You were a Chair Force guy? Are you good at golf. Just kidding John. No leg to stand on, since I never served.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

:-)

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

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.).

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.

Gotta love nullification by simply disregarding Federal edicts. I wish the States would do it more.

In many places you can (or at least once could) ride a horse or drive a horse carriage on the roads without any permit or license.

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.

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.

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
.

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.

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?

Agreed. Already lost the right to "private property".

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.