Should everyone be required to carry ID at all times?

I know that there are people without ID card, so let's play "pretend you can get one fast cheap and easily" to avoid the "I don't have one" issue.

Let's play pretend. Pretend that everyone can get issued, at no cost to them, an ID card which is universal across the USA, in every state, so forth. Let's pretend it is easy to get a card, valid legal ID card, name, photo, address, some physical characteristics (age, ht, wt). You can use it for ID anywhere in USA.

A passport.

I was good friends with a fellow who worked in the morgue. Do you have ANY IDEA how many unidentified bodies they get? Most do eventually get ID'd, but some never do! I've never forgotten the stories he told.

It is not a good reason to force ID to be carried.

Not so much for carrying ID.

Edited to say: in case anyone wondered, I meant tattoos of your choice, NOT a tattoo of your identification! That would be scary!:scared:

like license plates. "NE1410S?" that would make it much less scary!

Hmmm, tattooing people for identification.... Now who was it who first came up with that idea?

when there was a draft if you were of draftable age you were required by law to carry your draft card at all times.

...such as yourself. People REALLY need to know who you are and where the hell you are at all times.

:evilgrin:

No way, no how, NEVER!

I don't want to live in Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union, thankyouverymuch...

sure it's a good idea to carry id at all times. But so is not smoking, not eating McDonald's, not buying that extra x-mas present for your kid and going to college for something meaningful (ie, medicine etc).

None of these things should ever be required. Suggested, incentive attached, sure, but, especially with something like ID, never required.

On top of that, all other things as you mentioned (ID being cheap and easily accessible), would it also be easily altered? What about an individual with transgender issues? What would be the rules be for them?

It makes me shiver just thinking about it.

What's your view OP?

The concept that the government is of the people needs the back up that the people aren't required to answer to the government without probable cause.

The government's agents have no right to say anything to any of us unless and until there is probable cause and if they have that and we don't have ID, it's their problem to figure out who we are.

Even if it is argued that it helps solve crime, etc., there are a lot of things that might help solve crime that would violate the Constitution and there are things that are of more value and worth than the ability to solve every crime. We have to deal with imperfection.

And the last thing we need is yet another minor crime - people would then be arrested for not having the ID and the system would be further bogged down with enforcing that - even more distraction from really serious crime.

Having just survived a heart attack three months ago, I know how important IDs are to those who saved my life and notified my family.

act like you talk. :shrug:

Because I want the choice to carry an id or not makes no difference in whether I choose to. I want the right... The same as I want the right to bear arms, but I don't carry/own a gun.

I tend not to carry a form of ID with me because I've lived in small areas in Maine for the last 4 years. I don't drink, so I don't get carded, and I can walk to most places I need to be so long as I'm not being lazy. Actually, I've been leaving my wallet home as a way of discouraging buying snacks I really don't need. My license stays in my wallet. I bring my wallet when I'm driving. Hell, usually I'll just bring my debit card if I'm going grocery shopping. So I guess I really do "act" as I "talk." But I don't believe it matters.

I should have the right to exist in public with or without ID, as I see fit.

That seemed logical to me but I understand your explanation since I also love the freedom of wandering trails less traveled.

On the other hand, most if not all DU members carry various IDs including drivers license, credit cards, health insurance cards, etc.

I believe we have all become conditioned to giving minimal personal information so that it really doesn't bother us.

I agree with you re "right to exist in public with or without ID" but that's a personal right.

On the other hand, if you choose to use various services paid for by society through taxes managed by our government, then We the People have a collective right to know to whom we are giving those services.

I believe that's covered in our Constitution's Preamble that says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

we can be expected to follow some rules. I don't really have any opposition to ID's either, I just feel we should have laws for a good reason, especially ones that impede on our right to privacy. I do have a driver's license, and I use it while driving.

But what service am I receiving for my everyday wanderings? That's my biggest concern. I don't see how it can be a requirement for the general welfare of the USA that I have ID on me when I'm mowing my lawn, hiking or taking a stroll. I have no problem following laws developed for the general and even specific welfare of some, like bringing my ID to movie theaters, to bars or to the DMV/gov't office.

I just cannot see how that equates to needing an ID to go out and sunbathe on my porch without my passport. And I would fight for that right. If that became the rule, I'm not sure how I would oppose it. By not carrying an ID? Eh. I'd be more likely to get a bunch of people to sit in front of the ID making place and not move. Slow down the process. Or maybe building up a fund and changing my name, along with a bunch of other volunteer's multiple times. I've found that disrespecting the law rarely ever changes it. Change comes from within, imo.

states, Maine. The leaves will be turning soon!

Jody :hi:

And the leaves are dropping all around... seems like Sept 1 came and everything just decided to fall. =-)

the assertion that being pro-choice means the choice would be to abort (or the advocate of pro-choice is being inconsistent).

Being pro-choice (whether to carry ID or have an abortion) does suggest anything about how I might use my choice (to carry an ID or not; to continue the pregnancy or not). It just means I am the one who gets to choose - not the government.

narrowly for services provided by taxpayers.

I understand the concern of taxpayers who oppose abortion seeing their taxes being used for abortion upon demand. That's government using its power to force a group of people to support an act to which they object.

One can make that same argument for using my taxes to fund Bush's war in Iraq which I opposed before it started and have continued to voice my opposition every since.

I will not assert that abortion versus ID is apples and oranges because the issue is more complex than that.

I was trying to focus on requiring IDs to identify recipients who were legally entitled to receive services paid for and provided by We the People.

IMO that's a legitimate use of IDs. :shrug:

2beToby said, "I'd still rather have the choice."

You said, "I assume you do not carry an ID of any type at the present. To do otherwise would mean you do not act like you talk."

I said, "That's the same argument as the assertion that being pro-choice means the choice would be to abort (or the advocate of pro-choice is being inconsistent)."

I said nothing at all about taxes, and being pro-choice doesn't necessarily have anything to do with taxpayer funding of abortions?

Being in favor of choice does not predispose what that choice might ultimately be.

It's a fairly standard red herring in the abortion debates to accuse someone who is pro-choice of hypocrisy when the woman advocating for choice also has a large family (i.e. in order to act like she talks she should have aborted some or all of her children); I assumed you would recognize having seen this argument before (since I've seen it here) and that it might "click." Apparently not.

Point is that for someone who promotes the right to choose, personally acting on either choice consistent with one's belief.

evening. :hi:

Interesting.

spin the issue we were discussing off in different directions.

Have a nice day and goodbye. :hi:

...something called "implied consent"...If your ass is unconscious on the pavement, as an EMT (or ER doctor etc) I am legally allowed to assume you would like to continue breathing....it don't notify the family but DOES assure that no one dies from lack of treatment...ID in a medical emergency is a handy and helpful thing, but never determinative of treatment....

directive, etc..

IMO every person should carry an ID with relevant information.

ICE = In Case of Emergency

It's the first thing that police or paramedics will look for on your phone if you are injured. It should be your emergency contact, friend or relative.

Still, "should" and "must" is the big difference IMO.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Should bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws be repealed and just make them a suggestion? Seat belt laws too? Let's do away with sprinklers and fire alarms too!

Seat belts, bike helmets are safety devices. Carrying an ID CAN be used as a safety device, but can also be used for random checks by police/etc. I don't have as much a problem with mandatory safety stuff, IF that is the only time ID will be used.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Live free or die.

in cali it's easy to get a card there's county cards, dmv id cards, state id cards; a library card can be considered a form of id

Theoretically, the people are sovereign. The DOI says "We the people ...". So why do the servants of the people (public servants) have a right to make arbitrary demands on the sovereign people?

Everyone should be able to choose whether or not to have a national id card, or carry one, and choosing not to carry id should not limit access to anything.

Enough of Big Brother.

To me, being forced to carry an ID at all times reeks of the "Ihre Papiere bitte" type of restricted freedoms under Nazi Germany.

for not having ID. Threatened to lock me up until they could find out who I was. He said that they could lock me up for vagrancy for having no ID. He let me go but now I always carry it when I leave the yard.

without an ID. If I got hit by a truck it would take a goddamn missing persons report for anyone to know who I was, that I have a family, that I have medical insurance, that I'm not on the 10 most wanted list.

I don't hate law enforcement like so many people do.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Thats doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't.....it just means that no one should be REQUIRED to carry ID.

And you should be able at any time, if someone asks you for your name and ID, to say FUCK OFF.

I carry ID. Its useful. But required...no sir. And anybody who says I HAVE TO in my country is no fucking friend, thats for sure.

Just like dogs do.

Sarcastic, but,
I'm sure a percentage of people would think that's a good idea.

A lot of us do not want to haul around a purse all the time. A collar and dog tag would be nice, except it would accentuate the crepy necks of us aging boomer broads ;)

At my age, maybe I should just wear a toe tag?

because the ID Card should not be national, but should verify where the ID Card was originally issued.

Like when I take the dog out for a walk, go for a jog, or a bike ride or something.

I usually try to bring it with me when I get behind the wheel, but occasionally I forget. That's bad, I know. But, needing ID to walk down the street? Give me an effing break!

Oh, and those 2 times when my purse, with my ID, was stolen-- I was without legal photo identification for a little while.

I don't like metal detectors in courts, random police DUI checks, or anything else the government does to let you know you are a criminal who doesn't deserve privacy and rights. Sometimes our government, and even the supreme court forgts about the 4th amendment.

A state requiring such documentation is telling its population: we do not trust ANY of you and you have no freedom.

Uhm, I guess I'll just vote no, then.

If I don't care if they ID my dead body, should I still be required to carry ID? And as far as the "ID body" thing, I'm over 50 and have never needed my body ID'd yet (obviously). Why should it be mandatory that I carry ID at all times? Seems a bit overkill, so to speak.

and i make it mandatory that my daughter carry her id with her (driver's license) just in case. i'm paranoid

What you really want to ask is, "Should you be obliged to present identification to the police when you are involved in mundane everyday activities?".

The answer of course is fuck no. Proper communication is best achieved when both parities have a useful and mutual exchange of information. Being hassled by cops destroys my zen bubble the same as unsolicited telemarketers and religious proselytizers. They will reap my spite.

:kick:

It may be sensible to carry ID, but shouldn't be required. That sounds Big-Brother-ish.

I have to anyhow, I have "ask for i.d." on my credit/debit card sig lines :D

I need my military dependent's i.d. for health insurance and buying cheap stuff on base.

Otherwise, I don't see why this is so important or how it affects my freedom :silly:

but I'm not about to tell anyone else they have to.

An efficient government is a more dangerous government. I'm nobody's inventory, so you don't have to data-track me.