[St D] Well, I would feel a moral obligation to carry them as it would be the law, but clearly I don't know how widespread such a view would be. For example, in New Zealand it is illegal to drive without having your driving licence on you, so I always had it with me even though there was no "practical" advantage to this. As for the conscientious objectors, I personally don't think their position would be defensible. To my mind it is justifiable to break a law if doing so would bring about more good or cause less harm than keeping the law. But in this case, following the ID card law would obviously do no harm - it would not harm anyone if an opponent of the law did carry their card, and it would benefit no-one for them not to carry it, other than to register their protest at the law. But they can register that protest just as effectively whilst obeying it, which surely means that there is no moral argument for breaking the law, and I would like to think that most people would agree that in such a case one should obey the law rather than break it. I hadn't imagined that there would be people who would break such a law purely because they oppose it, but I don't really understand this mentality that some people seem to have that civil disobedience is the best way to change the law. They seem to think that if you personally don't agree with a law then that gives you carte blanche to break it. Often when they are interviewed on TV they make vague references to "democracy", as if that entailed libertarianism.

(Breadmaster) Driving licences are for people who are permitted to drive. ID cards are for people who are permitted to . . . . . . (fill in as appropriate). Why should I have to carry an ID card everywhere. After all, I know who I am. Disobeying the law while harming no-one else is a very good way to get the law changed.

[Bm] What do you propose as a means to change the law? In the case of ID cards, what would appear to be a law which is unproven to fulful its primary stated purpose (combatting terrorism) and which is proposed to have its costs bourne by the unwilling individual?

Sorry, that second thing wasn't a question. I'm not sure it even qualifies as a sentence...

[Rosie] I don't see why disobeying the law, in an example such as this, would be any more effective at changing the law than not disobeying it. Why would this be more effective than writing to your MP, going on a march, and all the other legitimate means that we have? Surely in the absence of any other considerations, one should obey the law, and so if disobeying it would not achieve anything, as I doubt that it would in this case, one should obey it.
[rab] Wouldn't it make more sense to say that if the law is indeed ineffective as well as burdensome, that is an argument for changing it, not for disobeying it, and if it does indeed prove counter-productive, the government would change it themselves irrespective of whether people disobey it or not?

Yes but the question I asked was "What do you propose as a means to change the law?" which was not intended as an argument to disobey it. It was a question asking, erm, how you would go about getting a law you didn't like changed. I think.

BM] The poll tax comes to mind, as a law which was eventually abolished because so many people broke it.