>>A well functioning state needs to be a strong (sorry libertarians) and benign (cf. Somalia and North Korea) to take care of its citizens. I don't think a sta

>>A well functioning state needs to be a strong (sorry libertarians) and benign (cf. Somalia and North Korea) to take care of its citizens. I don't think a state being strong contradicts libertarian principles. It's the state being expansive that is anti-liberty. A strong state that limits itself to core functions (e.g. prosecuting those who resort to aggressive violence, in order to replace the law of the jungle with the law of the market) can potentially result in the most 'libertarian' possible society. >>In a weak state like India, the local entities are thoroughly corrupt. A blue eyed/blond 6.5 foot viking can get a birth certificate in an indian province where most citizens are under 5.5 foot and caramel colored for less than a hundred dollars. I don't think the identification system or biometric data linked to it is the main problem. The question is why it's made mandatory to use for nongovernmental services if the purpose is just to prevent people from defrauding the government? Clearly it goes far beyond corruption of government programs.