4 ms·

There are monied interests that do not want a tight American ID system.

by throwaway48476 2y ago

MiguelX413 2y ago
What are they?
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  Agriculture and food processors want their undocumented workers.
  - simondotau 2y ago
    The transition to documented humanoid robots might take less than a decade.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      Only if they are cheaper than a human. Which seems unlikely, for this kind of work.
      - simondotau 2y ago
        Given time, what seems unlikely today will eventually be inevitable. With sufficient design iteration and manufacturing scale, there's no reason why a humanoid robot couldn't be cheaper to manufacture than a compact car. That's competitive with a single year of unskilled human labour — and that's before you account for the robot working 7 days a week, 18+ hours a day, for many years. No messing around with undocumented workers, no risk of unionising, no sexual harassment accusations, no training costs (after training the first robot), no worker injuries resulting in expensive litigation.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    Yeah but a mandatory national ID or voter ID isn't what the comment a few up is asking for. Driver's license is an optional form of ID as far as the govt is concerned, but this doesn't stop Uber from requiring it. The state or federal govt could help prove that someone has a valid DL without that person having to give the original DL to Uber.
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      Even voter ids would be optional. The govt. won't force you to have one. Voting is a right unlike driving but driving is more important to livelihood and life (which are rights) and yet we require driver's licenses to drive. Ideally, national (voter) ids should be free and obtainable with minimum effort.
      - EasyMark 2y ago
        There are restrictions on all rights. I don’t see a problem with requiring an ID, whether DL, PP, or just a personal ID. There can be loopholes but it should require some documentation and not simply “I am Kaiser Soze” in the Name blank
      - mulmen 2y ago
        > Ideally, national (voter) ids should be free and obtainable with minimum effort. Except they definitely won't be. See: the entire south. Election integrity can be maintained without voter IDs as evidenced by the fact that we have a couple centuries of successful elections without them. The concept exists only as a way to disenfranchise voters.
        hot_gril 2y ago
        Every democratic country in the world with successful elections has voter ID* except for the US, unless I missed one. I don't know if there's some way people were disenfranchised as a result. For the past couple of centuries here, we don't have a way to prove that election integrity was maintained. * checked either at registration time or polling time
jandrewrogers 2y ago
It is more that the Federal government is Constitutionally prohibited from mandating such a thing, the most they can do is ask nicely and hope for compliance. Coordinating the several dozen States, which can do it, is like herding cats. This is further complicated because there are large factions of both Democrats and Republicans that are against it for a litany of unrelated reasons, so the resistance to it is robust and bipartisan. It has little to do with "monied interests". It is primarily the product of nigh insurmountable legal and political hurdles.
- cyberax 2y ago
  Where does it say in the Constitution that the Fed can't operate a unified ID system?
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    The Federal government can build one but they can’t require it or make people use it, and an ID you can opt out of is useless. Only the States have that authority. This is settled law with a lot of precedent, and largely the reason the US has no national ID system no matter which politician runs the country. Courts have consistently held this to be outside the narrow Constitutional authority of the Federal government. Having a mandatory Federal ID would require a Constitutional amendment, but since the States have refused to do it voluntarily it seems exceedingly unlikely that a super-majority of States would ratify an amendment that forces them to do it.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      It doesn’t have to be mandatory. Just offering it means businesses will use it to offload liability, and only accept customers that sign up for it.
    - alpinisme 2y ago
      Are there any example rulings that you can share to illustrate this how courts have “consistently held” this?
KoftaBob 2y ago
What are these monied interests, and what incentive do they have to prevent a "tight American ID system"?

There are monied interests that do not want a tight American ID system.

MiguelX413 2y ago

What are they?

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Agriculture and food processors want their undocumented workers.
- simondotau 2y ago
  The transition to documented humanoid robots might take less than a decade.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Only if they are cheaper than a human. Which seems unlikely, for this kind of work.
    - simondotau 2y ago
      Given time, what seems unlikely today will eventually be inevitable. With sufficient design iteration and manufacturing scale, there's no reason why a humanoid robot couldn't be cheaper to manufacture than a compact car. That's competitive with a single year of unskilled human labour — and that's before you account for the robot working 7 days a week, 18+ hours a day, for many years. No messing around with undocumented workers, no risk of unionising, no sexual harassment accusations, no training costs (after training the first robot), no worker injuries resulting in expensive litigation.
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
[flagged]
- hot_gril 2y ago
  Yeah but a mandatory national ID or voter ID isn't what the comment a few up is asking for. Driver's license is an optional form of ID as far as the govt is concerned, but this doesn't stop Uber from requiring it. The state or federal govt could help prove that someone has a valid DL without that person having to give the original DL to Uber.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    Even voter ids would be optional. The govt. won't force you to have one. Voting is a right unlike driving but driving is more important to livelihood and life (which are rights) and yet we require driver's licenses to drive. Ideally, national (voter) ids should be free and obtainable with minimum effort.
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      There are restrictions on all rights. I don’t see a problem with requiring an ID, whether DL, PP, or just a personal ID. There can be loopholes but it should require some documentation and not simply “I am Kaiser Soze” in the Name blank
    - mulmen 2y ago
      > Ideally, national (voter) ids should be free and obtainable with minimum effort. Except they definitely won't be. See: the entire south. Election integrity can be maintained without voter IDs as evidenced by the fact that we have a couple centuries of successful elections without them. The concept exists only as a way to disenfranchise voters.
      - hot_gril 2y ago
        Every democratic country in the world with successful elections has voter ID* except for the US, unless I missed one. I don't know if there's some way people were disenfranchised as a result. For the past couple of centuries here, we don't have a way to prove that election integrity was maintained. * checked either at registration time or polling time

jandrewrogers 2y ago

It is more that the Federal government is Constitutionally prohibited from mandating such a thing, the most they can do is ask nicely and hope for compliance. Coordinating the several dozen States, which can do it, is like herding cats. This is further complicated because there are large factions of both Democrats and Republicans that are against it for a litany of unrelated reasons, so the resistance to it is robust and bipartisan. It has little to do with "monied interests". It is primarily the product of nigh insurmountable legal and political hurdles.

cyberax 2y ago
Where does it say in the Constitution that the Fed can't operate a unified ID system?
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  The Federal government can build one but they can’t require it or make people use it, and an ID you can opt out of is useless. Only the States have that authority. This is settled law with a lot of precedent, and largely the reason the US has no national ID system no matter which politician runs the country. Courts have consistently held this to be outside the narrow Constitutional authority of the Federal government. Having a mandatory Federal ID would require a Constitutional amendment, but since the States have refused to do it voluntarily it seems exceedingly unlikely that a super-majority of States would ratify an amendment that forces them to do it.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    It doesn’t have to be mandatory. Just offering it means businesses will use it to offload liability, and only accept customers that sign up for it.
  - alpinisme 2y ago
    Are there any example rulings that you can share to illustrate this how courts have “consistently held” this?

KoftaBob 2y ago

What are these monied interests, and what incentive do they have to prevent a "tight American ID system"?