> "Voluntary to get, required for some benefits" is another way to say "involuntary". What is citizenship but a collection of benefits?
This is pretty clearly a poor extrapolation. For example, Global Entry. Is signing up for Global Entry involuntary? It is voluntary to get, required for some benefits.
You're not getting any intrinsic benefits. If you are a US citizen, you are allowed to return to the US after international travel. Global Entry doesn't change any of that.
On average, it does make returning easier, which is nice... but the machines could be out of order, or you could be flagged for questioning in the usual manner, etc.
If “making something easier” doesn’t count as a “benefit”, I think that maybe there’s a fundamental disagreement about what it means for something to be beneficial.
Global Entry is pretty clearly beneficial for the user, as part of the border control experience. Whether having things like Global Entry is beneficial to society is, as `tptacek points on parallel to your comment, a very different question.
The main purpose of government is providing infrastructure like roads and bridges, as well as enforcement of property rights and security through police and courts, as well as through healthcare and armed forces.
You get all of that without this hyothetical ID. Unemployment benefits is somewhere much further down the list. It could be argued to be a security measure both to keep the crime rate lower and to prevent an uprising from disenfranchised poor people, but it serves this purpose just fine even if a few people voluntarily opt out.
The main purpose of government is providing infrastructure like roads and bridges
Roads and bridges being a government function is a somewhat recent notion that we've grown accustomed to.
Historically in the United States, roads and bridges were privately owned, and users paid a toll to a private person or company to use them. This was one of the many disagreements between the states that led to the Civil War.
There are plenty of private roads and bridges still in existence in the Untied States, mostly in the older states.
> The main purpose of government is providing infrastructure like roads and bridges
> Roads and bridges being a government function is a somewhat recent notion that we've grown accustomed to.
> Historically in the United States, roads and bridges were privately owned, and users paid a toll to a private person or company to use them. This was one of the many disagreements between the states that led to the Civil War.
> There are plenty of private roads and bridges still in existence in the Untied States, mostly in the older states.
I've always wondered about the bridge at Dingman's Ferry. Reading through the website, I wonder how they could possibly enforce the penalty for overages in terms of tonnage. Since they are a private entity would law enforcement issue a citation or would the bridge corporation be forced to litigate?
Wouldn’t anyone who did that be subject to a civil suit for damages? Also the bridge owners would have insurance.
In addition to standard economic devices like tort and insurance, the bridge owners could have a part of the road before the bridge that is designed to buckle or alarm if a weight is exceeded. That would save them a lot of money and frustration.
I figured as much with regards to civil suit, was just curious about public enforcement of private regulations when the lines appear blurred. Further, I wonder by what authority they can even set monetary fines? Like, why stop at $X for a fine? I ask because their site lists specific penalties which seem somewhat arbitrary [0]. I can't arbitrarily "fine" someone $1000 for stepping on my lawn. I can certainly take them to court for trespassing and possibly collect some damages, but those damages are not a fixed value in a fee schedule. So I wonder how this corporation has the authority to impose fines.
It looks like it's not a fine in the sense that refusal to pay can result in suspension of your driving license and possible wage garnishment. They don't even call it a fine but a "penalty". Basically they ask you for $50 or $100 depending on which limit you exceed, and refusal to pay risks a court case. I'm guessing the bridge needs to be inspected after the weight limit is exceeded or if a taller vehicle strikes the structure. The cost of inspection likely exceeds the penalty. They could easily ask for thousands of dollars in compensation. And even if you win the case, you have to pay for a lawyer and spend time in court. It's easier for both parties if the driver just pays the penalty.
I don't think it's a particularly recent notion. Ancient cities are the archetypical government, providing defense, some sort of justice system, and (often paved) roads. We see evidence of that from as far ago as the nearly 6000 year old city of Ur. Where larger empires existed, they often built larger road networks between cities to facilitate commerce and troop movements. The Inca road system and the Roman roads are well known examples of road networks built by their respecive empires. The Romans are also kind of famous for their bridges (viaducts and aquaducts).
Of course the less important roads were and still are often private, and the early US had an atypical lack of government that made this more common. But I don't think that proves that governments providing roads and bridges is a recent phenomenon, it's in fact rather ancient.
The US government exists to collect taxes, pay debts, prove for common defense and provide for the general welfare.
Roads were historically a local and state priority, so be careful with your modern conservative principles, as they probably are not compatible with your lifestyle.
How is that different from requiring vaccines for public school, a license to drive a car or fly a plane, or even a safety course and hunting license to hunt? Most of the things that are benefits of citizenship that don’t require any voluntary steps are true “public goods”, like national defense or the societal benefits of education, etc.
It seems more like the whole "Raise your drinking age to 21, or the federal government will withhold road improvement money from your state." It's coercion.
Employment is also voluntary yet we are somehow okay with it being necessary to not become homeless and will often accept terms which are very biased towards the benefit of our employer.
This is pretty clearly a poor extrapolation. For example, Global Entry. Is signing up for Global Entry involuntary? It is voluntary to get, required for some benefits.