andrel wrote:
> The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it 
> for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.

Actually, I think the difference is two-fold:

1) People actually get a benefit out of reporting to a central authority 
immediately when they move. Here, the government only knows where you live 
after you've moved, when you file taxes or register your car or whatever.

2) And this is the big one: That info is made available to everyone else. I 
tell lots of people inside and not inside the government where I live. 
There's just no central repository that's authoritative and that is 
generally available to the public, such that others could use that 
information for purposes other than why it was collected.

That latter point is more my statement. It's not that we have lots of 
jurisdictions. It's that we have lots of competing governments. The federal 
government often has to threaten the state governments to pass laws the 
federal government isn't allowed to pass. And there's constantly battles, 
threats by the states to overthrow the federal government, relatively little 
cooperation between distant states, etc. For example, most states have 
agreements with their neighbors that if I get a traffic ticket in (say) New 
York, Pennsylvania will be informed. But if I get a traffic ticket in New 
York, chances are good California will never hear about it.  So it's not 
just that "the government" doesn't know where I am, but that there's no part 
of the government specifically assigned the duty of tracking where I am. And 
there's nothing in the constitution (quite to the contrary, actually) that 
says the federal government is allowed to provide that service, and doing it 
on a state level would only work for the states.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> Seems Finland has had two of them...

  Probably a lot more than two, although...

> From Wikipedia:

> Finland:
> The first population census was taken in 1749 when Finland was a part
> of Sweden. The most recent census took place on December 31, 2000.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census#Finland

... I honestly don't know what's referring to. I have never seen any kind
of "census" in any shape or form in my life. In Finland the role of the
"census" is filled by your legal duty to report when you move to another
address.

  Historically there have probably been censuses in the classical format,
but not in a rather long time, AFAIK.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8-2-2010 18:55, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it 
>> for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.
> 
> Actually, I think the difference is two-fold:
> 
> 1) People actually get a benefit out of reporting to a central authority 
> immediately when they move. Here, the government only knows where you 
> live after you've moved, when you file taxes or register your car or 
> whatever.
> 
> 2) And this is the big one: That info is made available to everyone 
> else. I tell lots of people inside and not inside the government where I 
> live. There's just no central repository that's authoritative and that 
> is generally available to the public, such that others could use that 
> information for purposes other than why it was collected.
> 
> That latter point is more my statement. It's not that we have lots of 
> jurisdictions. It's that we have lots of competing governments. The 
> federal government often has to threaten the state governments to pass 
> laws the federal government isn't allowed to pass. And there's 
> constantly battles, threats by the states to overthrow the federal 
> government, relatively little cooperation between distant states, etc. 
> For example, most states have agreements with their neighbors that if I 
> get a traffic ticket in (say) New York, Pennsylvania will be informed. 
> But if I get a traffic ticket in New York, chances are good California 
> will never hear about it.  So it's not just that "the government" 
> doesn't know where I am, but that there's no part of the government 
> specifically assigned the duty of tracking where I am. And there's 
> nothing in the constitution (quite to the contrary, actually) that says 
> the federal government is allowed to provide that service, and doing it 
> on a state level would only work for the states.

Indeed mind boggling but very American.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it
> > for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.
>
> We never had a dictator to set that stuff up for us, yes. :-)
>
> > A very American remark. ;)
>
> Yes, very much. We have a long history of not trusting our government. Our
> revolution is still young enough to be alive and well, especially given that
> the founders of the country didn't trust the very government they were
> setting up.  I think many here look at individual conveniences (such as only
> having one place where you need to change your address) as much less
> important than the slim likelihood that something disastrous (such as
> rounding up all the <ethnic>s) will happen. (Note: I'm not saying this is
> right, logical, reasonable, etc. I'm just saying how it is. :-)
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>    Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
>    I get "focus follows gaze"?

I think a better way of thinking is that in these United States we have a strong
individualism. Each state is to some extent sovereign and separate. There are
strong divisions between each government entity. The fed cannot interfere with
state activity unless it violates something to do with the federal constitution.
In fact each state has its own constitution. Each state sets its own taxes. And
each state sets its own law about jury duty and entrapment. In Oklahoma my
trailers do not need tags but just 30 miles south of me in Texas they have to
tag their trailers. Most of the southwest states allow guns without the need for
permits but in the northeast that is unheard of. Most people outside of the US
and even some inside forget this is a collection of states not a single state.
On entrapment; if an individual can be talked into or pressured to commit a
crime by another person who is not police it will still be prosecuted as a
crime. So why would that change if it was now a police officer that did the
pressuring? This is just another twist on the entrapment discussion.

Post a reply to this message

m1j wrote:
> Each state is to some extent sovereign and separate.

Indeed, the states all started off sovereign and then banded together in the 
federal system.

Not unlike the nations in europe and the EU in modern times. If one moves 
from France to Germany, I don't imagine Germany would tell France of all 
your future moves, etc.

It's only relatively recently (like, since the early 1900's or so) that the 
federal government has been more powerful than the states here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:22:54 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   The need to have censuses in order to know who is a natural born
>   citizen
> (so that they can be called to jury duty) demonstrates the problem.

I'd have to check, but I don't think there's a requirement that you be a 
"natural born citizen" to serve on a jury in the US.  So are you saying 
that someone who emigrates to your country and becomes a citizen wouldn't 
qualify to be on a jury because they weren't actually born there?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:49:51 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Wasn't Jesus supposedly traveling for the roman census?

I think you mean "Joseph and Mary", don't you?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:18:51 -0500, m1j wrote:

> Most of the southwest states allow guns without the need for permits but
> in the northeast that is unheard of.

I live in Utah, and AFAIK, permits are required here.  Perhaps I'm just 
not "southwest" enough?  I seem to recall that they're required in 
Arizona, though, and it's hard to get much more SW than Arizona....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> So are you saying 
> that someone who emigrates to your country and becomes a citizen wouldn't 
> qualify to be on a jury because they weren't actually born there?

  We don't have a jury system here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:39:31 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> So are you saying
>> that someone who emigrates to your country and becomes a citizen
>> wouldn't qualify to be on a jury because they weren't actually born
>> there?
> 
>   We don't have a jury system here.

I guess that would make the question moot...OK, so pick an analogous 
situation, then, I really just wanted to understand what you meant by 
"natural born citizen".

Jim

Post a reply to this message