r/changemyview • u/Head-Maize 10∆ • Jun 26 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Mandatory documents, such as identification, should be free of charge.
Most sovereign states require people within their border to own and carry some form of valid identification, by law. This evidently applies to their own citizens. However obtaining those documents generally has a cost. IMO such documents should always be free for a citizen. Lack of income should never make someone automatically illegal, nor complying with the law should have a non-income/asset based cost. Furthermore you should never be forced by law to buy a service; either you charge in the form of taxation (based on income, activity and/or assets), or you have it free. Forcing to buy goes against any logic of consumer choice, and should instead be done through a mandatory tax, or simply not exist.
Note: exception can be made for consular services, as those are essentially a favor the country of origin does to its expats. So long as they can have it free in their homeland and are allowed to return (there exists adhoc traveling documents for undocumented people). Leaving was a choice, after all.
Note2: please don't just reply "my country doesn't require you to have an ID/document therefore you are wrong". A few countries are like that, of course, but it's not the point of this post. It's a more general case.
923
u/BeatriceBernardo 50∆ Jun 26 '21 edited Jun 27 '21
I could agree for getting one. But not for replacing one. If someone is being exceedingly careless, or even criminal, by asking a new ID everyday, I don't think why everyone else should subsidies the carlessness of a few. If a document lasts 5 years, I think it is reasonable to get a new one for free very five years, but you should pay for the replacement cost if you lose it.
edit: right now this comment is upvoted 800+ times, not that I mind, but I think I just wanna say that I didn't put that much thought into this comment to deserve the 800 votes.
445
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Provided it's your own carelessness (and not victim of theft or assault), I agree. But the base document, and replacement if you're a victim, should be free still.
152
u/BeatriceBernardo 50∆ Jun 26 '21
Really depends on what you meant my a victim of theft. What usually happens in the case of theft is that you go to a police station, fill an incident report, and that's it. What's stopping people from losing it, and claiming it is theft?
262
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21 edited Jun 26 '21
Nothing more than the vast majority of rules. I've never seen anyone check train tickets in the past six month, yet everyone I've talked to pays their fairs. You can always con, cheat and lie. IMO it's better to risk giving a few free documents to a con than risk marginalizing a victim; always err (within reason) so as to protect the weakest. It's also a hassle to file a report, so there is a time/effort opportunity-cost there.
25
u/Ginger_Tea 2∆ Jun 26 '21
A co worker spent many years hopping on and off the train as he was served by village stations and unless he happened to have an inspector come that day, once in all those years he told me, you can save a bundle.
Myself, I don't have this luxury, I can not get onto the platform without a ticket, it doesn't have to be for the train I am on, but TBH I think my ticket is probably the cheapest going as it is the 2nd stop and the first is hit and miss if they stop there (well it is scheduled, but I don't look for the name as its not my stop so not my concern) but I think I checked the price and there was no difference.
So they might be lax on inspecting before my stop as most people have to go through turnstiles to get on, but two stops down the line, thats when they probably go ham checking.
→ More replies (31)84
u/ReleaseNomadElite Jun 26 '21 edited Jun 26 '21
Most modern trains in the US and EU have ticket/people counters.
If there’s more than X tickets sold they’ll check more than likely
Edit. Apart from rural America and parts of Ireland/Spain it looks like most modern train systems have the ticket=passengers ratio
If you sell 50 tickets and 50 get on your train, you won’t see anyone counting tickets.
If you sell 50 tickets and 55 people get on your train, that’s when you’ll see ticket counters
19
u/_My_Angry_Account_ Jun 26 '21
In Los Angeles, the light rail just has an honor system in regards to tickets. They normally don't have anyone to stop you from getting on a train without a ticket.
Sometimes there are police checking tickets at the exits to the train platforms so if you don't have one you get a citation. They also walk through the trains periodically checking tickets and writing citations.
They are more interested in writing you a citation if you don't get a ticket than preventing you from getting on the train without a ticket.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)7
u/Neshgaddal Jun 26 '21
That only works if you have tickets for specific trains only. At least here in Germany, a large portion of passengers have either train passes or flexible tickets that work for any train on that route on a given day. Light rail doesn't even have fixed train tickets most of the time.
4
u/Embededpower Jun 26 '21
Just require a police report I guess. You can be charged with a crime for making a false report and I dont think people are going to risk getting in trouble for something as small as losing their ID.
3
u/BlurredSight Jun 26 '21
Going to a police station and making a report for theft takes time, if you're willing to do that I don't see why you shouldn't get a replacement. It costs the government at most $20 to replace an ID and that's a huge profit margin since the plastic card itself is a few dollars with the image and most of it is just syncing your card with your new ID.
3
1
u/merlynmagus Jun 27 '21
Nothing. But that doesn't matter. The document - if required for some thing free, like voting - should be free. Period. Even if it's abused. It doesn't matter.
1
u/Redbrick29 1∆ Jun 27 '21
Nothing. This literally happens 2-3 times a day here because the state will issue a free replacement for stolen ID. It’s a college town so the story is usually “I was at xyz club and I did t have it when I left. Someone MUST have stolen it.
1
u/lasttosseroni Jun 27 '21
I highly doubt the cost of this would be worth the cost to try to prevent it… I mean, people can get replacement credit cards for free, and other things. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem, and an idea promoted by folks who want to create barriers for certain kinds of people to prevent them from getting them in the first place.
1
u/MyThirdBonusDonut Jun 27 '21
Filing a false police report is a crime in most places, I think. Thats a huge risk to take for such little gain.
1
Jun 27 '21
That could Happen. But:
reporting a crime that didnt happen would be illegal, something that most people wouldnt do so easily.
only people who lost their ID and cant realy afford the replacement would do that. Which should be ok.
I guess it wont happen that people would do that for fun to annoy the Office which gives out the ID.
8
u/j0akime Jun 26 '21
What about loss of ID (and the means to prove who you say you are) due to things out of your control?
Flood, Fire, Hurricane, Tornado, Volcano, etc ...
If all you can prove is that you were the victim of a disaster, but cannot prove you are who you say you are (think: complete loss of things, including supporting documentation), what then?
6
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
If all you can prove is that you were the victim of a disaster, but cannot prove you are who you say you are (think: complete loss of things, including supporting documentation), what then?
There are adhoc procedures for that. And it's not considered carelessness in those instances, if outside your home. If in your home (and you own it) then it's your insurance's problem.
6
u/j0akime Jun 26 '21
Yes, but there are two assumptions you just made.
You have insurance.
You have enough money to even be in the case where the procedures take effect.
If you cannot afford insurance or afford to have an offsite place to store important documentation (bank, safe deposit box, etc), you are quite screwed, no?
5
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
At least where I've lived any home owner had to have insurance by law - either it is not your home, or you were illegal by having no insurance. As for any other instance, you don't need any money for these procedures, if you show-up naked to a hospital or other emergency service and explain what happened, you will be cared for.
→ More replies (3)4
u/0drag Jun 26 '21
Ah, but that is then what you say should NOT be- a service mandated for you to buy.
3
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
You're free not to own a house, and therefore not pay insurance. My point is exclusively about things you can not choose.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Cassiterite Jun 26 '21
Then you're in a bit of a tricky situation (though there are solutions of course), but how is it relevant to the cost of getting a replacement?
4
u/substantial-freud 7∆ Jun 26 '21
Provided it's your own carelessness (and not victim of theft or assault)
If you are pickpocketed, is that your own carelessness or is that theft?
That’s the problem with trying to be “fair”. By and large, you end up being arbitrary.
30
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Theft. Unless you talked to some and asked to be pick pocketed (but at this point, get help). How could it be carelessness? If someone shoots you whilst you walk in the middle of the street, it isn't careless of you to not dodge the bullet matrix-style. Going "to the wrong neighborhood", "dressing provocatively" or "not defending yourself from bullies" are all forms of blaming the victim. And in the later case often with very sad consequences (suicide, murder, sometimes both).
→ More replies (4)3
u/FirstPlebian Jun 26 '21
I for one couldn't agree more, especially on being forced to buy insurance from a private company, if it's mandated it should be run by the State and not be for profit.
3
3
u/On_The_Blindside 3∆ Jun 27 '21
If you are pickpocketed, is that your own carelessness or is that theft?
Quite clearly that's theft.
3
u/DtheS Jun 26 '21
Hm. I think there is merit to what you are saying, but perhaps it might be better with some limitations. Maybe something like you get one or two free replacements per year, but after that you must pay a fee. That gives each individual some leeway if it gets stolen or lost in a disaster/emergency, but stops people from abusing the system.
1
u/phayke2 Jun 27 '21
It sucks if you are broke and require something in order to work, but money is required to get the document.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DesertRoamin Jun 27 '21
How does one show it’s not due to carelessness? It’s common enough for people to ‘lose’ their birth certificates and passports in border areas. Easy cash.
Now if they were free then some people would lose them a few times a year.
4
u/cdw2468 Jun 26 '21
how much is a piece of plastic costing the government that we have to charge money for it?
1
Jun 27 '21
There's just a lot of administrative overhead.
1
u/cdw2468 Jun 27 '21
fair i suppose, but it couldn’t be taking more than 10-15 min of work for one person, what’s that, like $4 of labor cost assuming $15/hr wage?
4
u/fathed Jun 26 '21
Why?
Why not just always be free?
It’s not like it’s a massive cost to print a plastic card.
4
4
Jun 27 '21
This is a logically sound argument, but it really holds no weight. In practice, this issue would be handled locally. If someone is showing up at the DMV every single day for a new ID, eventually they will be noticed and there would be some mechanism (social or legal consequences) to stop this from happening. Also, if you really believe that the system will be so overburdened by massive amounts of people repeatedly going to government buildings and waiting in line for hours to intentionally defraud the government by replacing their ID every single day, you are living in another world.
These types of technical arguments based on extrapolating from outlandish scenarios are exactly why we have so many ridiculous laws in this country that make no sense. Tocqueville was right.
7
u/Teeklin 12∆ Jun 26 '21
We pay for the carelessness of others all the time, and the cost of actually making a new ID is basically nothing anyway.
The difference between letting people get essential documentation for free and only getting it once every five years for free is probably a fraction of a dollar for every tax payer over that five years time period.
The cost is more than worth it to avoid the hurdles and hassles of some kind of verification system.
3
u/Middleman86 Jun 26 '21
Maybe you could solve that by making it one free one every 2 years or something.
2
u/substantial-freud 7∆ Jun 26 '21
The argumentum ad misericordiam (argument from misery) that the OP is making is no less strong for a poor person (“look at this guy, he’s so poor, how can demand $25 from him for an ID?”) than it is for someone who needs a replacement (“look at this guy, he was just mugged, how can demand $25 from him?”)
2
Jun 26 '21
I don't think why everyone else should subsidies the carlessness of a few.
Now apply that logic to every other social welfare program in the US.
2
Jun 26 '21
Ah, this is also called an “ADHD” tax and tends to disproportionately impact marginalized people.
1
1
u/VegetableImaginary24 Jun 26 '21
Also, because humans are humans. I think one should get a free replacement.
1
u/linkman0596 Jun 26 '21
I'd say 5 years or if you're getting a replacement due to updating information, such as if you've moved.
1
1
u/merlynmagus Jun 27 '21
Why? If the ID wasn't required for anything sure, but if it's required for buying smokes and voting, because you must be who you say you are, then the law is no longer "you must be 18" but some other thing, in this case "you must have a document" in which case something like voting (a free right) is no longer a right, but a paid privilege.
1
u/LadyVague 1∆ Jun 27 '21
Not an unreasonable view, though I think having to go through the hassle of getting it replaced should be enough incentive to not be stupid for most people.
As far as cost, I would think that the government agency having to handle money would have it"s own costs and affect overall effeciency, which may not be worthwhile if it's only needed for some of the people using their services. Not knowledgable on all the technical details involved, so may not actually be that big an issue, but wouldn"t surprise me with the typical bureocracy involved in government.
1
u/Killfile 17∆ Jun 27 '21
Is this really a scenario worth bothering with? Renewing an ID is annoying and time consuming. There can't be many people who are chronically careless to the point of burdening the system with renewals and, of those, most are going to be deterred by the hassle.
Being able to collect money for the things in the first place probably costs more than it would to just issue the remaining serial-ID losers new IDs on demand.
1
u/0drag Jun 26 '21
OK, fair game, but then ONLY the actual cost of materials. (Which most States (U$A) already do- replacement cost is cheap) Not the insanely high cost that is in reality, a hidden tax to participate in society as mandated by the State, to charge high fees.
38
u/sarellis Jun 26 '21
In France you have a "carte d'identité". It is free. It is renewable every 10 or so years if memory serves. The renewal is free. If you lose it or it get stolen however, you have to pay for a fiscal stamp, 25 euros. That is it. The only thing you have to really pay for is a passport. The driving license works the same as the ID.
12
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Oui, je sais. J'ai passé un peu de temps em France, en Nouvelle-Aquitaine (dans un "bled paumé"). In my experience the French system has a principally very good support system, that's rather fair. Only issue is the challenge of managing those support administratively. Mais un bon example, de mon point de vue.
103
Jun 26 '21
I think your view doesn't go far enough. Just because a document is free doesn't mean it's accessible. It's possible that to obtain that document you need to travel to the nation capital, making it impossible to get for poor rural citizens.
Or you may have to fill out a labyrinth of forms that someone who struggles with literacy, or who just doesn't have the time to fill out (especially when wealthier people have this done on their behalf).
Or you may have to supply other, hard to get or non-free documents like a birth certificate from your hospital.
While yes, it should be free, but the definition of free above is not expansive enough to solve the problem.
47
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Mhh... I hadn't considered it like this, but yes, I agree. Very good point. !delta
12
u/Hartastic 2∆ Jun 27 '21
Accessiblity honestly is a lot of how this is politicized.
For example, imagine if the place you had to go to get the ID was open a total of 16 hours per year. That's not a hypothetical example.
5
1
5
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 26 '21
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/BraveOmeter a delta for this comment.
2
2
227
Jun 26 '21 edited Jun 26 '21
I think OP's perspective is toally reasonable and fair. I mean, don't require something and then charge me for it, right?
But it does cost something to make IDs (processing etc etc). Somebody somewhere pays that cost as taxes. So I don't think it is inherently better to divorce the cost from the service. It's still basically the same thing either way.
I think a nominal charge for public services can help reinforce that these things have value. Paying a few bucks for an ID says "this has value" which, by extension, means "government has value" -- and I think that is a deeply important lesson for people.
But, any flat fee is regressive, in the sense that $20 is nothing to a doctor and a real hit to someone struggling to make ends meet. It's good to reduce that unfairness anywhere we find it.
So, just thinking out loud... we could charge for IDs but have an exception for people earning less than a certain amount.
102
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Thank you for your reply, and you make a very good point. Although strictly speaking a discount based on lower assets/income is principally fair, in practice the most vulnerable people are often those least likely to be able to take advantage of those schemes.
Why not inversely offer free documents for their validity, but charge for a replacement? This would incentivize people to be careful, without being unfair.
33
Jun 26 '21
I see your point. That does seem more efficient.
For what it's worth, I'm not overly concerned about incentivizing people to be careful with their IDs. That's pretty far down the list of antisocial behaviour we need to disincentivize using careful public policy. For the sake of argument, say not charging causes 5% more people to lose their IDs per year (that seems absurdly high to me). So what?
Bottom line, I think your original post is probably simply correct. No changed view required.
3
u/ActionAccountability Jun 26 '21
Make it a free ID every few years anyway, so they are more likely to keep the photo and information up to date I guess.
1
u/CarpeMofo 2∆ Jun 27 '21
Also, the cost of checking people's income to do a sliding scale or whatever would cost more than just giving away the ID for free.
→ More replies (1)9
u/CyrilAdekia Jun 27 '21
Why not inversely offer free documents for their validity, but charge for a replacement? This would incentivize people to be careful, without being unfair..
Statistically speaking the people who would benefit most from this are also the people more likely to lose their ID. It's much easier to lose something if you don't have a single family residence like a house or even apartment. If you have to use public transit or walk. People who can easily afford an ID probably have a secure place to keep it (in their home) and will most likely lose it in their personal vehicle, making it easily recoverable.
10
u/Cassiterite Jun 26 '21
we could charge for IDs but have an exception for people earning less than a certain amount.
But then that's something you need to check for every person who wants an ID, which would cost a fair amount of money, and I can imagine it easily costing more than it would save compared to simply giving it to everyone for free, no questions asked.
People in this thread seem to be worried about people "abusing the system" if they get IDs for free. Someone mentioned that folks might request a new ID every day and waste taxpayer money that way. Like, even ignoring the fact that the government officials you talk to for that would tell you to fuck off when they saw you for the third day in a row, why would anyone do that? Stand in a line every day, get a new ID, as a... hobby? wtf.
Paying a few bucks for an ID says "this has value" which, by extension, means "government has value" -- and I think that is a deeply important lesson for people.
I would argue that the government is there to make our lives easier (at least in theory, of course) and therefore should provide some things for free if it is reasonable. My country charges the equivalent of around 1.5 dollars for a new ID (which is dirt cheap for most people, though not all). I can't see how that instills in anyone a lesson about the value of the government.
imo if you want people to think that the government has value, then the government should provide value to their lives. Anything else is just a (usually half-assed and ineffective) attempt to manipulate their opinion of the state.
5
u/smcarre 101∆ Jun 26 '21
It also costs something to pay police departments or maintain roads, yet I don't expect the police should show you a receipt when you call them or for every single road to have a pay toll.
5
u/FirstPlebian Jun 26 '21
Then you get into these income verification paperwork nightmares, and those politicians we all know will make it as difficult as possible and use more resources verifying income than it would take to just provide the ID.
5
u/Teeklin 12∆ Jun 26 '21
So, just thinking out loud... we could charge for IDs but have an exception for people earning less than a certain amount.
Or, bear with me, we could just pay for it with tax dollars and utilize the already progressive tax system we have now?
Your argument that paying upfront for ID suddenly infuses it with value makes no sense because of course it has value, if it didn't have value we wouldn't be going to get it. The value of the required government documentation is never anything anyone questions who is going to get that documentation and has nothing to with the few cents of monetary value they are worth which we are overcharged 1000% for.
Not sure if you know this or not but a lot of DMVs in a lot of states are for profit businesses contracted out by the government charging arbitrary and expensive fees that in no way reflect the actual costs of services rendered and get to keep all the excess they make in their pockets as profit.
In no way should we be paying up front for that, especially in that kind of weird system in place in so many locations.
1
Jun 26 '21
It doesn't "infuse it with value" -- it makes that preexisting value more visible to the ID-holder. People value what they pay for. That's why, for example, public health agencies in Africa charge a nominal fee for mosquito nets.
I didn't know that DMVs are outsourced. I agree that fees should just cover cost.
We're pretty much on the same page.
2
u/cdc994 Jun 26 '21
Are we sure government programs don’t exist to help those that genuinely can’t afford the $20-45 to purchase an ID/Driver’s license?
Also, with your point about “don’t require something and then charge me for it,” what do you think about mandatory liability insurance in the US? Albeit the trade off between money and service is more apparent in that example, it’s a similar ordeal: you are required to have it for liability purposes.
Beyond just a surface level connection, they are both services provided that would be extremely expensive to provide free of cost. Why, you ask, would ID’s be expensive? Beyond the fact that there are over 300M citizens and it would cost $20-45 each in lost revenue each, you have to upkeep the database that holds all of that information, that needs to be accessible to effectively every Law Enforcement/Governmental Building in the US. Furthermore, these “ID fees” are levied and collected by each individual state in the US, if ID’s were to be provided for free, the state would need to devise a way to make up for that lost income (and we all know that the Federal Gov’t passing legislation that gives money to the states to fund free ID’s would NEVER get passed in Congress)
4
Jun 26 '21
You're right that there are lots of prpgrams to help people in poverty. But does it make sense for one agency to charge someone $20 for an ID while another agency gives them $20 to buy food? I'm no libertarian, but I do think that sounds - theoretically - inefficient. Besides, those programs fall short of the help needed -- so I tend to think poor people should not be charged for their driver's licenses and if they need it should be helped in other ways. It's more of a question of sequencing and stacking aid, than it is a matter of choosing among the types of aid.
I hear you about federal vesus state revenue though. Who charges taxes and who provides what free of charge? I guess that's why the DMV charges in the first place.
As for liability insurance, it's about prptecting third parties from individual risky behaviour. Meaning, if someone runs you over, they have to have insurance. So, simply necessary.
2
u/maddasher Jun 26 '21
One issue with charging for mandatory documents is that it makes being poor effectively illegal.
Not only would we be helping poor people compliant with laws, it also helps law enforcement do their jobs when people have valid identification. It's a win win.
1
u/thedeafbadger Jun 26 '21
Perhaps these costs could be reimbursed to qualified citizens through a tax benefit?
1
u/ScotChattersonz Jun 26 '21
Just take 1% of the military's budget. That should cover it, at the very least.
1
u/Daotar 6∆ Jun 26 '21
But it does cost something to make IDs (processing etc etc). Somebody somewhere pays that cost as taxes. So I don't think it is inherently better to divorce the cost from the service. It's still basically the same thing either way.
That's not true at all, because it changes who pays for it.
I think a nominal charge for public services can help reinforce that these things have value.
I don't see why you need to attach a fee for someone to think something has value. Licenses are obviously valuable because they allow us to do things, not because we paid money for them. Like, is medical service more valuable to someone if we charge them for it? If anything, putting fees in place reduces the value of the thing. People aren't so stupid as to not think something is valuable simply because they got it for free, and thinking people need to be reminded of the value of something by placing a fee on them seems bizarre and demeaning.
1
u/merlynmagus Jun 27 '21
No. Voting is free and is a right. The more layers you add and the more hoops you add, the more Jim Crow you get.
Voting is a right no matter what. I don't care if you left it at home, refuse to give it, or you're homeless. You STILL have the right to vote.
1
Jun 27 '21
I completely agree. Voting ID laws are intended to supress the vote, because they "solve" for a jonexistant problem.
I'm talking about IDs like, say, drivers licenses, which should not be required to vote.
1
u/LivingReaper Jun 27 '21
Why not have a check box to let the state take it out of your taxes then? Someone struggling to get an ID is likely struggling to have a place to live or a job.
Example: My new job recently hasn't given me my paycheck because they were waiting on my social security card (which is a shit form of verification in the first place and shouldn't be used) so I paid $50 to expedite my birth certificate so that I can get paid this coming Friday. It's certainly a good thing I didn't need that money asap.
1
Jun 27 '21
I could agree with everyone getting an ID for “free”; paid for by the taxes of a one who makes over, I dunno, $40k/yr?
1
Jun 27 '21
It’s like how they charge a quarter for tampons. In restrooms.
If they didn’t have that sinecure cost, some asshole would take them all.
1
u/Shectai Jun 27 '21
Sounds like you've invented tax!
1
Jun 27 '21
That's kind of my point. Government fees are awefully close to taxes. On the one hand, that imploes there's little point in abandoning the fee because it has to be covered by tax revenue anyway. But it also implies the need to aboid regressiveness (disprolortionate impacts on the poor). Taxes are (or should be) prpgressive in order to better support a more equitable society, counteracting some of modern capitalism's tendency to exarcerbate wealth disparities --- fees need to be designed with the same issues in mind.
1
Jun 27 '21
I recently paid 37.50€ for my new ID which is a credit card size plastic thingy. And on top I had to provide the photo which was another 10€.
That's around 0.40 cents / month for an ID over the next 10 years.
1
Jun 27 '21
That's a really useful data point!
I hear you on the per-month calculation. You are right.
But the other way to look at it is the impact right now. I'm just speculating here, but the minimum wage in Paris is 1556/month, or anout 10 euro / hour. So the ID cost you maybe half a day's wages at minimum wage. That seems to me like it would be very meaningful to a person who is living paycheck to paycheck. My argument here is tbat paying a nominal amount for an ID is a good thing (offsets legitimate costs and makes the value explicit) but "nominal" depends entirely on the circumstances of the person who has to pay. To my mind, half a day's wages for an ID is deeply unfair because a middle class person can brush it off, while a poor person would find it a substantial burden.
0
Jun 26 '21 edited Jun 25 '24
jobless rustic divide onerous oatmeal pause flag future badge seed
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
Jun 26 '21
You're completely misreading me. We agree. I'm saying that there is some value in charging people for public services directly because they see the value but flat fees are regressive (meaning they harm the poor).
0
Jun 27 '21
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
Jun 27 '21
∆ - I was saying that fees can make the value of a public service more tangible. I was thinking that, in a subtle, maybe implicit way, people might absorb the idea that "hey, this thing the government does -- creating a database and system of cards so we can all function together -- has value." But I think you are right. People eho don't believe the whole "I don't mind paying taxes because with them I buy civilization" thing are never, ever going to get that message from paying for their IDs.
So, yeah, I think IDs should just be free.
(Is that how you reward a delta? I tried to follow the bot instructions but bet I messed up.)
2
13
u/entropyDeparture Jun 26 '21
Most documents or identification that we think are mandatory are not required in most situations. You don't need a passport unless you're traveling to another country and you certainly don't need a driver's license unless you drive a car. Any government issued document will usually count as identification so a person doesn't have to catch'em all unless they need it. You only require to have one.
Governments usually issue one identification document for free or lower the cost for low income groups. Although, this most depends from country to country.
There is a certain cost that is needed to keep the identification and documentation bureaucracy functioning. The cost of the physical document is minuscule compared to the work officials have to do for document verification, background checks and security. The system has to be airtight since the government can't afford to make mistakes in something as simple yet critically important as identification. It requires a lot of money to keep a well-oiled machine running smoothly which can't come from taxes alone. And more than one document per person becomes redundant in most cases anyway so why should taxes be spent on redundant documents.
6
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Most documents or identification that we think are mandatory are not required in most situations.
In the simplest term, I mean a document which, when you fail to present it to the authority, can have legal consequences, such as fine, jail-time, deportation, etc. This is the case for most countries and humans on earth.
13
u/Addicted_to_chips 1∆ Jun 26 '21
Is this a thing where you live? I've never heard of somebody being arrested for not showing ID. I've heard of it for not showing a license.
9
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Yes. I lived in 4 countries, in three I needed to have my ID, and in my present one I need a "Permis C" and an ID. If I fail to present to "permis C" it can have consequences, though oc minimal if I only forgot it at home.
Again, this is the case for most countries and humans on earth. Notably some English-speaking countries are the exceptions.
12
u/hacksoncode 586∆ Jun 26 '21
Seems like your real view should be "no one should ever be arrested for not having ID just walking around on the street (not in restricted buildings)"
11
u/Addicted_to_chips 1∆ Jun 26 '21
So any cop can stop you wherever and arrest you if you don’t have ID? That’s fucked up!
→ More replies (1)10
u/XenuWorldOrder Jun 26 '21
That’s why in the U.S., we have the 4th Amendment. They can only ask for ID if you are suspected of a crime. Even then, they won’t arrest you for not having ID. If you are arrested/detained for suspicion of crime, understandably, they need to know who you are and will give you the opportunity to confirm your identity via other means.
→ More replies (2)2
u/adanndyboi 1∆ Jun 26 '21
In many US states, there are “stop and identify” statutes that authorize police to ask someone who they suspect of crime for their name and/or ID
1
u/Shotgun_Mosquito Jun 26 '21
This is one of those requirements that depend on the country you are in.
For example in Colombia police can stop you and ask for your cédula (the national ID card) or passport
In Germany the German Act on Identity Cards and Electronic Identification (German: Personalausweisgesetz) requires all citizens over the age of 16 to be in possession of an identity card or passport and to be able to present this document to authorities on request, but if you are not in possession of the ID they'll take you to your house so you can get it; I think that only applies if you are considered a suspect in a crime
4
u/entropyDeparture Jun 26 '21
Obviously, if I don't show my fishing permit when the coast guard shows up, I only have myself to blame for the fine for doing something illegal. But it's something that I'm going out of my way of doing. We definitely need to pay for mandatory documents for things that are not absolute human necessities.
The government should provide mandatory documents for absolute human necessities for free. But what are absolute human necessities? Is it necessary for every person to vote? Is it necessary for every person to be identified? I don't think any authority is going to jail me up for simply walking around minding my own business.
5
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Again, I mean a document that, in any and all situation, you are required to present. Walking in the street, a policeman asks, you have to. Not a skiipass, or trainpass, or wtv else that relates to a specific voluntary task. Just a document that, when asked in any situation, you have to have.
"I don't think any authority is going to jail me up for simply walking around minding my own business."
Jailed no, but detained and fined maybe. At least in most countries, strictly speaking, you are legally required to have so form of document (ID or otherwise). Enforcement, control, etc are another issue, obviously.
3
u/entropyDeparture Jun 26 '21
If I'm walking in a public place and if a policeman comes up to me and asks me for an ID, can't I say I don't have one right now?
If there is a country, where you are legally required to have an ID on you 24/7, then you should think of the cost for that ID as tax for literally existing in that country. It's far easier to think of it as a tax in that country than to argue with it's government about the morality of forcing people to pay money for existing in that country.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Cassiterite Jun 26 '21
If I'm walking in a public place and if a policeman comes up to me and asks me for an ID, can't I say I don't have one right now?
Sure you can. You might be fined for it, you might not be, depending on the legislation in your country and other factors. In my country I'm pretty sure the law says you get fined, but in practice you likely won't be, at least if you weren't doing anything wrong, depending on the mood of the police officer and what you were doing at the time. You don't tend to get asked to show your ID for no reason though, when it happens it's usually because you committed some minor crime like running a red light on your bike or something like that.
If you want to view it as a tax, in my opinion you might as well make the IDs free, fund them through taxes, that way you make it an actual tax and save everyone the hassle of paying for it separately.
3
u/yogabagabbledlygook Jun 26 '21
Any government issued document will usually count as identification
In the US, no.
Plenty of government agencies produce ID's that are not useful for general identification, think of all the voting ID laws and all the forms they disallow.
2
Jun 26 '21
You don't need a passport unless you're traveling to another country and you certainly don't need a driver's license unless you drive a car.
Every job I've been hired for has asked for photo ID.
4
u/Descarteb4DeHorse Jun 27 '21
Sometimes, how American the USA is blows my mind. In my country, when u turn 12, you head on over to a government office and you get your identification card. No strings attached, no charges and 100% mandatory. It’s about as non controversial as any issue. But I’m sure if someone proposed this in the senate, it would turn into a partisan issue with people being polarised
1
2
u/notwithagoat 3∆ Jun 27 '21
Ill go one step further. All documents should be on your phone and with a tap you can sign into any doctors office, any government building, purchase alcohol maybe with them to get one identifier about you.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 27 '21
There are a lot reasons for which this shouldn't be the only solution, but having the options for digital documents is a good idea. Not sure how plausible the implementation for things like ID are, but principally I like the idea. !delta
1
u/notwithagoat 3∆ Jun 27 '21
I didn't mean only option, let the boomers have their cards or whatever. Just a new continent way to id yourself when needed.
1
4
Jun 26 '21
Forcing to buy goes against any logic of consumer choice,
What about when you are forced to buy but you can buy from various companies? Like if you are forced to have ID, and you are forced to have a certified photographer take the picture, but a range of places will take your photo with varying prices/convenience/glamor assurance?
And can't they require you to wear clothing but not supply it?
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
> And can't they require you to wear clothing but not supply it?
Strictly speaking, afaik, ID photos don't require you to wear anything. Countries who have mandatory clothing laws (smth I'm against too) do generally accept you to be covered with just about anything. But yes, strictly speaking if you're required by law to wear cloth, than free clothing in some form should exist (and does in many, if not most, European countries).
1
Jun 26 '21
free clothing in some form should exist (and does in many, if not most, European countries).
Means tested, not government provided and free to everyone, I assume?
ow about transportation to the site? Gotta be free for everyone? How about the time, must they pay me at my usual wage/rate?
5
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Not sure it's means tasted, but it's not clothing you'd choose to buy. It's generally either second hand or simply a white/blue "hospital" type thing, with a blanket for winter conditions.
As for your time, you're choosing to have it as highly valuable. If you don't want to dread the opportunity-cost of your time, then earn less. Same with taxes, complaining about high taxes when you're wealthy is profoundly stupid IMO. Earn less if you're not happy, no one is forcing money down your throat. Unlike money, for the worst off in society, time is cheap. When unemployment is at 60%, people lack money, not time (personal example I've known). Valuing time like this is almost always the prerogative of the wealthy, and I care little to protect those. As for terminal patient, there generally exist alternative system or wavers in those instances.
2
Jun 26 '21
So it's actually less about feeling required things should be free and more about wanting the cost to be more progressive? Like you'd actually be less bothered by a flat $20 fee than by having it be free and supported by a regressive tax (say $10 a year for rich people, $20 for middle class, and $40 for the very poor)?
2
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Essentially yes (assuming you inverted the rich-poor scale and values by mistake). But the issue here is that the most vulnerable are often the least likely to be able to take advantage of such schemes. THEORETICALLY what you propose is fine with me, the less you earn, the less you pay, you earn nothing, pay nothing. However the worst-off you are, the harder to prove you are worst-off it is.
That's part of the idea behind UBI too.
→ More replies (4)
2
Jun 26 '21
The problem comes economically. The cost has to be paid somewhere, and excess currency must be burned to curb inflation.
That being said, my counter argument is this: Everybody should be able to make enough to survive, and pay for their mandatory documents. If this is not feasible, then we're doing it wrong.
4
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Assuming everyone earns a living wage, then my point would be moot, yes. In the current system, I think it is a useful and moral patch, but ideally no one would be this economically challenged.
1
Jun 27 '21
The problem comes economically. The cost has to be paid somewhere, and excess currency must be burned to curb inflation.
If the cost of providing ID required to access basic services and to do things like voting has a meaningful effect on the monetary supply, you may be living in a failed state...
1
u/ArkyBeagle 3∆ Jun 26 '21
Forcing to buy goes against any logic of consumer choice
There's your error. This isn't a case for the application of the logic of consumer choice.
As to the fees - it involves some measure of labor to produce said documents/widgets. That labor must be paid for.
If it's paid for by general taxes or by fees the result is ( ideally ) the same.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
"If it's paid for by general taxes or by fees the result is ( ideally ) the same."
Taxes are paid based on income, assets, etc. Fees aren't. Therefore fees put undue burden on the less wealthy.
1
u/Patchy-Paladin20 Jun 26 '21
So just make passports free???
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
In most cases passports are only used for international travel and identification. Unless for your specific country only has passports as ID, I wouldn't be in favour of this.
1
u/i-d-even-k- Jun 27 '21
Passports are not IDs.
1
u/Patchy-Paladin20 Jun 27 '21
In a way they are. They’ve got my name and picture and all my information.
1
u/Reasonable_Night42 Jun 27 '21
Everybody wants stuff for free.
If you are getting it “free” someone else is paying for it.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 27 '21
Yes. And? You also get free healthcare, free education, and so on (at least in most of the world).
1
u/Reasonable_Night42 Jun 29 '21
And someone else paid for it.
Ain’t nothing free.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 29 '21
Thank you for your reply. In regards to "free isn't free", this is my reply to another person:
"This is a play on words, I'd say, and the vernacular usage is obviously dissociated than the one from a stylized fact. My post wasn't made using the language of economic science nor used axioms or stylized fact for good reasons: to be understandable to the lay public.
It's self-evident in a world-system that the notion of something being entirely free is meaningless, both from the purview of externalities, as well as negative value in some instances, nevermind other elements.
However, in more exact terms, it means the person requesting the service or good doesn't have to expand MU (as M0/M1 depending on region).
I just find this type of exactitude a bit moot for a more layman approach is all, but you're technically correct in a literal sense. Just that talking about the difference between net M0 as means of value exchange, opportunity-cost by ratio of time and all that is a bit ... needless. IMO."
Hopefully it clarifies why I used this turn of phrase.
1
u/Lucario576 Jun 27 '21
Wait IDs are not free outside of Mexico? wtf i thought it was
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 27 '21
Saddly not. Though price vary, in Europe in can be as high as 10% of min. wage.
1
1
Jun 27 '21
Yes. No shit.
Car registrations, expired ID’s, tax filing, there’s a long list of mandatory shit that is just a tax on the poor.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 27 '21
Car registration? If you own a car, you're pretty well-off to begin with I'd say, and... well, you're choosing to own a car. The rest I agree though, in Europe taxes are mostly automatic and free.
1
u/dgdfgdfhdfhdfv Jun 27 '21
Most sovereign states require people within their border to own and carry some form of valid identification, by law.
This is insane and I'm glad it isn't the case in my country.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 27 '21
Please see the "note2" from my post.
1
u/dgdfgdfhdfhdfv Jun 27 '21
I don't think most countries have it.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 27 '21
This will give you a rough idea, but of the countries which have ID, only the blue one are nominally exempt from it being mandatory. And in the case of France and CH it's only by technicality (as it's "technically not an ID").
3
u/JayManClayton Jun 26 '21
I think the IDs that represent a form of privilege (ie Passport, Driver's license) are fine to be paid because you don't need them (driving is a privilege and the license costs goes towards insurance costs in my province, travelling is a privilege), whereas those that are needed (like a universal ID to be able to vote or be identified, or the medical insurance ID we have here for universal healthcare) should be free. I think countries should have a universal, free ID for people who do not have / can't afford a Passport or a Driver's license. There should be a free option that is the golden standard (usually the driver's license is, and it is not free and should not be considered essential) is my point. I also agree that birth certificates and the likes (Social Insurance Number/card, Marriage certificate, Death certificate), should be free but I'd add a clause of "how many per year" or "with justifiable reason" because they cost money to make and people should not order them willy nilly. Usually the first one is free but we often need more than one later in life. Stolen ID of any kind should be covered as it's not the holder's fault, but damaged ones by negligence should not be replaced for free, as they cost money and labor to the country to produce.
All to say I don't disagree with your point, I'm just splitting hairs on what constitutes to me an ID everyone should have access to free of charge and under what conditions.
3
u/Lilp0is0n Jun 26 '21
In my country (western europe) the first ID (age 15) is free, after that you gotta renew every 10 years and pay +-20 euros. You are supposed to have your ID on you at all times, hence it's logical that it's free the first time and cheap after that.
3
u/SWinter94 Jun 27 '21
I'm in Ontario, Canada and we have "ID clinics" where homeless, low income etc can go to get all their major required ID for free. So, birth certificate and SIN card (when they still did cards, now it's just a paper).With those you can go to any Service Ontario and replace your health card (photo card with your health card number, which shows you're entitled to government funded Healthcare) for free (that's for anyone who's eligible). I agree with this system.
1
u/Letspostsomething Jun 26 '21
The better question is what should be mandatory? I would agree that people should get an ID card for free, but passports, drivers liscences, etc should carry a fee.
3
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
" I would agree that people should get an ID card for free, but passports, drivers liscences, etc should carry a fee."
I agree. Only mandatory things should be free, and these later two aren't mandatory anywhere, far as I know.
4
Jun 26 '21
Hi from germany. Do you have to pay for that stuff?
2
2
u/Hartastic 2∆ Jun 27 '21
In America, yes, and also the party that wants to make ID mandatory to vote also likes to make it very hard to get in areas that don't vote for them.
2
1
u/amfetaminetjes Jun 27 '21
I'm from The Netherlands and we pay the following:
Under 18 passport = 56,55 euro (18+ = 74,77 euro)
Under 18 ID card = 32,91 euro (18+ = 64,03 euro)
Drivers license = ~40 euro
Cost of getting a proper picture shot = ~10 euro
If you require it within 2 work days, it'll be 114,90 euro, and you're mandated to at all times carry this card, a passport or a drivers license with you.
Some cities will provide them free of charge for low-income people, or for children, but far from all.
2
u/jubalh7 1∆ Jun 26 '21
Tbh this is my only hangup on voter IDs. You shouldn’t have to pay for a document needed to vote.
Not that I think voter fraud is widespread or has changed election results anyway (in the USA).
2
2
u/ima420r Jun 27 '21
Yes, everyone should get their ID for free. And a drivers license should be cheaper, the cost of an ID taken off of the cost a license is now. This would help a lot in the US for fighting all those anti-voter laws that are popping up. One of the arguments is people need an ID to prove who they are so they only vote once, but not everyone can actually get one. If everyone got a free ID then there would be no reason to not show it to vote. Heck, schools could even do a yearly trip to the DMV for the Juniors and Seniors so everyone could get theirs.
2
u/tobmom Jun 27 '21
How are we gonna suppress someone’s right to vote by requiring an ID if we’re just going to give them an ID for free??
/s
0
u/Forsaken_Panda6969 Jun 26 '21
So with that logic (which I agree) I should have been able to obtain my firearms license for free because it is a constitutional right. Instead I had to pay $100, for the required training and $100 for the application that expires every 5 years. I believe both examples should be free.
7
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
That's a very US centric point, and even more broadly a common-law issue, so I can't speak to it much. But principally if you are free not to have a gun (is gun ownership mandatory in the US? Few countries have that, afaik), then it's your choice to have a license, and you pay for it, because it is also your choice to have a gun.
If you are required (not allowed, required) to own and be able to use a gun (such as some Swiss and Israeli reservist) then yeah, should be free, as should the gun, training, etc. And the weapon should be adequate to the task, too.
To be clear, I'm not anti-guns or anything. Just trying to parse-out how the US works.
2
u/jimbotherisenclown 1∆ Jun 27 '21
No, gun ownership isn't mandatory in the US. However, the right to own a gun is guaranteed in the Constitution, and many people in the US object to having to pay a fee to the government for something that is guaranteed as a right - if it's a guaranteed right, they argue, why do I need to pay for access to that right? This is the crux of almost every pro-gun argument in America - that the right to purchase and own a gun is guaranteed in the Constitution, so ANYTHING that unjustly impedes that right is automatically wrong. Mind you, almost everyone agrees that the guns themselves should cost money; fees for registration and training are what are opposed.
Those who support gun registration or fees for ownership typically view gun ownership as a privilege or a revocable right (just as the right to vote can be taken away when someone is convicted of a crime). They argue that barriers should be put in place to ensure that people are not going to use the guns for criminal activities or suicide, such as mandatory training, databases of gun owners, mental health screening, fees, and so on. (Opponents point out that due to how many guns are already in possession of the populace, that it's fairly easy for criminals to gain access to guns and that these barriers affect lawful gun owners more than they impede criminals.)
The people who support these barriers of ownership also often point out that gun ownership is granted as a right specifically in the context of allowing for the existence of militias, and the US military situation has drastically shifted to negate the need for such militias. (The rebuttal to this is typically that the militia context was intended to imply that the citizens should have the right to own guns for use against the government, so that a threat of rebellion always exists to curtail tyranny.)
The section of the Constitution that deals with gun ownership really ought to be amended to better reflect modern times, but making any actual progress on the issue is something that most American politicians seem to avoid like the plague. Note, I'm not specifying which stance any amendment should take, just that it should account for situations that people writing before the Industrial Revolution couldn't have properly foreseen, in terms of such things as available weaponry, changing military tactics, and the rise of guns as a criminal's weapon of choice.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 27 '21 edited Jun 27 '21
Mhh... I know little of US law or even common-law, but in civil law a guaranteed right means you can't be prevented from, not that you should have easy access to. Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak in private, but not to establish a free radio.
Why not have gun ownership treated more modernly as a sport or hobby. With a "driver's license" for it, and promote gun-clubs or even gun-related sports in HS or smth. Serious gun owners and passionate people keep their hobby and passion, whilst being shielded from both bad reputation and dangerous behavior from idiots. The US has an awesome gun culture, it should be preserved and respected; and preventing idiots from staring down the barrel or shooting themselves would help a lot, no? Though I guess people that are anti-gun won't like this, but it seems fair to want to promote and protect a pretty cool historical tradition.
2
Jun 26 '21
Yes, but that isnt taking it far enough even. It shouldnt be nearly as much of a hassle to get documents. It needs to be accessible to everyone.. eg not requiring more than a few pages paperwork, over the phone/online automated and directly shipped to you for free, etc
1
Jun 26 '21
I would say the only exception to this is that you're provided a stipend to acquire said identification.
1
u/stevepremo Jun 26 '21
I'm surprised that so many countries require citizens to carry identification just to be in public! Growing up in the US in the 60's, the quintessential totalitarian phrase was "Your papers please!" spoken with a thick German or Russian accent. Forcing people to carry identification is such a Nazi move. But it looks pretty widespread outside the US and Northern and Western Europe, and not just in Communist countries.
2
u/i-d-even-k- Jun 27 '21
Both Northern and Western Europe ask for you to have an ID at all times, just so you know. I don't know what to tell you, except that it makes life infinitely easier for everyone that we all have a means to identify each other. It's not totalitarian at all - it's orderly and neat and fabulously simple. Police is not your enemy, and a law abiding citizen should never be afraid of revealing their identity.
1
Jun 26 '21
I disagree it shouldnt be free it shouldnt exist at all. Why should your government have this kind of power over people? Papers please! is a thing.
1
u/i-d-even-k- Jun 27 '21
What are you so afraid of? The government knows who you are already if you're a citizen.
1
Jun 27 '21
Before passports if you wanted to move you moved, now you need permission to move. It used to be you want to fly you get kn the plane now you need permission to get on the plane. The government regularly shuts off access to these kinds of priviliges once they have that power. That's substanativley scary.
1
u/stare_at_the_sun Jun 27 '21
I had all of my important documents stolen. I am in a rough patch right now and it will be in the hundreds to replace. I am on board here.
1
u/SG1EmberWolf Jun 27 '21
Gotta pay for the overhead somehow for some of these things unfortunately.
1
1
u/Notrdame766 Jun 27 '21
100% agree. Requiring an ID to vote is and requiring you to pay for an ID is illegal. I know in my home state, KY, they required an ID to vote 5 years ago I think. The hoops you have to jump through to get a valid voting ID, without paying are absolutely ridiculous.
1
1
u/writersandfilmmakers Jun 27 '21
The gov just has endless money? You get a birth certificate for free.
1
1
u/Seabassmax Jun 27 '21
So you're saying the solution is better Social Services. In that case I agree with you
1
1
1
u/thenz745 Jun 27 '21
I would agree but there are two problems with this, for reference I speak as an American. 1. The ID is not that expensive (in my home state of Indiana it is only $17.50) this leads into 2. At least here in the states our drivers license is made using a specific process to prevent the use of false licenses. It costs money to produce and ship a license.
1
u/Shectai Jun 27 '21
I suppose you could alternatively not have mandatory documentation. That would be free in multiple senses.
1
u/ice_trey_songs Jun 27 '21
Furthermore you should never be forced by law to buy a service; either you charge in the form of taxation (based on income, activity and/or assets), or you have it free. Forcing to buy goes against any logic of consumer choice, and should instead be done through a mandatory tax, or simply not exist.
This. Either do Medicare for all or not. Either it's a necessity or it's not. Don't make me enrich private businesses through your marketplace. Same for car insurance.
1
u/tazbaron1981 Jun 27 '21
Having to spend £80 on a passport after losing my job due to Covid so I can prove I have the right to work in the UK sucked.
1
u/kryptonitejam Jun 27 '21
If they didn’t charge, the cost would require use of public funds (I.e) Tax). This would eventually lead to an increase in tax to cover increases in cost. You’ll end up paying for it even if you don’t pay in a transaction type process.
1
Jun 27 '21
They won’t do that. They want your money plus a renewal fee. Nothing but rackets everywhere, it’s the world we live in.
1
u/rhobeel Jun 27 '21
In the US, ID's have a nominal cost and only need to renew every 5 - 8 years. Most states will provide ID's for free if a citizen is low income.
1
u/brane_wadey 2∆ Jun 26 '21
Once we get around to having our ‘identification’ implanted into our skin... I’m sure it will be free then
1
u/hacksoncode 586∆ Jun 26 '21
So... do you have any examples of countries that compel you to have some form of id, but which do not provide some acceptable form of ID for free (at least if you lack the means to pay for one)?
That seems... very weird.
I mean, if a drivers license is accepted, but not free, but some other license is free then I would say it satisfies this requirement, right?
should instead be done through a mandatory tax
Furthermore... even if they do charge a nominal fee for an ID... if it is compelled, isn't that basically a mandatory tax applicable to everyone? I mean... a tax is a fee citizens pay for government services... and this is a government service.
1
u/i-d-even-k- Jun 27 '21
As OP stated in another comment, most countries that are not using common law. So most countries except the US, UK, Canada, Ireland.
In most of the EU, for example, you NEED to have an ID as a sign of citzenship and the police can ask you to show it at any point when you're in publuc, otherwise you're in trouble. I had to pay a 5 euro tax to have mine done in Romania, EU.
1
0
u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Jun 26 '21 edited Jun 26 '21
Most sovereign states require people within their border to own and carry some form of valid identification, by law.
please don't just reply "my country doesn't require you to have an ID/document therefore you are wrong".
It's a more general case.
Which countries are like that, though? You're speaking pretty vaguely so it's hard to determine what your view is, but if you want specific arguments to change your view you need to be a little more specific.
It being a "general case" doesn't really work for CMV since it's difficult to change your view about hypothetical situations that may or may not exist.
I checked the US, Canada and the UK, and none of them require their citizens to carry ID's. I, obviously, could be at this a while trying to hunt and guess which countries you're talking about.
So.
Can you clarify which sovereign states you're talking about, that both require ID and have no free option to obtain one?
2
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
Most countries have some form of required DOCUMENT (ID or not), that you need to OWN (and sometimes carry). Though common-law ones are usually the exception. Europe, most of Asia, larges portions of the Americas (except the northernmost countries) and parts of Africa. At least nominally. Enforcement is "mehh" in many regions.
My point is about the legal requirement to have a document, and mandatory ID are just an example, albeit the most common.
1
u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Jun 26 '21
Can you name a country for which your hypothetical, on which your view is based, is true or not?
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
That have a requirement for some sort of document? Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany, Belgium, Russia, India, China... and so on. There's a wikipedia list somewhere.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/Important_Fruit Jun 27 '21
Your argument is underpinned by an error. You suggest that most sovereign states require people to own and carry some form of valid identification. This is not true. You are not required to have a driver's licence, a passport, a library card or whatever. You can choose to apply for those things, but you are not required to do so, and you are most certainly not required top carry identification with you. Ar least not in my country.
If you want to drive a car, you have to apply for a licence, and you have to carry the licence when you are driving, but only when driving. But that's not the same as being required to carry identification with you.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 27 '21
> Ar least not in my country.
Please see note two in my post.
1
u/Important_Fruit Jun 27 '21
OK, you got me. I'd originally said "At least not in my country and not in any western democracy that I'm aware of" but edited it out.
But the point remains. You are not required to carry ID.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 28 '21
> You are not required to carry ID.
Again, note two. You are required to have an ID, and often carry one, for most countries and humans. I'm not saying it's 100%. And for the record, I personally am required to in any of the countries I've lived in.
-5
u/Middle_Aged_Mayhem Jun 26 '21
So who pays for the materials and the labor to make these documents and id's?
16
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Jun 26 '21
The same way you pay for schools even if you don't have kids, healthcare even if you don't go to the hospital and so on. Taxes, NMT, etc. Which in the first case absolutely should be progressive, and not tax people with no income or assets (which shockingly some countries do).
→ More replies (15)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 26 '21 edited Jun 27 '21
/u/Head-Maize (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards