any id not just drivers licenses. Though I've read studies showing a national id will make id theft easier I haven't seen any that shows it will be harder.
FalconIf you're found wandering about as an adult without adequate ID in my state (Florida), that alone is enough to send you to jail until such time as you can produce some documentation confirming who you are
This must be new, less than 10 years old. I grew up in FL and while living there there was no requirement to carry id, you only needed a dl while driving.
I do understand the state's right to require it
I don't, it's only needed if you want a police state. And requiring an id is an assault on anonymity, which some Supreme Court rulings have said is essential to the First Admendment's right to free speech and free assembly. If the state, political entity, can require a person to show id at any tyme this limits their willingness to engage in political actions or protests.
FalconI don't ever remember an 18 year old drinking age.
I do. When I was 18 I was legally able to drink alcohol for one month before a new law came into effect that raised the age limit to 19. Latter it went to 21. And the thing is is I spent tyme in Germany and there parents could order wine or beer for the children in a restaurant legally. That's a big problem in the US, because parents are no longer legally able to serve teens an occasional alcoholic drink they don't learn to drink responsibly then all of a sudden when they turn 21 they go on a drinking bing.
FalconPerhaps you've forgotten the fact that all US Passports will eventually (within the next few years) contain an RFID chip, so you'll already be tracked wherever you go with that.
Until the passport is dropped in the road then runover.
FalconYou'd probably get a significant increase in visitors from outside the US as well. I can't speak for terrorists, but I know that I have declined to visit the US on both professional and personal grounds since 9/11 -- and not because I think terrorists are going to fly my plane into a building.
Last night CNN had a report on this. Because of the tightening of airport and airplane security foreigners are coming to the USA less than before 911. Travel industry officials said this reduction in foreigners coming to the USA has hurt them financially.
FalconSo you're saying that nobody should have to implement security standards that the government issues?
Which government? Does it have the Constitutional authority to create those standards or mandates?
What would happen if the airlines or other vulnerable operations refused to follow security standards, or just came up with their own?
The market will decide a winner. If an airline doesn't have a good enough security policy they will be subject to lawsuits and/or will have little if any passengers. Those airlines with a tough security policy will get those passengers while passengers who don't want to fill out application forms and have their background investigated will fly an airline that doesn't do these.
FalconI assume you were educated in a government-run school. *sigh*
Anyway, use your favorite map tool to check Portsmouth, NH
Ok I switched NH and Vermont around, then again due to a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, my memory isn't as good as it used to be. However looking at another map, I see NH only has a small coastline near Boston. I much prefer Florida's coastline which offers a lot of places to scuba dive, which I love to do.
*Sigh*
FalconReally...All the states need to do is... Require people to get a US passport. Pass the burden over to the Federal Government.
Yea, the states need an internal passport like the old Soviet Union. NOT!!! Having a passport is a good idea but it should be voluntary not required.
FalconI assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?
The aim of the Free State Project was to find a state where liberty loving people could move to who would then turn the state around on it's head and eventually get rid of all these laws, rules, and regulations. NH comes as close to this already as most any state, and the project organizers wanted to get thousands to move there who would then tip over politics there.
FalconWhile I support the Free State Project I'd find it hard to live in New Hampshire for that long as I love being on the coast. Now if it were in Vermont, or NH and Vermont were switched around, I could.
"Government is not the solution to our problem; Government *is* the problem" -R. Reagan |
Yet Reagan expanded federal government especially federal law enforcement.
Falconmost states require you to have uninsured motorist coverage as well
I've never seen or heard states require uninsured motorists coverage for auto insurance. The only tyme I've seen it required is when a loan is taken out to buy the vehicle, the loan companies require uninsured coverage.
Falcon