The Real ID Act of 2005 should be repealed

For clarity's sake, I will continue with the initial numbering despite the first two points being agreed upon by both my opponent and I. 3. My opponent here is mistaken regarding what I have claimed. I only claimed that it would be beneficial for murderers to not have privacy, not that they oughtn't. The point here is not one of what should be and what shouldn't be, but just a consequentialist view of privacy in certain cases. I do note, however, that my opponent has granted that, in "warranted" cases, privacy can sometimes be legitimately violated. It seems that this leads necessarily to the idea that the "right" to privacy is merely a passing privilege, which can be given and taken away by positive law. I would argue that privacy exists only so far as it overlaps with property rights. For example, while I would be willing to say that it is illegitimate to break into someone's house to obtain evidence when guilt is still in significant doubt, if it could be seen through the walls with the use of x-ray binoculars or somesuch invention, it would seem to me that such is not a violation of rights, even if it is a violation of privacy. This somewhat overlaps with the question of whether a right to privacy exists at all. In regards to my opponent's excellent citations of case law and constitutional interpretation in showing that a right to privacy is in existence in the United States, I must counter with the fact that just because such is the current policy does not imply that this policy is the correct one. My challenge to my opponent is to explain why there *ought* to be a right to privacy, not whether or not there *is* a right to privacy. A final contention made by my opponent in this vein is that not participating would unjustly limit the choices of those who do not take the Real ID. However, this assumes that the law will be perfectly enforced to the letter. It seems to me that one could likely get away with driving without a state license in the current system for as long as they can avoid being pulled over, and could equally do so under the Real ID system. With regard to the other given example, entering federal buildings, it doesn't seem that this is necessarily the case either. I find it likely that this rule will not be strictly enforced in all cases, and while it may be that occassionally the non-cooperator will be unable to access federal buildings, he will be able to do so the majority of the time. Think of the amount of people who get away with getting on airplanes without identification, the number of people who get into bars without identification, and so on. Enforcement of such draconian rules is often arbitrary and random. 4. While my analogy may not be a perfect one, I must imagine that it is possible for the same principles to apply here. Surely with combined resources computer systems can be better protected against attack vis a vis separate computers all being responsible for their own protection? I cannot claim to be an expert on hacking and anti-hacking technology, but it simply seems reasonable to assume that the more resources one can put into protection, the better the protection will be. 5. I am glad that my opponent agrees that government is funded only by taking money from citizens, however, I think he may be far overestimating the fiscal responsibility of the federal government when he states that, "The federal government has far greater resources than the state and could more easily cover the cost with a shift in the budget. " It has become increasingly rare, almost infinitely rare, that any funding is cut from any program. It is almost unfathomable that new taxes will not be used on a federal level to fund this program. 6. While it is the program they seek to remove, they do more in protesting it than simply attacking that one particular proposal. The controversy may stir up a more general healthy distrust of government and also make the government more concerned about the lines it crosses in the future. If the act was simply repealed, it would be a double blow to future protests. First, it would remove the effects I previously mentioned (and will note in greater detail later) from the picture that come with the protest of the law *once it is instituted. * Second, it would make people more trusting of government and less likely to make a fuss about new proposals, it would seem as if the government actually deeply considered all issues and would not follow through with a bad idea. The fantasy of "good government" would infect more minds that might otherwise be inclined to be distrustful of this dangerous institution. Conclusions/Rebuttal: I will not argue whether or not that is actually the definition of demagoguery (I promised to avoid semantics), but only note that if this is true, then perhaps we should reconsider our reaction to demagogues qua advocates of that which will promote civil disobedience. I would like to make the point that what I am advocating is not, as my opponent suggests, simply the later repeal of Real ID. If I were to propose a perfect solution, people would simply ignore the law altogether and en masse, rendering it an impotent legal fiction, much like ordinances that remain on the books despite being completely ignored in the modern day (such as a law in Michigan which states that a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission). I freely admit that my proposed alternative is for goals beyond the Real ID act, this is precisely the idea. The Real ID, in and of itself, is not as important as the overall march of big government. It is only because this was not successfully combated in the past that the Real ID act became law in the first place and without a significant part of the population pushing back, the Real ID act would simply be replaced with even more draconian legislation in a year or maybe a few years. Defeating this one act is not a solution to the underlying cause of the problem. To lean on an overused analogy, we must fight the disease, not the symptoms.