Originally Posted by chiefst2000
I am for any system that reduces or eliminates fraud. Your example is disingenuous. It is impossible for any bureaucratic system to eliminate all possible forms of fraud. In this specific case, had the new voter ID law been in place, this woman would have had to go to the DMV in Florida and get a 2nd drivers licence or local ID card which had her Florida address in order to commit her particular act of fraud. The law sim ply places another barrier in the way. There is no possible way to elliminate all fraud.
I will give you another example of the sillyness of your position. Lets say I own a pharmacy and I'm trying to reduce theft. So I hire a security guard and install cameras in the store. Does that mean that no one will ever successfully shoplift? No. A savvy criminal will likely find a way. The fact is that the camera and guard may catch most of the theft but not all. So by your logic I shouldn't bother hiring the guard and installing the cameras because someone might still get away with theft?
your example is too simplistic, what are the crime statistics in the area? What is the cost of the extra security? Does this mean you would advocate no matter where the pharmacy is located (high crime area or low crime area) they should all have security guards and cameras regardless of the cost and benefit?
If I own a pharmacy and suffer say a .009 percent of losses due to theft I should take on extra expenses of say 15% by hiring security and installing a video monitoring system in order to stop that .009 loss?