Hi Selectric II; No, I'm not a lawyer.
Re: "How so? The credit card issuer, e.g. VISA or AMEX that changes the number to protect themselves. They cancel the old number. They mail the new card to the existing address of record. It needs to be activated from the home phone, using a code word that's on your original application." I've never had any trouble getting my cards sent to a new address / phone number. I just call them up, claim I'm me, give them my social security number and I'm home free. Voila, phone number and address changed. The advantage of a national identity registry is that there is now only one place to obtain the real address or phone number.
Re: "I don't think it's that easy now, or would be any harder with a national i.d. card." Wrong! With a national identity document they need to show the document in order to use the credit card. If they didn't take it, they can't show it.
Re: "They already "automatically make it so that if someone else uses your": credit card, cash, car, home, bicycle, lawnmower, or spouse without your permission, they "end up in jail." How often does that work?" Since you agree that the system as it is doesn't work, this means that this is not an objection to an alternate system.
Re: "how long do you think it will be before every store you'll shop at has retinal or fingerprint scanners? Not likely to be soon." I'm not asking for every store to have such things. What I'm asking for is a national ID. If a store wants to be very sure of who you are, then let them use the retinal scanner or fingerprint scanner or whatever. Right now, there is no way that anyone can be certain of who you are. That's the situation as it is now.
By the way, the solution that some banks now use is to require that you show multiple identity documents in order to open a checking account. This is less convenient for a lot of people than one might think. Perhaps this is a contribution to why so few poor people have bank accounts, and thus have to discount their paychecks to the check cashing businesses. With a national ID card, they'd be able to prove who they were, at least at the places that had a fingerprint scanner (like a bank).
Re: "How so?" You had written: "And think about the mischief a thief can get into, using your i.d., until he's caught. You'd have no assets left, as well as no i.d." With a national ID the thief would have to look like you, rather than simply have a driver's license in your name. And for important transactions, the thief would in addition have to have your fingerprints. For the vast majority of transactions there would be no difference between a system of individual state issued driver's licenses and a system of a single government issued driver's licenses.
California already has what, how many million people? They already issue a identity document that covers a substantial percentage of the country, but no freedom is lost, apparently. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and there's someone out there arguing that California's state identity documents should be split into, for example, the individual county licenses? Then you could have the same excitement when travelling from Ventura to San Diego that you already get when travelling from California to Montana. Maybe we could compromise, and issue a driver's license for Southern California distinct from the one up around San Francisco. I know this seems silly, now do you see how silly it is to have distinct IDs through the US?
Re: "I feel very different from you on that particular issue, and I think that's a good bit of our strength. We're probably one of, if not the least racially and ethnically pure countries in the world (though I don't have the stats.) "
It's funny, but what you're saying is a common misconception in the United States. Certainly no other country would mistake the United States for being "diverse". Of the larger countries in the world, the only ones that are as homogenous as the United States would be Germany or Great Britain.
Even Canada has two national languages. Look at how many Afghanistan has. The Chinese can't understand each other from one province to the next (except through Mandarin). India is split between groups that can't understand each other. Russia has huge numbers of ethnic groups.
What passes for "diversity" in the United States is no more significant than a slightly different accent, or a change in skin color. And even these differences decrease with each passing decade. The United States is the definition of "melting pot". We share essentially the same values, language, and visions for the country. Heck, we only have two significant political parties, and there's not a "dime's bit of difference" between them.
When I was a young man the difference between, for example, Rebelistan and Yankistan was much larger than it is now, culturally, linguistically, economically as well as in the foods and laws (i.e. segregation). Our trend is towards less diversity, not more, and the trend is very old (and powerful).
-- Carl |
