You might not have noticed, but the government authorized a mandatory DNA database for all newborns

Not only is Big Brother watching us. But he will have the DNA of everyone from birth.

No. Can't see any privacy issues with that.

This is as unproveable (and fundamentally ridiculous) a statement as anything said by an Intelligent Design advocate.

Which means it's stock-standard Kindergarten Libertarian fare.

thefuckoffid: Never, I disagree with, as its not even possible, but i Do think generally, when you wield the threat of violence, the more connected and powerful will find ways to use that to their own advantage.

Scyllis: I think you're right. What we probably don't see eye to eye on are not so much the facts, but the interpretation of those facts. Probably, mv vision of freedom is very different then yours.

And also, in case anyone doesn't believe "newborn screeninf" involves DNA samples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newborn_screening

LSlice, that article doesn't say what you think it says.

there's nothing there about keeping the samples after the tests are run, nor does it say anything about using any DNA fingerprinting methods on the blood samples. given the way most tests work, it seems unlikely to me that the samples would be usable for DNA identification after testing anyway.

now, again, it's possible that these sample are secretly being swiped and entered into CODIS. but nothing in anything you've shown provides strong evidence that such is the case.

I can hardly wait until you know, your sample gets mislabeled, or comes back with a false positive, and you find yourself incarcerated for "matching DNA".

why isn't that an issue with fingerprinting?

It is. It's just that "everyone knows" that fingerprints are unique. Nobody's actually proved it.

Long way down, hm?

My fingerprints have been unique several times:
1) the way I was born with them;
2) the way they were after losing a piece of one finger in a bicycle accident;
3) the way they are now after almost cutting the tips of 3 fingers off with a circular saw...
(yes, I'm a moron)

This explains so much, Iron Man was really part of a propaganda campaign!

But that's a different claim to the one livertarian made, and it's not anything I was not already aware of.

livertarian's claim remains asinine.

Lots of comments couldn't read them all but has anyone ever seen the movie The Island? Damn there was another movie that really hit on this note just cannot remember the name..At birth they did this genetic testing that told everything you were predisposed to have like dieseases or drug abuse...so at this time you would be labeled as to what type of job you could have...You had to use your blood to enter your job it was freaky but at the time I remember thinking this is sooooo going to happen!!

I believe you're speaking of GATTACA. The letters (G, A, C, T) represent the nucleotides used to form DNA. I'm not even going to attempt to spell them. Biology was many years ago.

Kinda thinking this may be much ado about nothing. In Canada, we've been doing this screening for years. Of course, the potential for abuse is there, but you have to choose between running tests that may well save your child's life (should there be a problem), or making sure you have one of those tin-foil hats all ready to go for the baby when it's born. In other words, choose between common sense and paranoia. If the government really wanted to take a blood sample from your baby to enter into a database, they could quite easily do it without the parent even knowing about it.

the main reason i don't worry about this is that we've got a national DNA database already, called CODIS. this law mentions nothing about submitting any DNA samples taken to CODIS--a step that would be important enough to certainly warrant mentioning in any law designed to make it happen.

basically, there are a huge number of medical tests that involve blood samples, and any of those blood samples could be used to enter your DNA fingerprint into CODIS or some other database. but nobody worries about that, so i fail to see the point in worrying about these newborn tests. if you're going to worry about the newborn tests, there are a hell of a lot of other tests you should also be worried about.

Like fritz said, that's Gattaca. But Gattaca is just a movie about liberal eugenics, which is where we seem to be heading.

Um, liberal? Surely it's commercial concerns which are driving this technology? (i.e. insurance costs)

Of course, but the program is offering federal funds as an an incentive to hospitals who follow the federal program.

- As a general comment: For someone who's so pro-corporation, you seem very unsure about their robustness in the face of regulation. Why? Is it really the case that large corporations cease operating when they are regulated? Chapter and verse, please.

- As another general comment, would you please explain why "government" is "liberal"? I gather you believe that, but your entire response to government is that it's overly controlling. How is that "liberal"?

- How are hospitals in the USA normally operated? Are they commercial concerns, in the same way that insurance companies are?

- Do you believe that federal funds, applied as an incentive, and presumably subject to withdrawal at short notice, are a major influence on the global insurance market? Bigger than the commercial concerns of the companies concerned?

- Corollary question: Would you choose to avoid investing in an insurance company like that ^ ? If so, have you?

Look guys, you might as well give up on this one. There is no chance of logical debate with a dogmatist. Debate requires thought, not mindless regurgitation, and so far all I hear is Gubbment Bad Corporations Good! No thought here, just towing the party line. Might as well be debating Ron Paul's pet parrot.

I don't think government is liberal. These terms change over time. Liberal could mean liberal in the classic sense, like the philosophy of John Stuart Mill, which I like, or liberal in the modern sense of leftist, which I don't like.

I am not pro-corporation, I am not sure where you got that from .

Both hospitals and insurance companies in the US are government/private hybrids (like most corporations.)

As far as the global insurance market, I don't know, but I wouldn't separate the two, since as long as their both sources of income, both would drive insurance companies behavior. Could you give me some examples of companies you are referring to?

As far as your corollary question, I don't do much investing, and try to keep my bank use to a minimum. My business is entirely DIY, cash based. I did invest in gold and oil about six months ago, and those investments are doing well.

Do we really have to go over the modern use of liberal vs. conservative? This is Current Events, not political philosophy.

Modern Politics 101: Liberal = Left, Conservative = Right.

Are you such an anarchist you can use whatever context you choose, no matter whatever else everybody is using?

BTW, anti-government is pro-corporate. Or do you really believe that nothing will fill the void?

I have to be sure what I'm dealing with. LSlice seems competent and not stupid; misguided, but that's forgivable. I'm not unhappy to discuss this stuff with him.

But whatever

In response to kung foo: Hardly. That is an overly simplistic dichotomy. In fact, I believe most of the abuses by modern corporations are directly traceable to their ability to craft laws, and use the state to stifle competition. I mean, you know have lobbying firms that actually draft bills wholesale on the basis of orders from their corporate clients.

If you read my older post about corporate personhood, you can see that some of the modern aspects of how we define the corporation are in fact creations of the judiciary. Some of these were good rulings, but a good number of them were very bad. Plus the fact that we have set a terrible standard whereby large corporations "can't fail" since they will be bailed out.

Also, I tried to reply to you using the quotes feature, but the response refused to load.

At any rate, you will be rid of me soon enough. I do not intend to renew my subscription, although it is unrelated to anything having to do with this message board, or any complaint with the website in general.

You're right. It was a simple dichotomy, in response to a simple ideology. I'm not saying K Street doesn't abuse it's overwhelming influence on Capitol Hill, but why throw out the baby with the bath water?

The FCC is a prime example. If the regulatory body over the limited frequency spectrum loses it's ability to license bandwidth, then we're likely only to see and hear stations with the most powerful transmitters (media conglomerates) and the rest a muddled mess of interference. So, explain to me your vision of a FCC-less world and how it works to the benefit of the people.

But I think you'll probably just libertarian-speak yourself out of answering this question as well.