The same happened in Britain after WWII where the police continued to stop citizens and ask for their ID card. Meaning that people could not walk around freely in their own country without being attached to a card. It’s offensive.

I feel that no benefits can outweigh those of privacy and freedom to move around without feeling that you can be asked for a number. After all, we didn’t fight for freedom so that our own countrymen can oppress us!

Having all citizens merely register is different from having everyone’s details in a database with other sensitive information attached. It’s a question of scale. The biometric measures such as Iris scans and fingerprinting only increases the sense of interference.

Another drawback is the atmosphere of distrust that will prevail. The number becomes more important than the person. A good example is your suspicion of the farmer with the broken leg. Suspicion should not be carried so far as to deprive everyone of the benefit of the doubt in an emergency. Once again, the number becomes more important than the person. Such a thing should never happen, and with a centralized UID, it will.

Making it mandatory is merely like making all citizens register, so you know who’s a citizen and who’s not, so you have records. The potential for denial of freedom might not arise.

The aim is not to keep tabs on all of us, but to ensure that only the right people are getting rights to benefits from the government.

Farmer gets free medical care from the government. Questions: Is he who he really says he is? 2) Can he DEFINITELY not afford treatment?

In the USA itself, medical care is a scam. The idea is brilliant, the implementation might go awry. But don’t play the executive for the legislature eh?

What next? UID necessary for a farmer to get emergency treatment for a broken leg? Mandatory for children going to school? Mandatory to enter a theater? The world over such a card hasn’t worked due to privacy concerns, and you just pretend that they don’t exist?