polyphonic01

No it's not racist, it can easily be implemented in the US today without issue.

Don't be so patronizing to minority groups, they are just as capable as everyone else and already have to get ID for numerous other activities.

The US is less racist than most other countries on Earth, yet somehow it is the US that couldn't properly implement voter ID cards?

Racism in America has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years according to multiple lines of research, the perception that racism is on the rise is false and misguided.

It's a shame voter ID can't be implemented on a nationwide basis in the US just because people have concerns that are longer valid.

What sort of abuse and what have been the effects of that abuse?

So you disagree that law enforcement should be able to tap phones.

No, I consider that giving law enforcement too much access. Others may disagree.

From the article: "Telecommunications companies are required to give police access to calls under federal law, but many apps that rely solely on internet infrastructure are exempt. Facebook contended Messenger was covered by that exemption."

I think it's good that law enforcement can tap calls if necessary, and I see no convincing reason why the existing law and precedent should not extend to apps like messenger which are used just as traditional phones are by many people. Therefore I'm comfortable extending the law to internet based communications.

The powers granted to government should not be absolute, but there must be powers that are granted, so we debate about what powers to grant. The debate cannot be resolved on an a priori basis using abstract principles, it can only be resolved on a case by case basis. If we only rely on abstract principles we will inevitably be pulled toward absolute power or absolute impotency.

If in the course of a criminal investigation it becomes necessary to wiretap a suspect, Facebook should cooperate with the government and implement the wiretap. As long as a warrant is issued for the wiretap, there should be no issue with this.

Protection of people's privacy must be balanced with granting law enforcement sufficient powers to effectively prosecute criminals.

"Given the nature of the human mind and the material state of the world"

The material state of the world my friend.

Many people do. Many poor people make bad life decisions which lead them, unfortunately, into their poverty.

Capitalism is not a choice.

Given the nature of the human mind and the material state of the world, the equilibrium state of human economies is capitalism.

To see what I mean, consider any complex system. There will be certain patterns and processes that naturally unfold in that system, while other patterns and processes do not manifest without external energy. The reason is because the former states are closer to the equilibrium state of the system while the latter are comparatively farther away.

Capitalism is like an equilibrium state, and all attempts to control capitalism require external energy. What is a concrete example of this?

Regulation has a tendency to be repealed if the public or government loses sight of why the regulation was passed in the first place. On the other hand, companies usually want regulations repealed by default. This tension between opposing forces must resolve itself, and it does in favor of companies because not only are they constantly applying pressure against regulations, but the public is often allured by the fact that many regulations lower potential levels of economic growth. Therefore it's more likely than not that regulations be repealed in the long run.

Your mistake is that you choose to see everything in terms of race. Not everything is a "racist dog whistle". If someone doesn't want poor people in their town, it's because they don't want poor people.

Cupertino is a melting pot of individuals of many different racial groups, they just all happen to be very wealthy. That's it. Your compulsion to consider everything in racial terms is itself racist and it clouds your judgement