Photo ID Amendment

[dogmush]

  i mean how many public servants (teachers, policemen, firemen, etc), or welfare recipients vote for a decrease in taxes when they know their income could be on the line.  the only exception i might consider would be a member of the armed forces.

I do.

[AJ Dual]

Remember how you say "my freedom is worth a few dead kids now and then"?

My freedom is worth a few stolen votes now  and then.

I disagree, taking my vote, or cancelling it out, that's like taking my gun.

Nor am I above some flat-out inconsistency in my Libertarian beliefs to do whatever I can to reduce the electoral chances of the Left.  Revolutions are fought with money and guns. No one that I'm aware of has overturned an oppressive government with environmentalism, gay marriage, public-sector unions, and debt.

I am long past tired of fighting with the ends-justify-the-means mentality of the Left.

[Perd Hapley]

No one that I'm aware of has overturned an oppressive government with...public-sector unions...

Lech Walesa?

[geronimotwo]

I do.

one of the few

[seeker_two]

I do.

one of the few

Add another one to the list....besides, lower tax rates often end up bringing in more revenue....less reason to hide assets....

[De Selby]

I disagree, taking my vote, or cancelling it out, that's like taking my gun.

Nor am I above some flat-out inconsistency in my Libertarian beliefs to do whatever I can to reduce the electoral chances of the Left.  Revolutions are fought with money and guns. No one that I'm aware of has overturned an oppressive government with environmentalism, gay marriage, public-sector unions, and debt.

I am long past tired of fighting with the ends-justify-the-means mentality of the Left.

Yeah, imagine of the government decide to stop people from taking your gun by registering it to you and implanting a chip in it, just to be sure that no one else would deprive you of your rights...

Any citizen denied the right to vote because he didn't have a government permit of some sort is just as aggrieved as someone who can't buy a gun without a licence.

[Perd Hapley]

Point of interest - a photo ID is not a permit.

[De Selby]

Point of interest - a photo ID is not a permit.

It is when it's a precondition of exercising a right - it's a document hat government grants to you in accordance with its own criteria, and required for you to exercise a "right" or privilege.  Calling it something other than a permit doesn't change the function.

[longeyes]

You have a right to vote, and we have the right to know who the hell you are.

[MicroBalrog]

You have a right to vote, and we have the right to know who the hell you are.

I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.

[Perd Hapley]

It is when it's a precondition of exercising a right - it's a document hat government grants to you in accordance with its own criteria, and required for you to exercise a "right" or privilege.  Calling it something other than a permit doesn't change the function.

Utterly incorrect. A permit permits one to do something. An identification identifies. Words mean things.

If an ID is a permit, then so is voter registration. Look at a voter registration form for New York or California, which don't require identification at the polls. They still require some form of identification, in order to register. In fact, California's form points out that it's a matter of federal law.

By your faulty reasoning, we will have to scrap registration and just start stuffing the ballot boxes for our side. What do you have against democracy? 

[AJ Dual]

I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.

Easy, if I could magically live in an America that didn't have the Democratic Party, or any equivalent to it under other names, I wouldn't be worried about Voter ID either.

[De Selby]

You have a right to vote, and we have the right to know who the hell you are.

Yeah, and that reasoning makes so much sense when applied to other rights - you have a right to own a gun, and we have a right to know its secure from people who don't have that right!

Fistful, are you arguing that this isn't functionally a permit, or that permits for the exercise of rights are perfectly ok?   Because you don't seem to be disputing that ID laws mean that a government issued, discretionary document is a precondition of exercising the right under those rules.

As far as I'm concerned, ID laws are only acceptable if the government is forced to give you an ID unless it can prove that you're not who you say you are, and if the government cannot withhold it as punishment or security for anything.  That would make it less like the permit and instrument of government control that it is.

As it currently stands, refusing to pay tickets, DUIs, and all manner of other offences can be punished by deprivation of an ID.   

[longeyes]

I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.

Maybe it was hard to be a stranger back in those rather sparsely populated days?

[longeyes]

De Selby wrote: "Yeah, and that reasoning makes so much sense when applied to other rights - you have a right to own a gun, and we have a right to know it's secure from people who don't have that right!"

Voting implies membership in a community of common political interest, hence the establishment of one's credentials as a member of that community is natural.

There is no such analogy with the right to self-defense, specifically RKBA, which has not to do with certifying one's membership in a community but rather protecting one's individual bodily integrity against predations from other individuals and, more generally, an oppressive government.

[MicroBalrog]

Maybe it was hard to be a stranger back in those rather sparsely populated days?

Especially in Philadelphia, I take it.

[Perd Hapley]

De Selby, are you in favor of any kind of voter registration?

It is when it's a precondition of exercising a right - it's a document hat government grants to you in accordance with its own criteria, and required for you to exercise a "right" or privilege.  Calling it something other than a permit doesn't change the function.

By that standard, we'd need telepathic voting. Being at the polling place is a precondition of voting. Or requesting an absentee form and delivering it to the appropriate party. Filling out the ballot is a precondition of voting. Living in the appropriate district/precinct/country is also a precondition of voting. By your logic, the law is discriminating against all of those people sitting at home and thinking about voting, but not actually doing it.

Fistful, are you arguing that this isn't functionally a permit,

Not arguing. Telling.

or that permits for the exercise of rights are perfectly ok?   

As you have now been informed, an ID is not a permit. End of that discussion.

[Perd Hapley]

Voting implies membership in a community of common political interest, hence the establishment of one's credentials as a member of that community is natural.

There is no such analogy with the right to self-defense, specifically RKBA, which has not to do with certifying one's membership in a community but rather protecting one's individual bodily integrity against predations from other individuals and, more generally, an oppressive government.

Yes, of course. Natural vs. civil rights.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, of course. Natural vs. civil rights.

The right to choose one's government is not a natural right?

[Perd Hapley]

Because you don't seem to be disputing that ID laws mean that a government issued, discretionary document is a precondition of exercising the right under those rules.

As far as I'm concerned, ID laws are only acceptable if the government is forced to give you an ID unless it can prove that you're not who you say you are, and if the government cannot withhold it as punishment or security for anything.  That would make it less like the permit and instrument of government control that it is.

As it currently stands, refusing to pay tickets, DUIs, and all manner of other offences can be punished by deprivation of an ID.   

OK, fine. I'll untangle this mess.

In the last half of that, you seem to be conflating the issues of suspending or revoking a license or permit to drive, vs. denying the person a means of identification. I've never had my license suspended. I don't know if they actually take away the plastic card, or tag it as suspended in a database. If the latter, is it not still valid as a form of ID? If the former, what's stopping me from just getting a state-issued, non-driver ID?

As far as I'm concerned, ID laws are only acceptable if the government is forced to give you an ID unless it can prove that you're not who you say you are

  So I can tell the Dept. of Records that my name is Salvadore Gazmacho (it's not) and I live at (compliant friend's address). And then I can register to vote as someone living at that address (if we even have to register, in your crazy universe). How is that supposed to work?

[Perd Hapley]

The right to choose one's government is not a natural right?

You can't choose a government if you won't even accept the rules by which the government is chosen.

[De Selby]

Yeah, see fistful, you're just repeating the mantra without dealing with the point - yes, government does invalidate IDs, take them away, and refuse to grant them for all sorts of reasons - including new that have nothing to do with proving who you are. 

The hilarious part about your "telling" post is that the main form of ID at issue is actually explicitly a permit - its a driver's licence, ie, a permit to drive.   

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, see fistful, you're just repeating the mantra without dealing with the point

You don't have a point. Now keep repeating the mantra clear explanation of the difference between permission and identification until it sinks in. You might learn something.

- yes, government does invalidate IDs, take them away, and refuse to grant them for all sorts of reasons - including new that have nothing to do with proving who you are.  

And governments can reject ballots for all sorts of reasons. They can stuff ballot boxes for all sorts of reasons. So you still have no point.

The hilarious part about your "telling" post is that the main form of ID at issue is actually explicitly a permit - its a driver's licence, ie, a permit to drive.  

Citation needed. The main form of ID at issue, from what I've seen of this debate in the past few years, are non-driver, state-issued ID cards. I'm truly sorry. I thought you understood that.

[Perd Hapley]

Voting implies membership in a community of common political interest, hence the establishment of one's credentials as a member of that community is natural.

This is the most insightful part of this thread, and the key to understanding why a voter has to be confirmed as a legitimate voter.

[RoadKingLarry]

I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.

Probably much like we do in small town America. When I go to vote I personally know 3 of the poll workers.  Usually end up with "Hi Larry, how's them grand kids doing?" or "How's your garden this year?".
The length of the conversation depends on the length of the line.
Barring that kind of familiarity what possible rational objection can there be to making sure a voter is actually eligable to vote in a given election/precinct?
And yes, Oklahoma requires ID to vote. A voter registration card is sufficient and you get that free when you register.