The Barr Code

By Red

March 28, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

Kudos to those states for standing up to Federal bullying. Of course “good ole Sonny” and his buddies will give up everything for their hero, Bush. A national id reeks of totalitarianism.

By zeke

March 28, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this

Bush is a hero and you idiots will be begging to have someone like him back in office, especially if one of those socialist populist demogogs win in November! There has to be some way to identify legal citizens accross the nation so we can get rid of all the illegal criminals that the demogogs want to stay here, and, in fact, want to bring in 50million or more to artificially alter the racial makeup of the country! Current population levels of 74% white, 13% latin, 12% black and 1% other will change somewhat based on birth and death patterns, but, no way will there be less than 50% white in the next several hundred years without artificial tampering by the socialists!! Immigration “quotas” currently in place tend to favor black and latin immigrants! That must change to reflect the actual percentages of the current population and not alter by sneaky means the current balances!

By hegelian

March 28, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

A sad state of affairs when only 3 out of 50 states have the nerve to stand their ground against the ever- burgeoning Federal Govt.— More should do the same, and we would see how the Fed Govt is truly ONLY the agent of the states… Can anyone remember the 10th amendment???? Probably not, so here goes…

…..”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So, it seems clear that the STATE issued drivers license, is just that, a STATE issued drivers license…and the FEDS have no right to mandate squat.

By bob

March 28, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

A national id makes total sense. People like barr would cry out and say what went wrong if another 9/11 happened. The unfortunate thing is that we have to issue the national id in the first place because of muslims hellbent on killing us.

By average citizen

March 28, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

Somewhere in the Bible’s Book of Revelations it says that one way we will know that “the end” is coming, is that everyone in the world will be required to have an ID that shows they are followers of the “Beast”, or the “Anti-Christ”, who will bear the mark and be known by the numbers 666. Those with the ID will benefit from the bribery “the Beast” will grant to them. Could one of the benefits be the freedom to travel? By the way, it isn’t widely known, but the Secretary of Homeland Security’s name is Chertoff and Chertoff is the Russian word for the Devil”.

By BadOleBoys

March 28, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

I’ll sure be glad to see this national ID system fully implemented. Just imagine all those smugglers checking their passengers as they board cargo ships, unmarked trucks, low-flying planes, etc. And the border patrols will certainly be impressed. They’ll just ask to see that ID before letting anyone cross. I feel safer already. Thank you so much brother Bush.

By ron

March 28, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

Anyone advocating a national id card makes me wonder what happened.The terrorist won,hands down,and the war only lasted one day.We’re still running scared because of 9/11.I’m scared too.I’m scared of my own government.They’ve locked themselves in ivory towers and I,Joe Average Citizen, am being denied access to them.They are becoming their own country.

By hegelian

March 28, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

ZEKE— 1) Dems want the Mexicans as voters 2) Rep’s want them to artificially depress labor wages— 3) The FED likes them because they mask, to some degree, the inflationary monetary policy…”Can I get an M3 in the house anyone?” Don’t be snookered by their “jersey”—realize that, throughout history, governments systematically take rights from the pleebs (you and me, ZEKE) and our founding fathers realized this and came up with a very good structure to try and limit/hold-off that tendency (ie: checks and balances within the 3 branches of government). And, although you (and others) may not like it— it models how the God of the Bible is our King (the Executive), our Judge (Judicial), and our Law giver (Legislative). But, vain men (and women) aspire to heights of power (the sin nature)—and our founding fathers tried to institute a government that a) worked and b) used the natural sin nature of man to fight against itself so the pleebs (you and me) didn’t suffer.
That didn’t last long— in 1865 the Feds grabbed a ton of power, they had changed the way senators were elected, instituted the terrible 14th amendment (not the “free the slaves part”) setting a precendent to neuter the states and homogenize all their distinct laws…and creating/setting up the atmosphere of political correctness we see today. But you ZEKE (and many others) blame (thru yrs of media training) the “left”—as if the “left-right paradigm” were, in fact, a reality.

Remember, problems and issues have more than 2 sides—and don’t be fooled into thinking that those limited choices we are given by the left and right are all that exist. THEY Control the debate, and thus have you and me fighting over different colored crayons at the kindergarten table while they stand over us chorteling over our stupidity. Question them, their motives. The only linear “left-right” paradigm that is accurate is freedom vs. slavery. A more apt description of the political spectrum is 3-dimensional—-but if you listen to Hannity, Rush, Savage—or the other side’s version— all they re-inforce the the left-right— because they know we are (as a whole) too stupid to think critically—and so they must speak in those terms to simplify things—all the while controlling the outcome.

By BadOleBoys

March 28, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

Call me an optimist or whatever but I just don’t see a problem arising that a national ID card would fix in the first place. I mean the terrorist leaders — not the stupid ones that implement the plans — appear to be smart enough to figure out that hijacking planes in the same manner won’t be so easy. There are a lot of people keeping an eye out for these people. So, wouldn’t it be more logical to expect something different and yet “spectacular”? For all we know, they could have already purchased airports, planes, and pilots all across the country with some of the money that we used to buy our gas. Nah! I bet these people are capable of far more dastardly ideas. Anyway, why are we worrying about this at all? Brother Bush is keeping these terrorists at bay in Iraq by providing them with plenty of local action. Great Plan.

By Lynn

March 28, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Dismayed by a lack of reporting on the Real ID act nationally. No, don’t laugh.
Here is one Michael Chertoff saying that quite possibly the mission of the Real ID can be later expanded. There he is saying, from the perspective of a government whose raft of party donors includes security firms, that states can soak up billions in costs no problem, or perhaps let him check his rolodex for companies more than willing to do so. You didn’t really need that bridge inspection or that healthcare funding, did you? Isn’t a national identity card that can later include, say, voter registration data, much more important, because we have to make government more efficient? But then we all know that big government doesn’t work, right Michael? Doesn’t work for us, that is.
And here is the same Mr. Michael saying that encryption of data on the Real ID would just be WAY too expensive, even though I am to trust every state in the union with personal information quite liable to identity theft or other differences between states, when I can’t even trust my own. Now, what’s that cloud of dust on the horizon - why, it’s a multitude of lawsuits, by those who can afford to sue. I see that we now have to keep costs down - his, that is, not ours.
Only 100 articles on Google - this is one. Thanks to the AJC from Illinois.

By Eve

March 28, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

To Zeke and other like-minds: If our government controls us, what happens when our government is overtaken? America is weak and getting weaker by the moment. We have pushed aside everything that we believed as a nation in order to accomodate everyone else. When you strip something of its foundation, it has no choice but to fall. The very things this country was founded on are being taken away from its people - including our freedom. Don’t be a sheep and believe everything that is being fed to you by the media. They own the information. You get what they say you get.

By hegelian

March 28, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Aha!!! The Fed’s will save us!!— NEVER MIND ABOUT THE WIDE OPEN BORDER KNOWN TO THE WORLD!!!— Let’s make all the law abiding citizens have their “papers”. If this war was legit— the FIRST thing the Pres. should do, is seal the border—-you know “Protect your flank!!”—I’m no rocket scientist—but that seems plain to me. So, leave the border open (ala the SPP) and yet scare the you-know-what out of everyone constantly about the boogey-man in a cave somewhere—then HAVE THE AUDACITY to say we Americans need this to be safe…It is laughable!!! Those of you who have no problem with it are too stupid to see how ridiculous it is…. I guess “Osama Goldstein” has won—- “they attacked us because of our freedoms”—-well, with each passing day we lose them, and the media has you fools convinced it is for our good, and you love your slavery… “1984” was 20 years ahead of its time….

By John Rush

March 28, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

REAL ID is indeed a national id card:

1+2+3= National ID Card.

By Bosch

March 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

On the surface, I personally don’t see the problem with a national ID card, as long as there isn’t a fee. If the federal government is going to require it, then they can pay for it.

If this ID card can be used for a national driver’s license, then that’s good too - no need to worry if you move to another state.

But, if the federal government thinks this is going to somehow curtail criminal activitiy, or stop terrorism - then that’s just plain ignorant on their part - in my opinion, of course.

If the federal government is defending this by implying this will somehow keep us safe, then that’s just plain stupid, again, in my opinion.

The problem is that this administration has created such a cloud of mistrust among the people, that no one trusts the real purpose of anything they set forth.

They have lied, in my opinion, so many times like the Boy that Cried Wolf, that no one believes their intentions are legitimate.

That is really quite sad to me.

By hegelian

March 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

John Rush… How dare you…. Don’t you see 2+ 2 = 5? Freedom is slavery You may need to be re-educated…

By Rocky

March 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

I am consistently disappointed in “government” at almost every level. Whoever said “all politics is local” apparently never foresaw the national ID debacle. Thank God there are still some state leaders who recognize the danger of starting such a system.

By Csquared

March 28, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

Zeke, you really shouldn’t drink all that coffee in the morning since caffiene has altered your brain. There’s no D A M N need to identify Law abiding American citizens. Only a fascist would demand that I present papers to PROVE I was a citizen. It’s incumbent on Government to PROVE I’m NOT. and then be prepared to back up their assertions in Court!. I’m not satisfied that this information is safe, all this does is open up the identity theft doors to the one-stop thief. He’s only got to crack one LOWEST BID, GOVT purchased security system if this passes. And for BOSCH, Who do you think is going to PAY for the NEW DL you have to GET when this goes through? I gotta clue for you, it ain’t gonna be the Govt!

By Copyleft

March 28, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Zeke wants a police state so he can feel safe… from the government.

Does anyone see a problem with this reasoning?

By Bosch

March 28, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Hey Copyleft! How are ya’ today?

Csquared -

Oh, I know it’s not going to be the government who pays for it - they don’t have the money. That was a pipe dream, kind of hyperbolic statement from me earlier.

That’s why I mentioned earlier, that ON THE SURFACE this doesn’t seem so bad, but we all know what lurks beneath the surface. And like I also mentioned, it’s really pathetic when not too many trust their government to just do the right thing and not have alterior (?sp) motives for anything they put forth.

By Bosch

March 28, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Heglian,

And don’t forget -

Ignorance is Strength and War is Peace.

By DDT

March 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

States rights aren’t “trendy” now. Globalism eco-fascism is trendy. Hooray for being microchipped like dogs. Go with the flow and be slaughtered like sheep.

By Willie

March 28, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Now let’s see! Three states out of fifty. Hmmm, so much for Democracy. I guess the will of the few out weigh the will of the many. Some of you talk about government taking over, big brother, and despots. Well I can remember Barr and others taking our rights away too suchas property rights, second ammendment rights, and you are doing it for the good of the people. Remember?

By PudHead

March 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

After reading a bunch of this wining going on you have all convinced me, I will renounce any ID at all. Nobody needs to know who I am except me. Hell the Mexicans don’t need a drivers license or insurance why should I. I will destroy all of my government ID cards right now!

By TIme Out

March 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Hey Bob, see how quickly your old Republican buddies have turned on you? You are spot on on this issue as well. If America is to remain a free country, and it really is not any more. We have to be be allowed to go about our business without worrying about the government tracking our every move. These people who insist that these methods (ID cards and Eavesdropping )are necessary for the security of this country are fooling themselves. These people really need a nanny. These people insist that this country will be made safer, but it won’t. And I for one want to be free to do anything I want to do as long as it does not infringe on the rights or liberties of others. Freedom is not free it comes with risks, but as I keep telling people we are so paranoid in this country that the terrorists have already won. We are imploding, spending money we do not have, wanting to have our hands held when we cross the street and they are just sitting back and waiting for us to drive ourselves crazy and drive this country broke.

By Air

March 28, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

I really do not think that the US is a democracy, as we like to toot our own horn. Instead we are a democratic republic, as the majority does not always rule. However to stay on issue, let me put it this way. The gov’ment folks were probably thinking, let’s make all of our citizens show their passport whenever they are flying, going to court, etc…but we can’t make people show their passports when they aren’t even leaving the country, so let’s create a new form of ID to serve the same purpose…SHOCKING!!! And the Real ID was born. Let’s have all of the states absorb the cost, too. Let’s make every single american spend everything they have, that way we can say that they are safer. Let’s set up checkpoints on every street intersection and have people present their real id. This hasn’t happened yet, but just watch our leaders throw your rights right out the window and set this up soon too. Let’s see, we have mandated that everyone has a government issued ID, we hate the Muslims and are trying to exterminate the religious extremist mind set. We have set up camps to detain, try, and murder the culprits, and we are raging wars with two countries that do not even border us. Sound familiar? Not to mention we outsourced our own Passport making process to Thailand…What’s next sending our money to Mexico to be manufactured? I am sure it would save a bunch of money on your car insurance.

By Stazi days are here again

March 28, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry to say that it is too little, too late to complain now. The freedoms and liberty and privacy that we took for granted for so many years have been chipped away bit by bit to the glee of those weak minded simpletons that would sell their soul for that “secure” feeling. Welcome to the United States of Stazi.

By hegelian

March 28, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

By Willie March 28, 2008 11:11 AM ———-You are right Willie, if we are a Democracy, and yes 47 out of 50 states would mean a majority—and thus the 3 other states need to shut up. But, we are a Constitutional Republic, friend. That means the right of one individual cannot be overthrown by a vote of the majority. So, the states can and should decide for themselves how much information should be stored on a drivers license… In your world, as long as 50.1% of the people voted to take everything you had (because the 50.1% deemed it a matter of national security, or any other reason they wanted)it would be ok. That is democracy and that is just plain wrong. WAKE UP FOOL.

By Eric

March 28, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

I thought Sonny Purdue was reported last year in the AJC as saying he was against Real ID. When and why did that change?

My fear with Real ID is the potential for abuse. Already our credit history is sold by reporting agencies to credit card agencies without one’s approval. Real ID is sure to link additional information on every private activity - purchases, health care, and one’s whereabouts. How can anyone support this?

By GaLiberal

March 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

zeke@8:44 AM said: Bush is a hero and you idiots will be begging to have someone like him back in office, especially if one of those socialist populist demogogs win in November!

First off zeke, you master of the English language, it’s “demagogues.” Second, Bush is a hero only if you consider lies and deception a positive character attributes. If that’s true, you must love Bob ‘Impeachment’ Barr (BIB) and the Rethuglicons (Republican thugs and liars). Bush is a hero like Hitler was a humanitarian (that’s when people practice humane treatment and provide assistance to others).

I continue to find it almost funny that BIB continues to rail against Bush and the Rethuglicons efforts to ‘protect’ us against the evil terrorists. BIB calls these three rogue states heroic in their stand against the autocratic Federal government. But what BIB neglects is that states must comply with federal laws. So BIB is saying he wants to overthrow the government. That states and individuals can ignore any federal laws they don’t like. While I believe Bush and the Rethuglicons have trashed Constitutional individual liberties and civil rights, I would never encourage or support anyone to willfully disobey the law. These Rethuglicon bootlickers like BIB and zeke rave about “the rule of law” to justify going after illegal immigrants, but conveniently forget it also applies to them.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And the Real ID Act and zeke are living proof.

By david

March 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

Yes indeed, these governors and legislators are true heroes for rejecting the REAL ID ACT. Unlike the governor of Indiana, who only asks “how high” when the Federal government says jump. Seeing this revolt unfold gives me a great sense of pride and hope. True patriots still exist.

By robo

March 28, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

Idiots and traitors infest our government on all levels. They sell you and every other citizen out for personal power and greed, while not givng a rat’s a* about you, the citizen who elected the b******* to office based on their lies.

Democrat or Republican. No difference.

We need to turn them all out, prosecute the traitors harshly, and start all over again. Hold the new bunch to higher standards or else show them the hanging tree. Then, you would get public serving politicians.

By BeatTheChip.org

March 31, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

Anti-Real ID advocates still have a lot to do after March 31, 2008. There’s an act to repeal. According to DHS those who oppose Real ID are merely “throwing spaghetti”. Citing that biometric facial scans and potential RFID chip options presented to DMV’s on a DHS palate of options, could be construed an an “invalid argument”. According to whom? The people who would have you use a passport to travel from state to state.

By Montana Craig

April 1, 2008 2:21 AM | Link to this

I am PROUD to be from the GREAT State of Montana, where EVERY Legisltor, in BOTH parties, and the Gov. stood up for OUR Constitution!

One of my ancestors was at Lexington Green when the King sent the British troops in to get the guns from the people. Back then in 1776 they called the few that stood up were also called “rebellious” Those rebellious people gave us the Constitution!

Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God…..

Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a w******* of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. Thomas Pain 1776

All but four States have become the w******* to the power of Washingto,DC.

Craig Republic of Montana

By Daniel Bein

April 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Zeke,

The problem with your analysis is that it is insane.

Bush has been horribly soft on immigration, for one. And you’re claiming that you are an anti-socialist yet you are willing to allow the central government to vastly increase its powers and convert the US into a police state simply to keep out illegals.

You’re ignoring saner alternatives like revoking the business license of ANY business that hires illegals. This would cause immigration to the US to be undesirable since no illegals could get jobs.

Again, it’s inconsistent for a person who hates socialism support granting vast and unconstitutional powers to the central government.

—Daniel Bein

Zeke wrote: “Bush is a hero and you idiots will be begging to have someone like him back in office, especially if one of those socialist populist demogogs win in November! There has to be some way to identify legal citizens accross the nation so we can get rid of all the illegal criminals that the demogogs want to stay here, and, in fact, want to bring in 50million or more to artificially alter the racial makeup of the country! Current population levels of 74% white, 13% latin, 12% black and 1% other will change somewhat based on birth and death patterns, but, no way will there be less than 50% white in the next several hundred years without artificial tampering by the socialists!! Immigration “quotas” currently in place tend to favor black and latin immigrants! That must change to reflect the actual percentages of the current population and not alter by sneaky means the current balances!”

By Hawk

April 1, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

The same politicians who refuse to let a fence be built and were for amnesty are the same ones who are pushing for REAL ID. Those in favor of a natioanl ID card help to create a perfect storm to get people to accept it who would otherwise be repused by the very notion. If the feds really cared about closing the border, and enforced the laws already on the books, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Besides, read the REAL ID final rules yourself instead of federal soundbites. Most of what is in REAL ID has nothing to do with immigration. And the parts that do only apply to the four or so states that still allow illegals to get licenses. How about dealing directly with them?

By Julia

April 2, 2008 10:38 PM | Link to this

It’s great to see our governor, Mark Sanford, has some freakin’ balls! For all of the idiots that believe Real IDs are a necessity for “our protection”, please quit voting as I can see you are complete morons. Yeah, lets go ahead and give Big Brother one more way to keep an eye on us. Hell, skip the Real IDs and let them tattoo barcodes on every citizen or implant a nice computer chip under our skin. The federal government already has entirely too much power and is slowly picking away at ALL of our constitutional rights. It has nothing to do with immigration or terrorism. If the the White House were concerned with terrorism don’t you think we would have actually caught Osama instead of starting an unfounded, illogical, endless war with Iraq. Likewise, last I checked, not too many illegal immigrants were hopping on planes to go back to Mexico, and I am pretty sure they stay away from all forms of government to prevent getting deported.

For America to revert back to the great nation we once were, where the people had the power and freedom was the word, we need a massive overhaul of everyone sitting in D.C. I don’t know about ya’ll, but I am writing in Ron Paul for president in November. Hell, if ya’ll get lucky Governor Sanford might run next go round!

By Gunnar

April 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

I came here hoping for a true conservative, common sense alternative to McCain. I’m very disappointed. A rational person knows how to pick one’s battles. I can see no conservative ideal that is violated by having all driver’s licenses conform to a known standard.

More than that, having these licenses conform DOES support the conservative and constitutional idea that the government should protect it’s citizens from very real external threats.

By Copyleft

April 3, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

How is the notion that government should violate our individual privacy for the sake of National Security a “common-sense conservative” position?

Sounds like you’ve been listening too long to the faux-conservatism of Faux News and the like.

By Gunnar

April 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, faux-conservatism of Faux News? It seems to me like when you they were passing out critical thinking skills, you slept in.

Where in the constitution is the right to privacy? The only information that can possibly be private is information you tell no one. If you take a flight, you entered into a financial transaction with another party. The airline owns the information that they sold a seat to you, and you cannot violate their right to that information.

The same is true if you apply for a driver’s license. You have provided no intellectual support whatsoever for the claim that making driver’s licenses conform to a national standard violates your rights in any way, let alone your privacy, which is not a right.

States have been sharing data for decades. I didn’t like it when Wyoming informed Illinois that I got a speeding ticket, but I could never, never in a million years make the absurd claim that they didn’t have the right to do so.

You have absolutely no basis for such a claim, and your comments here are just the mindless sputtering of faux-thinker.

By Copyleft

April 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

Restricting governmental snooping and police powers is the “classic conservative position.” That’s been redefined in the era of terror-mongering and Big Government Protectionism that the Bushies peddle.

Mr. Barr’s position on privacy IS conservative. The GOP hasn’t managed to redefined conservatism away just yet.

By Gunnar

April 3, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, your post answers none of my substantive arguments. The right to private information about transactions cannot exist logically, which is why this mythical right is NOT in the constitution, regardless of your blabbering about Mr Barr’s position about it.

Btw, I’m no fan of liberal republican Bush, but the idea that the government’s main purpose is to protect citizens and to secure their rights is as old as the Republic and championed by Ayn Rand, John Locke and the founding fathers.

By Copyleft

April 4, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

Gunnar, your error is in assuming that the government, by default, has ANY AND ALL POWERS not specifically prohibited to them by explicit wordiing in the Constitution.

That, of course, is the opposite of conservatism. Conservatism holds that the government’s ONLY powers are those specifically spelled out in the Constitution; by default, all other rights and powers belong to the people. Any right you can think of automatically belongs to us, unless the Constitution says otherwise. The Constitution spells out what GOVERNMENT is allowed to do, not what WE are allowed to do.

Deciding that the government can interpret “provide for the common defense” as broadly as possible, at their convenience, is not a conservative doctrine; it’s a NEOconservative one. There’s an enormous difference, and Mr. Barr reocgnizes it. Do you?

By Gunnar

April 4, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

your error is in assuming that the government, by default, has ANY AND ALL POWERS

Copyleft, you are wrong that this is my error, since I agree with your statement: Conservatism holds that the government’s ONLY powers are those specifically spelled out in the Constitution. There are two problems with your argument.

1) the constitution specifically does require and obligate the govt to protect and secure our rights and

2) When you say “Any right you can think of automatically belongs to us”

You seem oblivious to the fact that to be a right, it has to be coherent and universal. That is, rights form a coherent logical system. Someone might be able to think of the “right to food”, but that doesn’t mean we have that right. There is really only the right to life, ie the right to sustain your own life with your own effort.

From this, the right to Liberty and Property are inherent corollaries, derived directly from the right to Life. Any other rights are derived from these three. The alleged rights to food or education don’t exist, since they would require slave labor from other people. Rights must be universal to be valid.

The alleged “right to private information” is invalid as a general principle, since in any transaction, the other party owns the information that they sold you something or did something for you, be it an airline seat, a driver’s license, etc.

By Gunnar

April 4, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

You may not want your state government sharing your license with the federal government, but that is a matter for democratic action, not a violation of your rights.

You may not like your airline sharing your travel information with the government, but all you can do is choose an airline based on that criteria. You certainly don’t have the right to restrict the airline from sharing their own information.

You may not like that the phone company shared your phone records with the government, but that’s their information, not yours. People need to clearly understand what is theirs and what is not. You don’t have an NDA with the phone company.

You may not like that Google shared your search habits, but that is their information. You need to create your own search engine if you want complete privacy.

If you want to conduct completely secret phone conversations, then you need to create your own phone system. You can NOT buy something from someone, and expect to improperly restrict the ownership rights of that person/entity in using that information.

In short, the only truly private information is that which you tell no one.