With respect, Tony, I think "vilification" is over-stating Charles' position... The negative reaction to perceived over-collection of data about citizens, however benevolent the state's apparent aim, often arises out of the imbalance Charles refers to: the state has the ability to grant itself statutory powers reinforced by law enforcement. The citizen does not enjoy that right, or any equivalent power. I'm not convinced by your example of buying weaponry; first, it's an argument from the particular (selling arms with no statutory ID checks is a bad idea) to the general (statutory ID checks are a bad idea)... I have seen you argue enough to know you can do better than that ;^) Second, your example of firearms is not useful because it doesn't translate well across borders (even US state borders...). What constitutes perfectly acceptable firearms policy in one jurisdiction is totally unconscionable in another. Yrs., Robin On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:13 -0500, "Tony Rutkowski" <trutkowski@netmagic.com> wrote:
On 1/12/2011 11:29 AM, Charles Andres wrote:
However, John Poindexter, the NSA, the CIA, the Patriot Act, RealID, etc. (to name a few) have "poisoned the well" of trust with previous attempts to build centralized digital information systems to allow the government to know more about citizens than citizens know about the government.
The dialogue seems to have answered the question posed - the propensity to vilify public officials and institutions with different views on this subject as apostates has not changed. Perhaps no surprise.
Would you oppose identity checks or tracking of those who purchase extended clips for Glocks or does this also abridge perceived rights?
--tony _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Robin Wilton +44 (0)705 005 2931