Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (74846)	9/15/2003 3:59:39 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Do you have any thoughts on that? I think that having a fixed ID that can be ported to telephone, credit, residence, etc would be very beneficial. Telecom companies allow you to 'port' (keep) your telephone number when you move. In reality what they do is simply mask your new number with the old number. If the govt. could agree to one system of ID (SSI # for example). Then whether I am looking for your address or calling you on the phone, I can simply use that one and get to you. That way you can gypsy all you want as long as you take responsibility for updating your data in relation to your main ID, which becomes a mask over the other forms of reference. Why not?

To: Lane3 who wrote (74846)	9/15/2003 4:38:22 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't think it matters much if you use your brother's domicile for the collection of mail, or a PO Box, although it would be inconvenient if you could not make certain determinations, like the state of residence, since you require licensure and tags and so forth, but it is also fudgeable. Bottom line, and off the top of my head, I think one should make arrangements to have one's mail turn up at a certain address and be forwarded on a regular basis, but otherwise not sweat it........

To: Lane3 who wrote (74846)	9/15/2003 6:36:52 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

If people are to be free, they should be free not to have addresses.

To: Lane3 who wrote (74846)	9/15/2003 7:18:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Do you think people should be required to have a fixed address? No. I understand why people trying to deal with people without fixed addresses would not like the situation but I don't think it should be a legal requirement. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (74846)	9/15/2003 7:36:56 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It's not whether you're requied to hav a fixed address. Most of the questions you raise (drivers license, state income tax, etc.) have to do with residency. Legally, once you have established residency in a given location, you are still a resident there until you establish a new residency, which means presence and intent to remain. If you travel around for years, you would still be a resident of where you are now. The point of an address is to make sure that you can get the necessary information to continue to live -- drivers license renewals, bank statements, credit card bills, pension plan payments, whatever. Few people in this society can survive without somewhere to get mail, and I suspect you aren't one of the exceptions. So while having a fixed address isn't, as far as I know, a requirement anywhere, having a consistent address is (which is what makes private post boxes so popular, since they will do things like paying your bills and forwarding mail to wherever you are this week that the post office won't.) Are you thinking of giving up your apartment and travelling for a while, or is this just one of those maybes like moving to Victoria turned out to be?