Baker,

So if someone can't offer a concrete example of why a system can be abused, you think we should rubber stamp it? I'm very concerned at that mindset.

First and foremost, a national ID card is NOT a federally granted power by the Constitution. I challenge you to show me where it is.

Second, a national ID card will NOT be a deterrent to terrorists; the ostensible reason for its implementation. Again, I challenge you to show me how it will be.

Third, a national ID card will almost certainly have the end result of establishing a federal database where private information can be gained on an individual without a warrant. Illegal search and seizure via electronic means is STILL illegal search and seizure

We will NEVER have "complete" safety and security. Every death will be used as justification for tighter and tighter security on the flawed premise that somehow we can have 100% security for all Americans. Ironically, the only "100% security" we have as citizens is when the only enemy we have is the government. And the government can be a fearsome enemy.

You challenged me months ago on my assertion that we lost the Cold War, yet here you are acquiescing to government policies that well could have been made by the Kremlin, circa 1980. The thing is, while RH's internment camp scenario may be "out there", it's definitely within the realm of possibility, and legislation such as this makes it even more so.

More realistic, however, are possibilities of children whose parents have had involvement with child protective services having future children removed from them at birth after the hospital runs their national ID through the database. Or of the national ID being used to "track" purchases and movements illegally of government "subversives" who oppose government action but are no means violent individuals. The National Guard won't have to shoot college students at Kent State anymore; the police will be able to arrest them in their dorm after they buy a copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook" or "The Turner Diaries" at an online bookstore.

Again, I expect both you and Island to write these off as "paranoid fantasies", but again, I am not talking about what WILL happen, but about what CAN POTENTIALLY HAPPEN when a national ID is implemented. And Island, if you expect me to come up with every single scenario, you expect far too much intelligence out of me, sorry. I'm just not smart enough to think of EVERY possibility.

I still have to ask why gun registration is considered wrong by Republicans, yet people registration isn't.

Actually, Reiki...this statement shows you know NOTHING about me.

stute,

The statement was designed to provide one POSSIBLE scenario, as I was challenged to do on several occasions. Honestly, I feel that 99% of the people with access to the information can and would use it responsibly. It's the idea of giving yet another weapon to the unscrupulous 1% that concerns me.

Again, I have a real life card I could play, but telling you that would be unwise. Maybe later.

You haven't looked at the LP platform very closely. The LP actually commended Bush for addressing the Social Security issue.

How about the tenth amendment? Just because state's rights have been consistently violated for over 140 years doesn't mean that the government has been correct in doing so.

I apologize for the visceral reaction in branding you a "fascist", baker. That was out of line. But the fact is, you are usually a reasonable defender of individual liberties, and I was quite taken off guard by the fact that you could consider this proposal to be a good thing in ANY way. The fact is, I fail to see how it will address the illegal immigration issue at ALL (one of the few areas where I diverge from the LP platform; incidentally, so did 2004 LP candidate Michael Badnarik), or for that matter the issue of terrorism. It will be as ineffective as the 20 year "war on drugs", and will spend money for feel good, but ineffectual legislation. The ONLY people who stand to be inconvenienced by it, in fact, are American citizens.

When I advocate for a miniarchist government, I stand in pretty good company. The fact that a few fringe loonies may carry the same banner does not change the legitimacy of the initial message.

Actually, even my apology was ill timed. I should have reread my own article.

Baker, you're NOT the "resident fascist" I was referring to. You don't advocate for banning everything (I actually disagree with you on a relative minority issues). If you reread it as well, you will see that the statement was meant to differentiate between hardcore republicans (such as yourself and drmiler) from the people who press an agenda of banning everything.

So, no, the "resident fascist" comment wasn't meant for you, actually.