You're going to find - as an immovable principle - that some folks start with the idea that any kind of government involvement in anything is bad and scary. While doing so, they'll rely on their rights in property, exchange money with one another, drive on roads, support the police service, demand strenuous prison terms for criminals, swear allegiance to the flag, and support any level of funding of the military.
An architecture of identity introduced under the lightest aegis of government involvement must needs fall foul of that grand and sober piece of wisdom. Unless, of course, corporate merchants point to the opportunities for profit in the new architecture.
It's actually quite interesting to see how the political chips fall. Do folks from either party support individual freedoms or public goods, commercial interests or government intrusion, freedoms or restrictions, producers or consumers? They'll find this conversation difficult to align with their usual policy priorities.
| 