Government shouldn’t ID for anything
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 16, 2014)
The arguments in favor of requiring a photo ID to vote- specifically, I assume, a photo ID issued from some governmental "authority"- center around the assertion that you don't want people voting who aren't entitled to vote.
However, if voting is to have any legitimacy, which is highly debatable, it must be available to anyone and everyone who would be affected by the results. An ID showing the citizenship status of the pictured individual has no bearing on whether a person will be affected by a "law" or the election-winning politician's actions.
You might justify a "your papers, please" law by pointing out in the current society a person is expected to produce government-issue photo ID to do business with a bank, buy alcoholic beverages, buy a gun, or drive a car. Some enforcers even seem to be under the impression ID is required before you are allowed to walk or merely take up space in the USA in the year 2014.
Sure, that is the case, but government shouldn't be allowed to require ID for any of those things.
If a bank wants photo ID before letting you open an account or cash a check, without any prodding by, or data sharing with, any branch of government, that's fine.
If an alcohol retailer or bar wants to see your ID before selling you what you wish to buy, all on their own without any "laws" forcing them to ask, that's their business.
If a gun store clerk insists on seeing your ID before selling you a gun, as long as it's the owner's idea alone, and he isn't being pressured to collect any data on his customers, and isn't informing anyone of who bought what, the burden is on him alone.
Until roads are privately owned there is absolutely no excuse for photo IDs being required for driving. This is a blatant violation of the fundamental human right to travel unmolested, and violates the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.
On the other hand, elections are strictly a government dog and pony show, so I suppose they can make up whatever restrictive rules they want to. Those rules might include picture IDs, poll taxes, or a loyalty test before being allowed to vote.
I'm not in favor of voting in any case. Liberty can never be subject to a vote. Numbers or majorities can't make wrong right. Nor can "common good", "social contracts", "safety", or overwhelming "need".
Do I want enemies of liberty electing their politicians who'll impose anti-liberty laws? No, but it's been happening that way since long before I was born. I don't expect photo ID requirements to change anything there.
.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Anti-gun, pro-cop extremism
Recently, in a discussion about police and guns, the other person said
Well, there are certainly a lot of assumptions in that.
Police are not "needed"- not for anything. They can't "corral the evil" because they are the most blatant example of the evil among us. Yes, evil is "out there". It always has been and always will be. Police are not the solution.
The biggest result of allowing them to clutter society is to make all bad guys much safer. This is because they enforce so many "laws" against self-defense and defense of property. Of course, cops and freelance thugs have so much in common that to make it dangerous for "bad guys" to operate also makes it dangerous for cops. Too bad.
Then, to assume that "high school dropouts" are somehow unworthy to defend themselves... I don't even know what to say. School is indoctrination. It ruins the mind and is the opposite of education. Dropping out can be the wisest decision when faced with that truth. Cops who graduated high school are not "better" than people who dropped out and have kept honest jobs their whole life. (Cops get all their money from theft, you know.) It's not the person, it is the act. And having the ability to use deadly power is morally neutral. It can be good when used in defense or it can be evil when used for aggression- as it usually is by cops.
Having the ability to use deadly power- which isn't exclusive to guns, by the way- is not good or bad. The way you choose to use that deadly power (which everyone always possesses anyway, regardless) is all that matters.
It's why the anti-gun advocates, and the pro-cop extremists, are wrong. This time and every time.
.
"Police are needed to corral the evil. Because it is out there. High school dropouts wielding deadly power (keeping and bearing arms)... not a good thing."
Well, there are certainly a lot of assumptions in that.
Police are not "needed"- not for anything. They can't "corral the evil" because they are the most blatant example of the evil among us. Yes, evil is "out there". It always has been and always will be. Police are not the solution.
The biggest result of allowing them to clutter society is to make all bad guys much safer. This is because they enforce so many "laws" against self-defense and defense of property. Of course, cops and freelance thugs have so much in common that to make it dangerous for "bad guys" to operate also makes it dangerous for cops. Too bad.
Then, to assume that "high school dropouts" are somehow unworthy to defend themselves... I don't even know what to say. School is indoctrination. It ruins the mind and is the opposite of education. Dropping out can be the wisest decision when faced with that truth. Cops who graduated high school are not "better" than people who dropped out and have kept honest jobs their whole life. (Cops get all their money from theft, you know.) It's not the person, it is the act. And having the ability to use deadly power is morally neutral. It can be good when used in defense or it can be evil when used for aggression- as it usually is by cops.
Having the ability to use deadly power- which isn't exclusive to guns, by the way- is not good or bad. The way you choose to use that deadly power (which everyone always possesses anyway, regardless) is all that matters.
It's why the anti-gun advocates, and the pro-cop extremists, are wrong. This time and every time.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)