Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec View Post
Care to argue against it based on its merits, instead of saying it's not [-insert nationality-]?

The bolded parts are, put mildly, mischaracterisations. Codifying a right to do something is an extra garantue against government intervention and does not necessarily imply that people weren't free to do that particular thing before. There's no statute that garantues the right to breathe, eat food or sleep. It's not that civil-style governments don't see any reason not to allow it. It's that they don't see any reason to ban it. Historically governments on both sides of the channel have restricted what people could say, what they could believe and whatnot, but as TA noted, only the UK lacks constitutional garantues against such things.
I believe i just did............?

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.
They two statements may be overstated to highlight the distinction, but i fail to see how the point is incorrect, and the first paragraph (which lacks any highlights from you), does a very adequate job explaining why i refuse to help legitimise the governments attempt to push the authority of the state where it does not belong by accepting a mandatory ID card.