I wish I could

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think it needs to be monopolized by the government. i think you guys are reading things that aren't there, honestly. you're viewing me as pro-government off the bat somehow. i'm just curious when i hear someone say they are against state ID's it makes me want to ask questions. i guess private companies could provide ID's also, but then who knows if one is fake or not, there could be too many companies. i don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same objection could be leveled at state-issued IDs. Authentication is a differerent problem than identification, FWIW.

[ QUOTE ]
another thing, i'm assuming we're working within the framework of current law. you say my example is bad because the drinking age is a crock. i agree with you there! but i really have no choice right now. if i wanna go out and get a drink i'm gonna have to show some state ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the state doesn't issue ID, then bars would not request you present it, would they?

[ QUOTE ]
i mean, if we're not gonna work within the current state of affairs, then all bets are off i guess. anything is fair game. i mean, you could say you don't think people should even have to be licensed to drive vehicles, because the roads would all be privatized and blah blah blah you could go on and on.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're *already* not in the current state of affairs once the "no state-issued ID" idea is floated.

FWIW, this forum is primarily about discussions and ideas that are otuside the current state of affairs. Not too many people here are very interested in mere descriptions of the status quo.

[highlife]

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm getting at is why do you expect anyone here to provide a pre-packaged answer for this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't just throw rocks at something with no constructive alternative?

[AlexM]

If I had one wish it'd be for Cuba to change.

Because I think that all the Cubans are in pain

All the joy in the world, from sea to shining sea

Doesn't mean a thing if Cubans aren't free

I just can't be very happy, that's certain

Not as long as your Cubans are hurtin'

Oh, won't you search your soul and find a way to change your mind?

That is my one and only wish.

[MC Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There are fake IDs right now. Most likely more than there would be in a free market.

2. Sounds like you're new around here. Anything is fair game.

[/ QUOTE ]

how would there be more fake ID's in a free market? it makes sense to me that the fewer types of ID available, the less likely there are to be fakes. agree or disagree?

[MC Chris]

[ QUOTE ]

But if the state doesn't issue ID, then bars would not request you present it, would they?

[/ QUOTE ]
they don't request i present it now, they just request that i prove my age. if there's an easier way than to show an ID, please let me know.

i think you're misunderstanding me again maybe. i'm not saying that i only wish to discuss the status quo. but like with the ID's, you act like it's so simple.

"bars wouldn't request that i show ID if the state didn't issue ID".. funny one, but the problem is a law exists that says you can't drink unless you're 21+. that's what i mean when i say work within the current framework. you're trying to argue against having an ID and when i bring up a situation where one is necessary, you then want to change the drinking law all of a sudden. if this was a discussion about changing the drinking law, i could see where you were coming from, but it's not. you see that you could basically extend this to all laws right? why not just abolish all law?

ok maybe that's your bag. so why are you even on this site "discussing" anything? because you're not discussing anything. every "discussion" would quickly turn into
"they should legalize all drugs!"
"anyone should be able to walk in off the street and buy a gun!"
"people driving around with no licenses and no insurance is OK with me!"

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. There are fake IDs right now. Most likely more than there would be in a free market.

2. Sounds like you're new around here. Anything is fair game.

[/ QUOTE ]

how would there be more fake ID's in a free market? it makes sense to me that the fewer types of ID available, the less likely there are to be fakes. agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally disagree. There aren't too many fake credit cards out there, are there? There are thousands of kinds of those.

[MC Chris]

ok but we're talking about more or less likely. i don't know how many fake credit cards are out there, do you? they have securities like the magnetic strip, and stuff. ID's could (most do actually) have that. i still say that the more different types there are, the easier they will be to fake. it's just numbers.

it's not really a big concern of mine though, and i am not PRO STATE ID remember.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
it makes sense to me that the fewer types of ID available, the less likely there are to be fakes. agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no reason to draw that conclusion.

If there's only one type, forgers only have to develop one good fake. Once they've figured out how to make them good enough, they've broken everything.

In a system with lots of different IDs, creating a passable fake doesn't break everything, as there are already other ID systems in place; those who depend only on the broken system can quickly switch to any of the other non-broken ones while the broken system is revamped.

Monolithic systems are more brittle - one break makes everything fail.

Further, in a free market, the more reliable, harder-to-fake documents will have an advantage over easier-to-fake documents. Competition drives better authentication systems.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But if the state doesn't issue ID, then bars would not request you present it, would they?

[/ QUOTE ]
they don't request i present it now, they just request that i prove my age. if there's an easier way than to show an ID, please let me know.

i think you're misunderstanding me again maybe. i'm not saying that i only wish to discuss the status quo. but like with the ID's, you act like it's so simple.

"bars wouldn't request that i show ID if the state didn't issue ID".. funny one, but the problem is a law exists that says you can't drink unless you're 21+. that's what i mean when i say work within the current framework. you're trying to argue against having an ID and when i bring up a situation where one is necessary, you then want to change the drinking law all of a sudden.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, I didn't say anything about that (although it's true, I do think that's a law that needs to be jettisoned, I haven't said that in this thread (yet)).

If there is no state-issued ID document, and there is an actual need for one, don't you think someone will figure out how to supply such a thing? Or do you just assume that since the government is doing it now, nobody else is capable of doing it?

[ QUOTE ]
if this was a discussion about changing the drinking law, i could see where you were coming from, but it's not. you see that you could basically extend this to all laws right? why not just abolish all law?

ok maybe that's your bag. so why are you even on this site "discussing" anything? because you're not discussing anything. every "discussion" would quickly turn into
"they should legalize all drugs!"
"anyone should be able to walk in off the street and buy a gun!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good.

[ QUOTE ]
"people driving around with no licenses and no insurance is OK with me!"

[/ QUOTE ]

See, you're doing the same thing here. You're making a huge change but artificially holding constant something else that reasonably would not stay constant if the first change were implemented.

If states did not issue IDs, you can't just assume that the current dearth of private-market ID documents would stay constant.

It also seems reasonable that part of the reason state-issued IDs are the norm for such identification purposes as proving that you're 21 is that the rule that you have to be 21 to drink is a STATE-ISSUED rule. When I have to demonstrate taht I'm a client of my insurance company, I show a document provided by my insurance company. When I need to demonstrate that I'm a member of the gym I go to, I show a document provided by the gym. Etc.

In this case, you're throwing out requirements for licenses and insurance. But those rules are only in place because the "owner" of the roads put them there.

Imagine the government gets out of the road provisioning business. At that point, there is no need for such STATE-IMPOSED rules requiring licenses and insurance. You can already drive without a license and insurance on your own private property - and if roads were privately owned, road owners could obviously set their own rules under which they would allow you to use their roads.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Get rid of Social Security. Phase it out, end it immediately somehow, whatever. I'm sick of paying for old people's expenses, and I only contribute a very small amount per year since I don't make a lot. I'm not an expert, but me and other people paying into the system should not be in danger of losing our money. The best idea here is to take out 5-7% (or whatever the % is) of everyone's pay (unless the income tax is gone as in above example), and deposit this into an individual acct. Let me pick from, say 10 (or more, or less, whatever) options, ranging from 90% stocks/10% bonds to the opposite, or something along those lines. This lets people save on their own, sure it's forced (which I'm against) but at least fix the system so people get out what they put in (and then some, with compound interest).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mike. Although Social Security may be one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century for our federal government, I don't think your solution is much better.

There are myriad problems with forcing people to save and even more problems with the government picking and choosing how and where they can save their money, but none of those are as big as the main problem: What authority does the federal government have to force you to save according to its dictates? That is an egregious violation of just about every concept of liberty held by Americans today, not to mention the framers of our consititution.

Social Security is a scam and a travesty but forced savings would only bring with it a host of new infuriating problems.

natedogg