The burden of proof that national i.d. cards will serve a useful purpose is on its proponents, not on its opponents, who it appears are being assigned the impossible task of proving a negative.
I agree with you that, since the status quo is no ID cards, the burden is on the advocates of the cards. They need to convince Congress, the President, and the citizens that it is technically feasible, will accomplish its objectives, and do so without undue intrusion.
We, OTOH, are a discussion thread. The question has come up on other discussion threads, as well. There are always people who react immediately that the ID will destroy our liberty. I'm just trying to understand why they think that way. As a natural libertarian, I flinch at the prospect, as well, but when I think about it, I can't justify my flinch. So I ask the question in the hopes someone else might be able to explain the flinch, not because I think the burden of proof is on the naysayers.
I have not been advocate of ID's but it seems to me the idea is worth considering the pros and cons. I'll think about it a bit and then try to identify some points in favor. How might it be feasible and how might it work.
Karen |
