haha...knew what state would be the focus without even opening the link.
I'm not even in the US and we see a ton of Delaware entities.
The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
141–150 of 255 posts
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm the 1700's in America were the era of needing to have land ownership to vote (more than half of white men couldn't vote), poll taxes, exclusion of blacks, native Americans, and women, religious tests, and so on. The 15th Amendment that changed some of that wasn't even passed until 1870. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St...
However, that's orthogonal to the issue; documentation of your right to vote is not one of the requirements of possessing that right. (as parent said, "A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation.") It is a dramatic improvement that the people with the right to vote has been expanded since the 1700s, but what you said doesn't actually speak against the basic idea that documentation is not relevant t…
It's orthogonal, but if you don't see how the shift in (the orthogonal) political power structures has affected the exercise of basic rights, then you probably won't see future violations of rights coming as effectively because you're not fully alert for them.
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school. A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised. In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vot…
It’s not unusual among modern democracies for voters to provide proof of identity. We’re (and the UK?) the outliers in that, so no, I think it’s unrelated to authoritarianism. It’s got more to do with ensuring integrity of votes. India, Mexico, Argentina, Germany, Taiwan, Brazil, Iceland, Costa Rica, etc, require it. Among Americans all major demographics show majority support for voter ID reqs.
It’s not unusual among modern democracies for voters to provide proof of identity. We’re (and the UK?) the outliers in that, so no, I think it’s unrelated to authoritarianism. It’s got more to do with ensuring integrity of votes.
India, Mexico, Argentina, Germany, Taiwan, Brazil, Iceland, Costa Rica, etc, require it.
To which I can only think, "So what?"
Why does the United States need to be like other countries? The whole reason people settled this land was because they didn't want to be like other countries.
It's OK for countries to have different systems. In fact, it's better because the diversity allows for experimentation. France is awesome because they do things the French way there. Germany is awesome for all its Germanity. If all the countries are the same, then there's no point in having more than one country or ever going anywhere.
I wouldn't ask Americans to give up their system any sooner than I'd ask the French to give up wine.
Among Americans all major demographics show majority support for voter ID reqs.
Again, "So what?" There's a vast difference between doing what is popular and doing what is right. Keeping it in the political realm, you imagine the mess the nation would be if we just went with the popular vote and let people vote directly for the president? It would disenfranchise 273 million people who don't live in New York, California, Texas, or Florida.
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school. A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised. In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vot…
> It's up to the people who handle the vote (often the county clerk or county board of elections) to decide later if my vote was valid or not. You'd really rather have your vote nullified behind your back rather than just be told you can't vote? That sounds like a recipe for a lot of abuse doesn't it?
If votes weren't anonymous, maybe. But they are.
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#145I don't see any particular reason why the identification process for a corporation should be more stringent than a library card. What is astonishing to me is that both are meaningfully more stringent than voting. In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/register-to-vot...
That’s the difference between a right and a privilege. Borrowing a book is a privilege.
You have a right to vote. Rights come without condition. Many municipal elections only require residency, and the state cannot compel you to have an identification, be literate, or participate in society beyond voting. A hermit living in a cave, a software engineer, or a person who just moved to a place are all humans and all subject to the same rights.
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school. A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised. In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vot…
If you're voting on matters of public policy, you should be in a position where the outcome of that policy affects you as if you are part of that community. Part of that is being... part of that community. Having an ID is a pretty good proxy for that.
Having an ID is a pretty good proxy for that.
Having an ID doesn't show someone is part of a community. All it does is provide a way for systems to exclude people.
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authoritarianism always claims to be about ensuring the integrity of something or other. The question is always: is that the right goal, and is the proposal really the best way to accomplish that goal? Making election day a national holiday, for example, would do more to allow citizens to accurately express their voting preferences than any removal of non-citizen votes could ever do.
I think it would probably be best if we did both: statutorily mandate that employees have an opportunity to vote, even if the polling stations are only open during working hours; and also require that voters show the kind of ID we ask for when somebody tries to purchase a beer or a pack of cigarettes. Neither is a bad idea.
Yes it is. I don't smoke any more but I resent having to produce my ID for common purchases. It's none of the retailer's or the state's business. Corporations typically cover their ass for legal liability against selling booze or cigarettes to minors by requiring everyone to product ID. I have no wish to live in a permission society where everyone is constantly having to get approval for everything, and am opposed to the construction of same. That attitude extends into the political sphere.
tl;dr mind your own business.
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's up to the people who handle the vote (often the county clerk or county board of elections) to decide later if my vote was valid or not. You'd really rather have your vote nullified behind your back rather than just be told you can't vote? That sounds like a recipe for a lot of abuse doesn't it?
If votes weren't anonymous, maybe. But they are.
Wait, you're assuming anonymity and the ability to "decide later if my vote was valid or not"? How would that work?
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school. A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised. In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vot…
If you're voting on matters of public policy, you should be in a position where the outcome of that policy affects you as if you are part of that community. Part of that is being... part of that community. Having an ID is a pretty good proxy for that.
Then communities should be able to decide who's eligible to vote rather than having that decided at the top and promulgated downwards.
Re: The Library Card Project: The Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the U.S.
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walking down the street and voting are not the same thing. ID's are common, the vast majority already have a passport or driver license. You need this much to even be employed so bringing it with you for an election is not an onerous requirement, it's actually completely reasonable. EDIT: It seems HN has rate-limiting for comments now.
In most countries where an id is a requirement for voting they have systems in place where you can easily get a national id card. In the US Republicans make it as hard as possible for poor people to get an id then are asking to make it mandatory as they are aware most poor people don't vote for them. If they want to enforce id checking for voting then they need to make sure people can easily get an id.
In the US Republicans make it as hard as possible for poor people to get an id then are asking to make it mandatory as they are aware most poor people don't vote for them.
While the Republicans take heat for it on the national level, when you examine the issue at state and local levels there's plenty of it on both sides.
What disappoints me is that the Democrats rarely push back on these proposals, and when they do it's half-hearted.
Republicans used to be the party of freedom as in pioneer guy with a cabin and a mule. Democrats used to be the party of freedom as in ACLU. These days neither is willing to stick their necks out in any tangible way for freedom.