Government ID

[Tordmor]

This is not so much about my conclusion but about whether I got my reasoning straight. Of course if I did we would have to accept the conclusion.

a) We need to have an objective law because otherwise the life of most men would depend on the judgement of those who interprete the law.

Since children are born with tabula rasa they cannot consent to some things because they have no means of judging the impact on their lifes yet.

c) from a and b follows that there needs to be an objective criteria for when an adolescent can be considered to be able to consent to those things. Until someone comes up with some better idea we have to assume this is an age of consent set by government.

d) Since no one can measure the age of someone there needs to be an objective criteria on how to determine the age which would be some means of identifying the adolescent and connecting them with their birth date. I.e. an id card.

e) Since this id card must follow objective standards it is the governments job to provide such id. No person can be forced to id themselves but without id if the age is not obviously above the age of consent one would have to assume it is below.

Therefore it is a propper role of an objectivist government to provide id cards.

Edit: removed accidential emoticon.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Tordmor

[rebelconservative]

but the government provides each registered child with a birth certificate, confirming their date of birth, and therefore, their age.

[Tordmor]

but the government provides each registered child with a birth certificate, confirming their date of birth, and therefore, their age.

I don't quite get what your point is. If the birth certificate identifies the person then it is an id card. If not then it cannot be used to confirm the age since it could be anybody's birth certificate.

[DavidOdden]

We've had essentially this question before in a thread about property (that recording property descriptions is a necesssary role of government). The broader conclusion forced by that reasoning is that government serves two functions, the enforcement of laws which protect individual rights, and the recording of any important facts relevant to law. The arguments for a monopoly on force are well-known enough that I don't need to repeat them here. The argument for "government as recorder of fact" is based on the assumption that the government is perfect in fundamental ways that a private business cannot be, and I don't understand that reasoning. So what exactly does the government bring to this business that cannot be provided by private business. Note that even though birth and death certificates are official government forms filed in an official government office, the government simply provides a blank form that a private concern fills in.

[rebelconservative]

I don't quite get what your point is. If the birth certificate identifies the person then it is an id card. If not then it cannot be used to confirm the age since it could be anybody's birth certificate.

perhaps I misunderstood your aims.

are you referring to the government establishing someone's age for the purposes of law? i.e. can this person vote, are they over 18? or, did a couple break the law when having sex because one of them is underage?

if so, then the birth certificate is surely sufficient? no?

or are you referring to businesses needing to verify people's age before legally being able to supply them with liquor etc?

if so, then why would the government get involved? the owner can choose to sell it or now. as there is a risk, the ownerwould establish their own standard (e..g. no wrinkles, no booze) or they would accept id from established, trust-worthy companies who produce id's for people.

[Capitalism Forever]

I think you get your reasoning wrong in that you fail to consider the possibility of alternative solutions. For example, certificates issued by schools confirming the completion of a given number of years of study might serve quite well for most purposes.

Also, it is worth pointing out that government-issued ID cards are not a tamperproof way of establishing age. A government agent may take a picture of you the day you are born and print it on a card--but if 21 years later you present that card in a liquor store, how will the sales clerk know the cute baby on the picture is actually you? It could be anyone.

During Communism, the Hungarian government used to issue ID booklets containing quite a lot of personal information, including date of birth, place of residence, marital status, number and names of children, etc., what not. However, the booklets were only issued around age 14, when you were about to graduate middle school. There would have been no point in having them for younger children, because their appearance was constantly changing. Your date of birth was copied from your birth certificate--but if it hadn't been for the teachers knowing your name, there would have been no way of verifying that you were actually the person named on the birth certificate you presented. Also, if I remember correctly, it was actually a school employee that filled out the booklet and stuck your picture in it, so they were in effect school-issued, not government-issued booklets.

[Jake_Ellison]

There could be cases when someone is born and goes through early life without ever having any type of ID issued by a private entity. But I don't think that is a strong enough reason to have the government issue ID's to everyone, or mandate that everyone should have some means of proving their age, or else they are punished. Those two are both a violation of the rights of people who might never end up in a court of law.

Instead, in those rare cases when a court needs to establish someone's age and it isn't available through the many records kept and ID's issued by schools, private roads, employers, insurers etc., the age of someone should just be estimated using height, denture, bone structure etc.

As for serving someone with alcohol, drugs or whatever else their parents' consent should be required for, that should be done either with some private ID that is reasonable proof of age, or if they look old enough. Businesses would not serve people who look young asnd have no IDs, for fear of law-suits from their parents. That is enough of a deterrent, if the penalties set by Courts are high enough (our current laws and many inspectors and specialized gov. departments are a waste of time and abusive).

[Zip]

One of the jobs of a proper government is to protect the rights of its citizens abroad. How do you know who is your citizen if you do not have a record of them? Personally I have no problem with a simple identification card listing my name, birth date and having a picture of me. The ID card could be issued by a private business for the government, confirming upon birth and subsequent re-issue that I am who I say I am.

[Jake_Ellison]

One of the jobs of a proper government is to protect the rights of its citizens abroad. How do you know who is your citizen if you do not have a record of them?

Passposts. (not that they should be mandatory, but they are mandate by other countries, so US citizens would have no choice choice but to get them, and probably only from the US government.) Or, if a person is travelling without a passport or ID, they can, and face the risks.

Personally I have no problem with a simple identification card listing my name, birth date and having a picture of me.

I do have a problem with it-I don't feel like doing that. So mandating that I do it anyway would be a violation of my rights.

As for a voluntary ID, that can be done by private businesses, for their clients, not for the government. In general, the government has no business inquiring about me unless I am a threat to someone or violate their rights.

[rebelconservative]

The ID card could be issued by a private business for the government, confirming upon birth and subsequent re-issue that I am who I say I am.

are you suggesting that the fact that it is issued a business operating on behalf of the govt. makes this any more palatable?