Foxfyre wrote:Well I'm happy to know that you don't discriminate against sex offenders and habitual drunk drivers in Germany, Walter. I'll have to rethink visiting there when we go to Europe next year, however.
Do so. (We don't change our constitution only because of your visit nor do other European countries, I think.)
USAFHokie80 wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I see that as open door for all kinds of discrimination.
You realize that if an 18 year old is convicted of having sex with a 17 year old they are considered a sex offender. Should that person have to carry that around with them for the rest of their lives? What kind of life do you envision for those who can never escape their past?
while i disagree with the law, the convictionn is still public domain and as such, they shouldn't be able to escape from their past.
what about murderers? should they be able to escape?
If someone is a danger to society he/she shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place, IMO. If you want to allow for rehabilitation then I think you need to allow for some means of escaping one's past.
The sex offender/child predator is an extreme and difficult case that we need to find a solution for. However, mixing that in with a national identification is an invitation for a whole new set of abuses. It puts a lot of power in the hands of agencies and governments and leaves little for individuals.
The individuals that commit crimes should not have any power. As a felon, you give up your rights. That is a basic of the penal system.
Of yours. Ours (and most European) Criminal Code is quite different.
FD writes
Quote:The sex offender/child predator is an extreme and difficult case that we need to find a solution for. However, mixing that in with a national identification is an invitation for a whole new set of abuses. It puts a lot of power in the hands of agencies and governments and leaves little for individuals.
Once you have a chance to hear the side of the victims of those sex offenders/child predators, you're likely more willing to put your faith in those agencies and the government rather than put kids at risk to those sex offenders and predators.
I've done quite a lot legal work for those - but that doesn't mean that thus the legal system has to unhinged.
I agree with Walter.
I wonder if, in hearing the stories you heard, you noticed that a lot of kids who are abused by repeat offenders live in extremely poor neighborhoods -- like trailer parks. I wonder if it occurs to you that this might be because the offenders are run out of every other neighborhood and settle in where nobody is paying attention and where kids are often left alone.
Where should these people live and work once they are let out of prison? They have to go somewhere.
But we're getting off topic. My point is that tracking criminals is absolutely not what this national id should be for.
USAFHokie80 wrote:The individuals that commit crimes should not have any power. As a felon, you give up your rights. That is a basic of the penal system.
The old "if you're not breaking any laws you have nothing to worry about" canard. Have you heard about some of the people on the no-fly list?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Of yours. Ours (and most European) Criminal Code is quite different.
Well since I began this post with reference to America, I'm not really worried about the German (or any other) penal system.
FreeDuck wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:The individuals that commit crimes should not have any power. As a felon, you give up your rights. That is a basic of the penal system.
The old "if you're not breaking any laws you have nothing to worry about" canard. Have you heard about some of the people on the no-fly list?
I really don't see any parallel here. A convicted felon loses his rights. That is part of the system. If someone chooses to break a law, that action forfeits many "rights" he may have had. For instance, the right to vote.
FreeDuck wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:The individuals that commit crimes should not have any power. As a felon, you give up your rights. That is a basic of the penal system.
The old "if you're not breaking any laws you have nothing to worry about" canard. Have you heard about some of the people on the no-fly list?
But what's better? Allowing everybody including terrorists onto airplanes everywhere or misidentifying a few that have to be cleared up?
Allowing sex offenders and predators to go wherever they want in anonymity, including school yards, parks, and other places where kids hang out, or making sure law enforcement knows who they are and where they are even if there is an occasional mistake or miscarriage of justice?
I like knowing the odds are good that I'm not sharing an airplane with terrorists. And I don't want kids put at risk just to prevent the rare case of mistaken identify or injustice that is bound to occur in any system involving large numbers of people.
In China for perhaps a thousand years a peasant had to get permission to leave the village from the local authorities, and upon arriving at a new location had to register with the police without delay. That system is still in effect, and it scares the living snot out of Americans who are accustomed to freedom of movement, and reluctance to tell authorities anything at all about their personal business. Regardless of our political philosophy, Americans are deeply suspicious of government efforts to collect information about them. Some folks even refuse to cooperate with the Census. The fact of the matter is, however, that we've already voluntarily given the government access to our most personal data. Driver's Licenses, Social Security, Banking regulations, etc. have all been around of necessity for almost 75 years. A National Identification Program that makes use of personal information in a more efficient way probably is little more dangerous than the existing system. Indeed, there are good arguments why such a system would further our national interests.
There are three basic sorts of government: Despotism, anarchy, and all those that lie in between. At one extreme society is subordinate to a single unconstrained and overriding government. For most of human history, this has been the form of government that existed. Despotic governments tend to be headed by emperors and kings, by religious leaders, or oligarchs. Sometimes such governments are imposed and maintained by force, and sometimes the People willingly choose to subject themselves to despotic systems seeking order, security and prosperity. Often despotic governments are brutal, repressive, and operated without consideration for what might be "best" for the people governed.
At the other extreme each individual is theoretically unfettered by social or political constraint. Individual freedom is valued above the needs of society, which demand some constraint on the individual. There has never been, so far as we know, a government based on anarchy. Indeed, the terms "government" and "anarchy" are mutually exclusive. We humans are herd animals, and we don't do well cut off from the safety of the herd. Banishment has historically been one of the most severe punishments a society will inflict on its members.
In antiquity Athens experimented with a form of democracy that granted equality in political decision-making to the State's male citizens. That system failed because it was cumbersome and unable to act effectively to challenges. The Roman Republic dominated by an oligarchic Senate disintegrated as the Rome came to dominate the Mediterranean. Other experiments with democracy, mostly by small States, failed. The idea that government could and should be restrained from total domination of its subjects grew out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. By the middle of the 18th century, the British Monarchy was the most constrained major government in the world. If it had not been, there might not have even been an American War of Independence. Well maybe
At the end of the 18th century the newly independent States occupied a relatively narrow strip along the eastern coast of North America. Stretching westward was a seemingly endless forest where land could be had by clearing an acre or so, and being able to defend it against Indians, British and Spanish authorities who contested the settler's claims. There wasn't much "law" beyond what the individual, or his small community dictated. This was a period along the frontier where something approaching anarchy prevailed, though European social mores remained dominant. For many people the Revolution freed the individual from laws and regulations they didn't agree with. Others called for the redistribution of wealth that would strip away the wealth of property owners. The individual State governments had their hands full trying to govern their citizens, and each State was in competition with all the other States. It was impossible for the central government to act effectively when the States could veto any national policy, and many were setting their own foreign policy.
The Constitution is the great American contribution to reconciling the interests of society as a whole and the liberty of the individual to determine their own way in the world. The Constitution provided a framework for government to correct the ills of the Articles of Confederation and reconcile the differing interests of the several States. On one hand there was the Federalists, notably Hamilton, Adams, Washington, etc., who stood for a strong central government and executive. On the other hand there were the anti-Federalists like Jefferson who tilted toward decentralized government where local politics reigned supreme. For most of our national history that conflict over how strong the central government should be has continued. Overall, I think that's been a good thing as one point of view balances and checks the excesses that might grow out of an unchallenged political philosophy.
The frontier vanished over a hundred years ago, and farming no longer is the principle occupation of Americans. We've evolved from a self-employed rural nation into a highly centralized urban world where most people are employed by some business, or another. Since the middle of the 20th century travel time from one coast to the other has shrunk down to a matter of hours instead of months. Our communications system is almost instantaneous, anywhere in the world. Where once great oceans protected us from attacks, now we are vulnerable to attacks by "backward" rogue fighters who aren't even associated publicly with any nation.
Prior to the middle 20th century, the Federal government was very constrained and un-intrusive into the affairs of individuals and business. Since the Great Depression and WWII, the American People have come to expect that the Federal government should and will guarantee at least minimal support for individuals and businesses. Social Security, MediCare, regulation of the stock market and airwaves, disaster relief, and a host of other government "services" are now regarded as essential. The more we've expected of the Federal government, the greater the size, scope and control the government has over our lives. If the Federal government spends tax dollars for MediCare, then there has to be requirements, regulations, controls to insure (heh, heh) legal compliance, and a bureaucracy to manage the system. Records are essential to keeping the system viable, yet the amount of data has grown to the point where just finding a data bit and processing it into useful information has almost hit a wall.
200 years ago when the population was smaller and most folks never traveled far from the place they were born, keeping track of predators didn't require much paperwork. While the Federal government that was focused solely on national security, foreign policy and interstate conflicts, no one would have thought of even suggesting a national I.D. Today the same people, who want greater Federal involvement into the affairs of individuals and businesses, are the same folks who object to the growing power of the national government. You can't have it both ways. During the 20th century the American People opted for greater government involvement to alleviate individual and social problems, and the natural by product of our decision is a more intrusive government that carries with it a greater risk of losing some portion of our liberty. We can't easily turn back the clock, nor should we. On the other hand, what's the point of wanting your cake while combing the crumbs from your beard?
Foxfyre wrote:[But what's better? Allowing everybody including terrorists onto airplanes everywhere or misidentifying a few that have to be cleared up?
I don't see it as an either or choice. Identifying someone will not identify their intentions.
Quote:Allowing sex offenders and predators to go wherever they want in anonymity, including school yards, parks, and other places where kids hang out, or making sure law enforcement knows who they are and where they are even if there is an occasional mistake or miscarriage of justice?
Again I'll ask, where should they live and where should they work? The information is already public -- putting it on an id won't help you know if someone is a child molester. Do you check your neighbor's id?
Quote:I like knowing the odds are good that I'm not sharing an airplane with terrorists.
Well good, then you must be very content to know that the odds are good that you are not sharing an airplane with a terrorist. Have you checked the stats for terrorist attacks on airplanes relative to the number of flights on any given day?
Quote:And I don't want kids put at risk just to prevent the rare case of mistaken identify or injustice that is bound to occur in any system involving large numbers of people.
This goes back to my question about where these people will live and work if they are pushed out of the mainstream. More than likely, somewhere where the kids are already at risk and not closely supervised. But again, we're getting off topic. Suffice it to say that I don't think we should use an identification scheme for people tracking.
FreeDuck wrote:Foxfyre wrote:[But what's better? Allowing everybody including terrorists onto airplanes everywhere or misidentifying a few that have to be cleared up?
I don't see it as an either or choice. Identifying someone will not identify their intentions.
True, but when you KNOW their intentions on bad, do you really want them on the plane with you?
Quote:Quote:Allowing sex offenders and predators to go wherever they want in anonymity, including school yards, parks, and other places where kids hang out, or making sure law enforcement knows who they are and where they are even if there is an occasional mistake or miscarriage of justice?
Again I'll ask, where should they live and where should they work? The information is already public -- putting it on an id won't help you know if someone is a child molester. Do you check your neighbor's id?
They should not be allowed to live or work or be in close proximity to kids. That's it. They should be where kids aren't. Even the honest among THEM say this.
Quote:Quote:I like knowing the odds are good that I'm not sharing an airplane with terrorists.
Well good, then you must be very content to know that the odds are good that you are not sharing an airplane with a terrorist. Have you checked the stats for terrorist attacks on airplanes relative to the number of flights on any given day?
But how good would those odds be if the terrorists are given free rein to move about the country without worries about detection? Do you honestly believe that Homeland Security has not prevented ANY terrorist attacks in the last four years?
Quote:Quote:And I don't want kids put at risk just to prevent the rare case of mistaken identify or injustice that is bound to occur in any system involving large numbers of people.
This goes back to my question about where these people will live and work if they are pushed out of the mainstream. More than likely, somewhere where the kids are already at risk and not closely supervised. But again, we're getting off topic. Suffice it to say that I don't think we should use an identification scheme for people tracking
Yes there are risk from those who haven't been caught yet. But why in the world would you want to add risk from the KNOWN sex offenders to the mix? Using that logic we wouldn't remove anybody from society based on the idea that we can't remove ALL the bad guys from society. Gee, just think how much we can save if we just disband all the military and law enforcement in the country and accept as inevitable whatever bad guys are out there.
I think I'll continue to advocate resistance against those who would do intentional or reckless harm against others if you don't mind.
Foxfyre wrote:True, but when you KNOW their intentions on bad, do you really want them on the plane with you?
Will their identification allow you to know their intentions? Will anything?
Quote:They should not be allowed to live or work or be in close proximity to kids. That's it. They should be where kids aren't. Even the honest among THEM say this.
I agree. But just where is this place where there are no kids? My point is that if there are people who are known to be dangerous they should not be allowed back out into society in the first place.
Quote:
But how good would those odds be if the terrorists are given free rein to move about the country without worries about detection? Do you honestly believe that Homeland Security has not prevented ANY terrorist attacks in the last four years?
Well, that kind of proves my point. Assuming that HS HAS prevented terrorist attacks without the help of a new and handy id system, how necessary is it? Why risk our freedom for a negligible benefit?
Quote:
Yes there are risk from those who haven't been caught yet. But why in the world would you want to add risk from the KNOWN sex offenders to the mix?
How am I proposing to add risk?
Quote: Using that logic we wouldn't remove anybody from society based on the idea that we can't remove ALL the bad guys from society. Gee, just think how much we can save if we just disband all the military and law enforcement in the country and accept as inevitable whatever bad guys are out there.
Not quite. I think you missed my point. I'm saying that these people, if let out, have to live somewhere. And more than likely that somewhere will be a place where people aren't paying close attention because they have more pressing concerns -- like getting food on the table, and where kids are often left unsupervised because the adults can't afford good after school care (or the transportation needed for such). I'm saying that tying identification to people tracking opens the door to discrimination that would push these people further into poor neighborhoods, where they already are.
Quote:I think I'll continue to advocate resistance against those who would do intentional or reckless harm against others if you don't mind.
I see no reason to discard my healthy American distrust of government in order to advocate such resistance. I think we disagree on the how and not the what.
No, the ID won't tell you their intentions, but it will tell an agency their past history. Someone convited for multiple DUI's should perhaps not be allowed to buy alcohol. The liquor store could swipe the ID and see this before they sold it.
As for sex offenders... Right now, they are required to register on their own with the local authorities. Of course, many of them don't. However, if this is the case and one went to a liquor store or a dmv or something, his ID would flag. I don't realistically think we could limit where they live with this... and I'm not sure we should. But this would help ensure that they are registering like they're supposed to.
USAFHokie80 wrote:No, the ID won't tell you their intentions, but it will tell an agency their past history. Someone convited for multiple DUI's should perhaps not be allowed to buy alcohol. The liquor store could swipe the ID and see this before they sold it.
So a liquor store is an agency?
FreeDuck wrote:Foxfyre wrote:True, but when you KNOW their intentions on bad, do you really want them on the plane with you?
Will their identification allow you to know their intentions? Will anything?.
Yeah, we know quite a few bad intentions of quite a few folks and/or the organizations they are affiliated with. U.S. security can always be much improved of course, but they really are doing some serious good.
Quote:Quote:They should not be allowed to live or work or be in close proximity to kids. That's it. They should be where kids aren't. Even the honest among THEM say this.
I agree. But just where is this place where there are no kids? My point is that if there are people who are known to be dangerous they should not be allowed back out into society in the first place.
I have no problem with locking them up forever for that matter. But we have some mushy-minded do-gooders in this country that won't allow that. So the best we can do is make sure they stay however many thousands of feet away from any school, playground, or other place where children hang out. Sometime get on one of those sex offender sites, punch in your address, and see how many of the people already tagged live near you. And know that there are a few who slipped under the radar and are living someplace other than where they are supposed to be. A national ID card could catch some of those.
Quote:Quote:
But how good would those odds be if the terrorists are given free rein to move about the country without worries about detection? Do you honestly believe that Homeland Security has not prevented ANY terrorist attacks in the last four years?
Well, that kind of proves my point. Assuming that HS HAS prevented terrorist attacks without the help of a new and handy id system, how necessary is it? Why risk our freedom for a negligible benefit?
Because it gives HS one more valuable tool to use. I haven't found any reason to believe it would take away a single freedom that I have now other than freedom to more easily break the law.
Quote:Quote:
Yes there are risk from those who haven't been caught yet. But why in the world would you want to add risk from the KNOWN sex offenders to the mix?
How am I proposing to add risk?
If you don't want sex offenders identified and required to stay away from you and your kids, you're proposing to add known risk to the unknown risk that exists.
Quote:Quote: Using that logic we wouldn't remove anybody from society based on the idea that we can't remove ALL the bad guys from society. Gee, just think how much we can save if we just disband all the military and law enforcement in the country and accept as inevitable whatever bad guys are out there.
Not quite. I think you missed my point. I'm saying that these people, if let out, have to live somewhere. And more than likely that somewhere will be a place where people aren't paying close attention because they have more pressing concerns -- like getting food on the table, and where kids are often left unsupervised because the adults can't afford good after school care (or the transportation needed for such). I'm saying that tying identification to people tracking opens the door to discrimination that would push these people further into poor neighborhoods, where they already are.
You would be surprised how many of these people live in or near YOUR neighborhood. We can't prevent that perhaps, but we can improve our ability to identify them and better track their whereabouts and make it harder for them to move into a neighborhood undetected. If you have to present a national ID to get your mailing address etc. changed at the post office or whatever, this could be a powerful new tool to help identify people we know to be dangerous. Again there's probably a downside to that, but I haven't come up with one yet.
Quote:Quote:I think I'll continue to advocate resistance against those who would do intentional or reckless harm against others if you don't mind.
I see no reason to discard my healthy American distrust of government in order to advocate such resistance. I think we disagree on the how and not the what.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as a libertarian mama, nobody distrusts government more than I do. I do, however, accept the government's constitutional role to defend the people of the United States against enemies, both foreign and domestic. As I posted earlier, the government can take away our freedoms, at least for awhile, any time it wants to. We trust that the people we empower to govern us value personal freedoms as much as we do. When that is no longer true, then we will have one hell of a revolution and/or civil war here again. Meanwhile, one additional tool to help government do its job better is not likely to take away any of our freedoms or rights.
Walter Hinteler wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:No, the ID won't tell you their intentions, but it will tell an agency their past history. Someone convited for multiple DUI's should perhaps not be allowed to buy alcohol. The liquor store could swipe the ID and see this before they sold it.
So a liquor store is an agency?
In some states, yes. In Virginia, all liquor is sold at state regulated stores. You can't go to a gas station and buy tequila or vodka.
I don't mean state regulated. I asked for agency, with sworn-in officers.
