|
I don't think anyone has really addressed what the topic talked about. Granted, one can attack a line of reasoning by damaging its premises, but I don't think anyone has shown that the premises are so off base that the point made doesn't really work.
That said, here are my thoughts on the issue.
First off, it strikes me that technology, not ideology is driving this debate. I hope we can all agree that there is something inherently bad about the government (or anyone else) possessing an extensive database of information about every american, and the ability to identify everyone easily. With that in mind, what might tempt us, or the people in power to establish such a system? In this case, it's the need for "security" that the administration desires. Here, I might dust off a few arguments used against gun control, and apply them to great effect. Requiring everyone to be put into this system will compromise the privacy of a large number of Americans, and do relatively little to curtail the behavior of "the enemy," in this case. This is quite similar to the way that strong gun control laws do more to keep guns out of the hands of the innocent, and don't cut off the means by which criminals acquire them.
Needless to say, technological innovation is inevitable, and the temptation to create such an information system will only grow.
(Now, some of you might argue that such a system already exists, but its current form is nothing compared to what might be possible in the next 10 years, or indeed, compared to what is already possible, but not yet implemented.)
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
|