Although many countries and territories, such as most Europe, and much of South East Asia, have already adopted the issuance of national ID cards for security reasons, it has been avidly rejected by Americans in both parties. Ever sense the socialized plans of the magnanimous Franklin D. Roosevelt such as social security, presidents such as Carter and Reagan opposed the plan. It appears Clinton wished to covertly use health cards " to the same effect, but nothing ever became of the plan. The Real ID Act of 2005 set the department of homeland security`s plan for a National ID in motion, but at present many states, including Maine, Idaho and Alaska are opposed to the idea. Opponents to the Real ID Act site the 23.1 billion dollars the plan is estimated to cost over the course of ten years. Proponents of the initiative try to explain its utility in the safety it creates in a world at war and terror.
The main argument opponents have against the Real ID Act other than the costly financial effects it has, is the issue of privacy. Americans in general usually believe they are entitled to the freedom of privacy and the freedom from the dangers of other countries and territories. Here we see a conflict of interest: The value of privacy versus the value of homeland security. Clearly the proponents of the idea have invested a great deal of time weighing values. The reason why the Real ID Act was put in place was for the security of the individual and the security of the entire nation, the value of homeland security is more important than complete privacy. Some opponents of the idea might retort that the idea is socialistic and un-American. Well, if this is so, then America has made an oversight, and has a flaw. Democratic countries in Europe and Asia have adopted the idea with some success, and the misjudged finger of fascism or socialism is not pointed. Furthermore, the opponents concerned about the financial obligation of the people paying for a program they disdain, should also take this into consideration: the value of security must be addressed, before the value of wealth.
What we have here, is a great example of moral objectivism on the part of the Department of Homeland Security. What they have done is used a particular method of Judgment in determining the values needed for maintaining the country and the statecraft needed to protect and nourish. Ostensibly Utilitarian, the determining factor is the good of the whole. In this case values have been weighed and not actions. Whereas in Utilitarianism, a decision or action is made that can be determined by maximizing good for the most people, here we see values being determined that will dictate action and prevent unfair actions and security risks at the same time.
Any opinions expressed on this website are those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect those of The Student Operated Press