The idea of a mandatory ID being required is autocratic and fundamentally illiberal at its very core. Would you be comfortable with the state taking punitive measures against a completely innocent individual for simply not possessing his required documents? Contrary to popular belief it is not mandatory to carry your driving licence if are driving and of course yes we need a passport to board a plane as we are trans-versing administrative borders via highly secure methods of transport, the “punishment” for not having a passport is at worst being barred from travel on that instance.
2010 Pennsylvania Code
Title 75 - VEHICLES
Chapter 15 - Licensing of Drivers
1511 - Carrying and exhibiting driver's license on demand.
§ 1511. Carrying and exhibiting driver's license on demand.
(a) General rule.--Every licensee shall possess a driver's
license issued to the licensee at all times when driving a motor
vehicle and shall exhibit the license upon demand by a police
officer, and when requested by the police officer the licensee
shall write the licensee's name in the presence of the officer
in order to provide identity.
(b) Production to avoid penalty.--No person shall be
convicted of violating this section or section 1501(a) (relating
to drivers required to be licensed) if the person:
(1) produces at the headquarters of the police officer
who demanded to see the person's license, within 15 days of
the demand, a driver's license valid in this Commonwealth at
the time of the demand; or
(2) if a citation has been filed, produces at the office
of the issuing authority, within 15 days of the filing of the
citation, a driver's license valid in this Commonwealth on
the date of the citation.
(May 30, 1990, P.L.173, No.42, eff. 60 days; Dec. 21, 1998,
P.L.1126, No.151, eff. 60 days)
1998 Amendment. Act 151 amended subsec. (b).
You CAN get a ticket for not carrying your driver's license. At least in PA. If you don't produce it within 15 days, the fine is imposed..
In a modern liberal society, no one unless warranted by a reasonable suspicion of guilt should be obliged to prove who they are. ID cards are just the beginning and it all gets rather sinister after that. Go to work and forget your ID card, what happens then? You get arrested if caught? You get a police record and a fine? What happens after that, incarcerate innocent people for not possessing the right documents? And then there’s the issue that in most of these cases the government requires citizens to pay for this infraction liberty themselves. Our government was proposing £30 per card back in 2010 I believe. What happens if you can’t pay or you lose your card all the time?
I assume you think all this moral outrage is fashionable.But the flip side is that citizen's are apt to commit gross fraud without picture ID.
Before photo ID, there were plenty of people who would go around our city(s) and apply for, and get welfare claims for several different locations. This led to talk of (and songs) about "Welfare Cadillacs" So, in essence the state is working for you requiring photo ID. (At least if you're a taxpayer).
The state should work for the people and I believe our elected leaders should be required to demonstrate who they are to the public under threat of losing the next poll they face on their leadership but as soon as the public must prove themselves to the authorities we are getting it wrong and will find ourselves onto the slippery slope of a society dominated by a “big brother” of a government who will continue to infract upon liberties because they feel they know what’s best for everyone else.
As I said before, the British government is already on the "slippery slope" of totalitarianism, as it chips away at simple pleasures you like being able to use music you have purchased in a "mixed tape". You can't own a simple defensive item like pepper spray.
The fact remains you can rail away about the oppression of your government all you want, but at the end of the day, some controls and much oversight are necessary, to hopefully prevent the next subway car you get on from being blown to smithereens by some religious zealot. So as you spend the rest of your life hobbling around with one leg and half of one arm missing, you may temper you views about your personal liberty being too restricted.
Before Lee Harvey Oswald, we could buy guns in the mail without restriction.
But I guess it's true what they say, "one bad apple spoils the bunch". Although in the semantics of the present, it should read, "one bad apple spoils it for the bunch..