Should individuals have to identify themselves to the government?

[JohnH]

Requiring fingerprints of everyone would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Of course, so are things like social security numbers, withholding tax, income tax, requiring photo ID to vote…

[Neto]

Requiring fingerprints of everyone would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Of course, so are things like social security numbers, withholding tax, income tax, requiring photo ID to vote…

Having experienced it in Brazil, and having lived there for 18 years without any ill effect of such, I am surprised, but you are correct. It is considered a violation of privacy rights. I came across an interesting article about the shift in opinion on this question, which reports that 68% approved in 1937, but only 42% in 2022.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic ... gerprinted

[ohio jones]

EDIT:
Oh, about the fingerprinting - I was talking about doing everyone, not just criminals or others who are 'processed' by the police for a suspicion of having committed a crime. Our fingerprints are in the system in Brazil. Everyone's are. But unless they've done it since we were there, this is all just paper copies, it isn't digitalized, which would be required for it to be effective as a way to solve crimes.

Everyone on your cruise will have their fingerprints in the EU system, so don't be surprised when that happens.

[JimFoxvog]

Requiring fingerprints of everyone would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Of course, so are things like social security numbers, withholding tax, income tax, requiring photo ID to vote…

Income tax is explicitly constitutional. See the Sixteenth Amendment. On the others, at least an argument can be made.

[JohnH]

Requiring fingerprints of everyone would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Of course, so are things like social security numbers, withholding tax, income tax, requiring photo ID to vote…

Income tax is explicitly constitutional. See the Sixteenth Amendment. On the others, at least an argument can be made.

It was questionably ratified and promised to only apply to the top 1% of earners.

But if you like a big, powerful federal government… then go ahead and support the income tax.

Its original purpose was to pay for World War I.

[Bootstrap]

I raised this in another thread, but I think it is relevant here.

If the Anabaptist principle is to focus on the domain and sphere of influence you actually control, how does debating who should identify themselves to the state how and when fit into that? This isn’t something you or I directly govern.

And if the goal isn’t to influence the state, then what is the aim of arguing it here? Is it about personal moral reflection, or about shaping public opinion on how the state should act?

I’m trying to understand how that framework applies in a case like this.

[Bootstrap]

No, they should not have to identify themselves to the government upon demand of the government without cause.
If they are not doing a regulated activity such as walking, filming where lawful, interacting freely with the police, they should not be forced to submit to “show me your papers” as free people.

I agree.

By the same principle, those exercising armed state power should be identifiable and accountable. In a free society, badges, license plates, and visible faces are part of that accountability.

[JohnL]

Romans 13:1-7 answers this for me.

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

[barnhart]

How about specific parts of identity like race, religion, immigration status etc... are we on board with Jews wearing yellow stars

[JohnH]

No, they should not have to identify themselves to the government upon demand of the government without cause.
If they are not doing a regulated activity such as walking, filming where lawful, interacting freely with the police, they should not be forced to submit to “show me your papers” as free people.

I agree.

By the same principle, those exercising armed state power should be identifiable and accountable. In a free society, badges, license plates, and visible faces are part of that accountability.

I’d say “that depends”. I don’t think government employees should have to disclose enough identifying information that it’s easy for miscreants to find their home address and go harass their family at home.

Do you agree?

If the Anabaptist principle is to focus on the domain and sphere of influence you actually control, how does debating who should identify themselves to the state how and when fit into that? This isn’t something you or I directly govern.

And if the goal isn’t to influence the state, then what is the aim of arguing it here? Is it about personal moral reflection, or about shaping public opinion on how the state should act?

People on MN keep choosing to discuss this topic. It seems worthwhile to discuss, then.

There is not a “filibuster” where you can just gripe “Plain Anabaptists aren’t allowed to express political opinions I disagree with”.