Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 3 months ago
    natural rights
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
      Wouldn't Natural Rights be not having to show or possess any ID at all? ID is for societal purposes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 3 months ago
        the only people who should have IDs in a proper govt are govt officials
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by davidmcnab 8 years, 3 months ago
          Disagree. I've got tenants who are now a month in arrears with their rent. The normal tenant screening process involves consulting a 'bad tenant' database, but deadbeats bypass that by simply using a whole range of identities.

          Deadbeats move into a house, pay no rent, tarnish one ID. No problem. Then they switch to the next ID, and move into a whole different house.

          Meanwhile, the welfare agencies keep lending them bond money for each new property, and add it to their total debts, which they only need to repay at $20 a week max, no matter how much debt.

          Another abuse of anonymity comes from dodgy businessmen. Example - builders who cut corners, and produce a beautiful house that will start leaking within a month. They build a bunch of bad houses in one area, pocket the profits, and move to another area, operate under a new ID, never having to be accountable for the harm they're causing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 3 months ago
            you are making MY case. multiple "identities" tied to some SS number or DL don't seem to ease your role as landlord. shoddy business practices earns a reputation. Don't hire fly by night construction companies or contractors
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
          Not sure I entirely agree... I can think of many reasons in society to have a form of identification. Now asking for that ID or being required to show ID is another matter entirely.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 3 months ago
            well, I would agree there are reasons for contracting to have some way of identifying yourself-but the state should never be involved in controlling or issuing IDs. Remember, it is a very recent event that you have a SS number-now tied to your ID which govt PROMISED would NEVER happen. ha
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 3 months ago
              Yes, the country seems to have functioned quite well without ID for quite a long time.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 3 months ago
                America functioned well pre-20th Century without ID because long-distance travel was difficult and expensive enough that, in all but the major cities, you could know all your neighbors, thus making it expensive for the kind of deadbeats DavidMcNab is talking about to "disappear."

                In the modern world that is no longer true, and thus, reputation simply can't work any more. We need IDs that prevent that kind of "disappearance." Now that even fingerprints can be changed or faked, I don't see any way to do it without a monopoly agency issuing IDs.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 3 months ago
                  I just can't agree. You do not have freedom if in order to participate in the life around you, the gov't forces you to ID yourself with their approved documents. It's impossible.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 3 months ago
                    I wouldn't have the government force ID. But I would have them produce reliable ones, and I would personally require them (or equivalent safeguards such as bonding) from tenants or anyone in a position to cost me big bucks.

                    If you want to be more trusting, I have no problem with that.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
              I remember that promise.
              I think that persons can have ID that THEY choose. I live in las vegas, and I have a number of players cards, which are a form of ID, but its my choice having one, and I decide if its worth it to me.
              The government is my enemy in MANY ways, so I would not choose to have a government ID if it wasnt required.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 3 months ago
    isn't this a privilege of the airlines? . if I want to fly Delta,
    I must have a Delta-acceptable ID. . I escaped from
    the USAF just in time to miss the national DNA sampling,
    and I am damn glad. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccwho 8 years, 3 months ago
    I suggest everyone read the

    Nuremberg Diary, by G. M. Gilbert.

    And/or

    The Nuremberg Interviews, by Leon Goldensohn

    It provides some insight into the minds on those who suffer from meglomania..
    IE.. current administration and generally most modern professional politicians. It also serves as a warning to thier tricks.

    Why do we keep electing these people?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Snezzy 8 years, 3 months ago
      Why we elect them? Was it Stalin who said the important part of voting is counting the votes?

      Why does anyone run for office or accept public service? I knew a fellow who made only a modest salary but always drove a new Cadillac. He was on the Zoning Board of Appeals for his town, and the Cadillac dealer never had any trouble with the Board.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 3 months ago
    I don't think they caved. They moved the deadline. Socialists are patient. They know something will happen and a time will come when this can be implemented. Eliminate the deadline and DHS.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 3 months ago
      You are so correct. And it will be implemented quietly when people are not paying attention. Of course that is somewhere in the vicinity of 364 days a year anymore.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 3 months ago
    Right to travel. Much more fundamental than states rights.
    Cato is using this to say that it will never happen and people are just conspiracy kooks.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
      Ah hah I've been waiting for this one. The right to travel is not guaranteed along with 50 plus others commonly assumed to be in the Constitution.

      It doesn't have to be;.

      Interfering with travel is not a right granted to the government except in the area of interstate commerce in which case they are required to move against interference and under Article IV full faith and credit of laws of the 50 separate States. Which does not mean the laws of one state apply to all States. The fatal fallacy in Same Sex. the court's problem is too many lawyers and not enough citizens.

      Insofar as private travel by citizens they have no authority to do or say squat.

      Travel and freedom of travel is a NOT a right granted to the government therefore automatically for the government it does not exist. Not being visited by the Court means nothing. There is nothing to visit. Those who interfere with a right not granted and try to do so officially are criminals. The President is not exempted.

      Those rights are called natural rights and as db state are much more fundamental than states rights or federal rights. As any decent competent Constitutional Law instructor would know.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
        Without society, voluntary or otherwise, db would be correct, As I've stated more times than I care to admit, the first person to stake a bit of land as his own trumps the universal natural right to travel. If individuals can't band together to make villages, towns cities, counties, States, and Nations I could agree with db. Since those thing are a reality from the dawn of man the philosophical concept of this right has never been and never will be practiced.

        Proof - come on my property without my permission, climb the wall to one of my neighbors houses, ignore my words to leave and see how healthy you remain or how long you continue to breathe.

        "Ug" what the caveman (person say) when he wanders the world as a nomad looking for food (that is, until he comes to a cave someone else claimed as shelter.).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 3 months ago
        It is not possible to settle the issue without distinguishing the difference between rights and permissions. Laws, when valid, give permission to a government to take some action to either force some group of people to do something or to stop doing something. A right is freedom to act by an individual without needing to ask for permission to do the action. All individuals have such rights to freely taken actions but not to actions where a government action such as from a permission given to it by law defends others from the that chosen action. Government has no rights, just permissions to act in certain contexts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
          But people can and do collaborate to create bounties which their elected government enforces. While government, the entity, has no rights it received it right from the consent of the government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 3 months ago
            No, the government receives its permission from the consent of the governed. Why give the government freedom to act other than as in permissive actions. If the government acts by right, it does not need laws to do so. Remember that all laws are force laws which either stops some group of citizens by threat of force or by force from acting or it forces a group of citizens to act in some way. There is no other reason for a law.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
              If individuals own their rights then they have the ability to delegate to someone else, should they choose, to act on their behalf. This is the bedrock of governance. The framework of that granted"permission", in this country, is the Constitution. Its within the framework of the Constitution that government function without asking permission for everything it does. Many of the issues we have today stem from a government that forgot that it is only a collection delegates who, without consent, have no more or less rights than any other individual; they've put themselves above the Constitution and have delegitimized the purpose and reason for the roles they were given. Force, to me, is an unConsitutional rule or action; something enacted or enforced that is not defined as a function of government as granted by the Constitution.

              Force is not someone or a collection of people (country) saying "don't come on my land" nor should it be.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 3 months ago
                I do not see what the problem is that you are having trouble with. A law gives a government permission to take some action toward some group of peoples ---citizens or not---, usually threatening to take a forceful action, action against some group but needs not ask the group to take the action against them since they permit the action by law. In a society, an individual may give permission for the government to act as an agent for his self defense through a law, but does not give up the right of self defense. There is no owning of rights, since 'rights' is a concept that a mind develops and can only be forgotten to remove, it is inalienable. Rand defined rights as a moral principle that sanctions an individual's freedom of action in social context. Rights are a matter of choice with any particular individual. A right can be exercised without asking any other individual's permission. That does not mean that an individual will agree to the action if it interferes with his freedom of action. The moral principle must be identified to be valid. It does not mean that your understanding of the principle will be shared by others. It has to be formed with regard to what freedoms of action are possible in a society that are possible without interfering with similar freedoms in others. It is moral because it is chosen by the individual. Being moral does not necessarily make the principle good but only that the individual is able to sanction his freedom of action in the social context by the principle. Others may not agree that one has the freedom implied by the principle and not recognize the right as is the case in today's world. You could consider a right as intellectual property and thus owned but it is purely in one's mind as patterns that can cause expressing the right in speech and action but IP requires giving permission to others who want to use it and that is no required for using a principle of freedom.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
                  I'm not having an issue with anything you said, I think we're splitting hairs over minor points (never my intention), which would likely be the difference between an Objectivist and a Conservative view of things.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 3 months ago
    When you give up your right to be left alone and allow someone else to give you your identification, you've lost all rights of self ownership.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
      I'm not really sure I understand you. If I go for a driver license have I ceded my ownership of self? Mind you, a license is only needed to travel on public roadways and anyone can operate a vehicle on a farm with or without a license.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by eddieh 8 years, 3 months ago
    First of all aren't these the same people that don't want voter ID's ?
    Second of all this is sounding more and more like "Anthem"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 3 months ago
    2018: A man in uniform with a pencil mustache, a dueling scar, and a monocle says "You vill show me yourrr paperrrs "
    Is this what we have to look forward to?
    Does anyone know what a bataka is? It's a heavy material stuffed with some kind of soft stuff in the shape of a club and has a handle at one end. It allows you to beat the crap out of a selected object without doing any damage. I lost mine years ago. I need a new one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 8 years, 3 months ago
    I wonder if they will require that for voting?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
      It will be used for everything as the Real Card system gradually replaces the older versions. Except the social security card which is still ink on paper with photos. Even Social security required two forms of photo ID when I signed up. National ID by osmosis. It isn't the card it's the chip.

      Hi my name is 111-22-3333 My street name is MichaelA My full government name is 111-222-3333 88888-9999 four through seven are reserved for other purposes
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
    They will have a machine at the check point it will have a churman accent.

    " Willkommen in der Demokratischen Volksrepublik . Welchen Zweck des Besuches ?

    Ich wohne hier

    Ihr Visum ?

    kein Mastercard

    Sie Papiere nicht in Ordnung

    And one more for good measure....

    " Dobro pozhalovat' v Narodno-demokraticheskoy respubliki . Kakova tsel' vizita ?

    ya zhivu zdes'

    Vasha viza ?

    Net Mastercard

    Vy dokumenty ne v tselyakh

    and one more for good measure....

    人民民主共和国。访问目的是什么?

    我住在这里

    您的签证?

    没有万事达卡

    你的论文不是为了

    “Huānyíng lái dào rénmín mínzhǔ gònghéguó. Fǎngwèn mùdì shì shénme?

    Wǒ zhù zài zhèlǐ

    nín de qiānzhèng?

    Méiyǒu wànshìdá kǎ
    بلدي تحديد مواطن 111-22-3333

    baladay tahdid muatin 111-22-3333?

    كنت من ولاية كاليفورنيا؟

    kunt min wilayat kaliafurnya?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
    If the comments reminded you of Hillary it's the same mold. The left is NOT going to jeopardize their work of 100 years plus for he sake of any certain incremental step now instead of later. They are not going to back any one candidate if it means losing ground instead of just waiting out the interest and they are happy with which ever candidate wins secure that it will be one of theirs. In the meantime they will plug the cracks, loopholes and possibilities for losing control. They are nothing if not patient.

    The groundswell of interest, disgust, and dislike this time around is spreading faster than they they foresaw. they have huge problems with the economy just around the corner and a major part of the cycle of economic repression to oversee what some have described as recession part II where the bills from part I come due. There is an internal split between aristocratic neo feudalist ruling class elites the traditional establishment and the...what I'll call the well funded nouveau riche upstart jump ups that needs management and settling down.

    But the have gained ground co-opting the two party system into a one coalition group system. OTher than a few squeakers who, except for two have all caved. They have Cruz a foreign born running for office - without benefit of court ruling or amendment just opinion of some and even then Cruz has supported the left's tax systems openly. They have Trump who is somewhere between Rino and National Socialist but a full time looter. When you think about it everything he supports helps the left one way or another and they have a splintered divided ineffective opposition other than the anger of the great unwashed. Which won't last much past the next football season. It's time for them to pat the mob on the head and say, we hear you, while doing what they always do. two steps forward one step back repeat.

    So how does that ground swell become a tsunami? How does it turn to our advantage? How does it put us back under the Constitution? Because some left wing approved candidate says edicts will be canceled?

    Takes more than that. Or it will disappear by before the next off season elections.

    Hillary is their number one candidate and their greatest danger at this time. With her continuing the pressure begun by Obeyme ninth and tenth amendments will continue to be - ignored.

    For some reason I keep returning to Carly Fiorini as a camel's nose candidate IF the right VP is picked for four years later. The current crop has come a cropper for that job.

    Failing that ...marginalizing the claim of representation with greater than 50% non registered and of those registered greater than 50% not voting.

    Either way it's a counter-revolution and a legal one IF the military becomes involved as their oath of office requires. And if they are supported and if they find people that can be plugged in as they drag the country back under the Constitution. Kicking, screaming, or sent to re-education camps the left is talking about but with reverse purpose. Legally it will be their call.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo