Are people required to carry ID in Europe?

[Toots]

If so I would think that would show that maybe the opposite might be true from what most are saying here. Europe seems to be moving more to the left and less authoritarian. I don't know though whether ID is required or not. I know when I was there in 1970 I had to carry my ID at all times but I was miitary..I was never asked by anyone that I can remember to show it, except for traveling and I had a military pass.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. They are in Russia.

[Toots]

2. You know this for a fact?

:shrug:

[shraby]

6. In THIS country according to the constitution

we are supposed to be secure in our persons and our papers. To HAVE to show I.D. to authorities when moving about in public is means our papers are not secure against intrusion by those same authorities. It's a slippery slope indeed when we step into required I.D. besides for driving and cashing checks or using credit cards.

[BlueEyedSon]

10. As in the USSR days, everyone has an "internal" passport

and an optional travel (international) passport. You must present your internal passport to the police when asked. If your passport says you live in Moscow and they stop you in St Petersburg, if you have no good explanation for being there they can arrest you and/or put you on a train.....

[HereSince1628]

4. Weird thing about Russia, the hotels still hold your passport

I had to go wandering around the city with no official US ID.
(I always kept my photocopy of the information page.)

[MrMonk]

9. Mine was returned to me after 24 hours (1996, 97, 2000, 2001)

I carried a photocopy during that time, and the passport thereafter. Which turned out to be OK, since in 2001 (after 9/11), I was stopped by the police several times (I was stopped once in 2000).

On edit - Now I understand your point. You meant to ask whether citizens are required to carry ID. My answer is yes for Russia (late '90's) and France (1987). I know this from the acquaintances that I made during those trips.

[HereSince1628]

3. Europe's trending more to the left? I'm not so sure...

If I have the right correct

Italy with Berlusconi
Germany with Merkle
France with Chirac
Britain watching the Tories star rising

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. It varies between countries

In some countries, it's seen as no big deal; in others, it's a big civil liberties issue (eg the UK - the government is trying to set up a huge ID database recording every time the cards linked to it are checked, and tell us that we really want it, because it will be "a new kind of freedom and a new kind of identity" - genuine quote from Blair's personal pollster).

Some requirements in 2002: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2078604.stm

[NoPasaran]

7. In many places, yes

Netherlands
Estonia
France
For example.

[400Years]

8. Your assumptions are bogus

The U.K. is moving into fullblown Orwellianism.
I've read several reports about biometrics etc. being used in Germany.
I don't see Europe moving to the left very much outside of Spain.

But beyond that authoritarianism encapsulates both left and right ideologically.
The spectrum you are looking for is authoritarianism vs. libertarianism.

[Kellanved]

20. Biometrics are a US demand

The US threatened to stop the visa-waiver program, unless the participating countries introduce biometrics into their passports.

[northzax]

11. once again, this is a fallacious assumption

central government ID cards are a leftist concept, not a rightist one. sorry, but that's the idea. They may have been co opted by rightists, but the idea of a strong central state is much more leftist than rightist.

[Selatius]

12. I disagree. Leftism does not necessarily mean centralization

You're comparing using the wrong scales. The scale this has been measured upon has pure libertarianism on one end and pure authoritarianism on the other end. (See also post #8) Most nation states lie somewhere in the middle, the pragmatic position. Both Nazi Germany and the USSR were authoritarian on that scale. Just because one is left on economic issues does not necessarily mean he leans more toward authoritarianism (i.e. the state is everything and will make the decision for you). If that were the case, there would be no libertarian socialists (aka anarchists or anarcho-socialists) in the world. Noam Chomsky, in my avatar, is such an example.

[northzax]

15. well, if someone leans left on economic issues

and right on social issues (traditional right, not the psuedo religious right crap that passes now) I wouldn't call them a leftist. I'd call them a mixed bag centrist (which is fine, after all) the basic premise of leftist ideaology, whether economic or social, is that people collectively have greater wisdom than people individually, and that a responsive central authority makes better decisions, for the whole, than individuals do for the whole. The sum of the parts exceeds the value of each individual totalled. The traditional rightist philosophy is reversed, than the individual is more valuable than the whole.

Is society a collection of individuals (right) or are individuals a part of a society (left)? there's your question, and there aren't neccesarily correct answers to either one. and few people lie wholely on one side or the other. But there you go.

How can it be a leftist position to think that government should have a greater role in regulating the economic lives of citizens, but rightist to think that government should have a greater role in regulating the social lives of citizens? doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Selatius]

16. Well, I'd still call them a leftist

the basic premise of leftist ideaology, whether economic or social, is that people collectively have greater wisdom than people individually, and that a responsive central authority makes better decisions, for the whole, than individuals do for the whole.

See, I think the divergence of thought occurs when you start talking about the role of the state in the lives of individuals. I define "state" here as a hierarchical, centralized decision-making structure where a relatively few people make policy decisions that affect everybody. (In a democratic or undemocratic manner) I consider myself a moderate "libertarian socialist." (aka anarcho-socialist) I believe in mutual cooperation precisely because I believe that its synergistic effect really is greater than the sum of its individual parts, but I believe the best results are achieved not by imposing my own will upon that individual through the state but, rather, educating the individual about my ideas and then allowing that individual to make the choice for himself or herself, and I would respect the decision made. Some have called such an ideology "voluntary socialism" or "laissez-faire socialism" or "voluntary collectivism," and I find it quite apt as a description.

Is society a collection of individuals (right) or are individuals a part of a society (left)? there's your question, and there aren't neccesarily correct answers to either one. and few people lie wholely on one side or the other. But there you go

It seems we're having a problem of definitions here. You assign "right" to something I would call leaning towards or is "libertarian." You assign "left" to something I would call leaning towards or is "authoritarian." I would say society is a collection of individuals. I would not say it makes me a rightwinger in any sense of the word that I am familiar with because I don't believe capitalism is a sustainable model in the long-run.

However, I would not call myself a "strong" libertarian socialist as opposed to a "moderate" one because I do believe the state still does have some role to play. I just don't believe, comparatively speaking, it should play as big a role compared to my fellow state socialists. Social Security is a state-run affair. If I were to adopt the strong position, for instance, I would have to argue against mandatory participation in Social Security by giving individuals a choice to pay or not to pay into Social Security. I am more pragmatic than that, but I hold a hunch that most people would rather choose to stay for the sake of their grandparents and others who do depend on FICA as opposed to withdrawing unless they were forced to withdraw, but others have warned me I'm in danger of perhaps putting too much trust in people.

How can it be a leftist position to think that government should have a greater role in regulating the economic lives of citizens, but rightist to think that government should have a greater role in regulating the social lives of citizens? doesn't make a lot of sense.

A person is a socialist or a capitalist (leftist or rightist) according to which economic system he or she subscribes to. A person is either libertarian or authoritarian with respect to methodology on achieving those goals. Then there are gray areas in between socialism and capitalism and in between libertarianism and authoritarianism. Most people lie somewhere in the gray. They are the moderates.

If you ask me, I wouldn't say it's necessarily leftist to advocate a bigger role for government over the economy, and I wouldn't say it's necessarily rightist to advocate a bigger role for government over the social lives of citizens. I'd say it's trending towards authoritarian, which has nothing to do with economic preference or social preference but methodological preference instead. Some people would rather choose a course of action for everybody, and others would rather let each individual decide the course of action. The middle ground would be somebody with no real preference either way as long as the end goal is achieved.

[rman]

18. RW/centrist governments in Eu have implemented mandatory ID,

not leftist governments.

[mr blur]

13. Blair's govt. wants to introduce them here in the UK

There is a huge protest going on. "They" have had to admit that ID cards would not have prevented the July London bombings. Even the ex-Head of M15 has come out and said that that they don't think it's a good idea.

Case against UK ID cards here:
http://www.trevor-mendham.com/civil-liberties/identity-cards/

Of course, Blair has moved the Labour party so far from the Left that it is little more than the centre/left wing of the Tory party.

(edit: spelling)

[dusmcj]

14. yes. the question is whether the govt remembers of, by, for.

Germany, Spain, France all have something like a national ID.

The fundamental question in this arena as in all other involving giving the government tangible power over people's lives, in this case by informing it about their personal business, is: what is the attitude on which government behavior is based ? Is government governed by the principle that it is of, by, and for the people ? That it in fact is nothing but members of "the People", who the rest of the People chose to represent them, and in fact to SERVE them (hence the forgotten and sullied phrase "public servant", which bears the footprints of innumerable hogs who ran over it rushing to serve themselves instead of their fellow citizens). The old French notion of "Fraternite'" (with Liberte' and particularly Egalite' following closely behind) is operative here - have I been honored by my brothers and sisters, my fellow members of "our People" to represent them, to do my part in making the machine, the mechanism which is government structure, work in our common interest ? Or have I forgotten Egalite', and do not have egalitarian feelings towards my fellows, but instead prefer to speak the degenerate language of power, authority and coercion ?

The underpinnings of America were the notion that government exists at the pleasure of the governed, that it in fact is just an expression of their will, that they have made their choice about how their society shall operate manifest in it. The first step in the progression that Locke saw and the Founders expressed in the Declaration, where the People come to the conclusion that government no longer acts in their interest, is when those who have been given the privilege to serve their peers take the power their office gives them and use it for ends which are unrelated to the public interest. The people lose their trust in the individuals, and then in the institution. As stated, every Republican administration in the last 100 years with the exception of Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Ford have been archetypal examples of institutionalized corruption amongst the inhabitants of civic structures. While trumpeting their teary, involuntary love for America and all she represents, they have defecated on the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, and wiped their obese asses with taxpayer dollars. This, in short breaks from their slopping at the public and private trough with their fellows, the holders of capital.

In this environment, it is not surprising that the American people have become disaffected from their nation's formal structure, and from those who inhabit it. Although the conclusion that the filth of the individuals somehow equates to the inadequacy of the structure is deeply flawed. Corruption can destroy any system no matter how valuable, well-conceived, and just, and there is no system that can more than partially replace ethical human intent or guard against immorality.

In the arena of civic rights, we are at a dangerous impasse where those who have inhabited government office in the past (and present) have forgotten their duty to the people, and their oath to the Constitution, and have abused the power given them by the people to acquire illegitimate power over the people. The history of federal government behavior in the area of domestic intelligence is disgraceful, we can recall the Palmer Raids and the red scare, HUAC, McCarthy, drag queen J.Edgar, COINTELPRO, dirty tricks, CISPES to name a few. I.e., the distrust of the intent of those inhabiting high office, as well as their authority- and validity-hungry lackeys, is well-founded.

Those in US government have a choice: do they make it unequivocally clear that the foundations of the United States, the principle of an egalitarian society led by a government constituted by representatives of the people, are not in question, and that they gratefully accept and take responsibility for the role of servants of the people, or do they engage in the social conflict which is the essence of a public and government which see each other as adversaries, and which is the road to degeneracy and dictatorship, and privilege for the few and indenture for the masses ? Flatulent emissions of sentimentality about the grand old flag and what Merka means to me (followed by the Cheney/Powell style of commentary that "you have to watch what you say, there's a war on you know") don't cut it. A wise man named Lincoln captured the essence of the issue with his closing to the Gettysburg address: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." And also that "you can't fool all the people all the time." The choice is theirs. And ours.

[rman]

17. "Ausweis bitte" -

"Identification please" was a common request by nazi authorities to random civilians in Hitler's Nazi Germany. Mandatory ID is more authoritarian, not less.
And yes many Eu countries do as of fairly recently require civilians to carry ID at all time. Much of the population in Eu might be becoming more left, but the leadership is not.

[dusmcj]

22. I'd trade the "security" climate in some Euro countries any day for the US

Not England, cause under smarmy marmy Thatcher, they decided to ape the wound-up Americans and implement "for your own good". Run along, nothing to see, the TV camera up there will get it all on tape.

However (maybe it has to do with language and the Anglo-Saxons are at a disadvantage ?) in other nations, including Germany and France, the sense that the relationship between the state and the citizen is adversarial and based on power struggle is much weaker than even in the UK, and certainly weaker than here. Like I said, Europe hasn't forgotten the values of the Enlightenment the way we, the first nation to be a product of it, have. There is still a common understanding that government serves at the people's pleasure. ID cards are just a tool. It's how they're used that matters. The authoritarian is not the person who issues the ID card, or even the one who asks to see it. It's the one who misuses the information on it to apply coercion to its holder and limit his inherent civil rights.

[rman]

23. It's sad that you'd have to choose between lesser evils;

the option is to go where the power struggle is weakest.
Personally i'm thinking that'd be Venezuela.

Anyway don't trade with the Netherlands. The war on terror is for our own good to, our minster of defense has faith that Bush knows what he's doing. In the mean time we have to carry more personal responsibility, meaning budget cuts for social services. Yesterday the protestant church in the city of Harlem reopened its "bread bank" (providing free bread for the poor) - for the first time in 415 years.

[Kellanved]

19. Continental Europe has a different tradition

And yes, people are required to have ID papers in many continental European countries. That does not equal having to carry ID papers.

Personally I don't see what the big deal is. My ID is essentially a copy of my file at the town hall; having it means that there is no need for a file at the Federal level, not even at state level. It is an instrument for less supervision, not more.


That said: I can't remember a single non-bureaucratic occasion where I needed to show my ID in Germany. In the US however, I needed it a) to buy Amtrak tickets b) to get into a bar and c) to buy beer. Seems to me that the absense of ID rules in the US is a comfortable myth that hasn't been true for years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. But technology may change that

The system Blair wants to introduce in Britain is a countrywide database (that could contain fingerprints - thus allowing the state to track you via forensics if they want), to which the cards will be linked. Every time your card is verified against the database (eg when you are accepted as a patient of a doctor's practice, or you open a bank account, or you re-enter the country, since this is linked to your passport), the time and circumstances of the verification is also recorded. So they build up a record of your movements.

It is the kind of thing that could be done now with credit cards, if you use them, but that use is voluntary. The suspicion is that the checking against the central database could become more common once the card is common - people wanting proof of age for, say, buying alcohol, will at some stage get a machine that links to the central database, though at first it will only be banks, doctors, etc.

I think the amount of surveillance is no more (less, on the whole) than can already be achieved by the police - but they have to work at it now - which means random searches of what data they have available for "suspicious patterns" (suspicious according to Them, of course) aren't so likely.

The other objection is if, as you say, carrying ID becomes compulsory - people like to think that if they've done nothing wrong, they can tell a policeman to mind his own business.