July 2, 2005
HARD WON AND EASILY LOST
Have the English lost their historic love of liberty? (Peter Oborne, The Spectator, July 2nd, 2005)
The one missing sector in an otherwise broad front against these cards is, oddly enough, the public. Opinion polls show great support for cards, support that declines only when people are told they might have to pay handsomely for the privilege of having them. Given most people are not criminals, terrorists or even benefit fraudsters, it is hardly surprising that they superficially see no problem with being asked to prove who they are. Perhaps Mr Blair has been more successful than we realise in creating such a siege mentality among our people that they now have a clear conception of a common enemy, and want additional weapons (such as ID cards) to use against that enemy. What the public does not seem yet to have grasped is that (a) ID cards will not make the blindest bit of difference to security (b) they will allow the state to create the apparatus of quite unpalatable and unnecessary control over individuals and (c) a demonstrably unreliable state (Child Support Agency, tax credits qv) will hold all sorts of intimate information about us, with no end to the improper uses to which it might be put.Most people have no objection to being asked to prove their identity when they wish to make a claim on the state. The means to do this already exist. If you want to use the NHS, you need an NHS number. If you want to exploit the welfare system, you need a National Insurance number. If you want to use public roads in a motor vehicle, you need a driving licence. Admittedly, many people use these resources despite being technically disqualified. That is because without an even bigger police state than we already have, the rules are often unenforceable. ID cards would multiply the problem severalfold.
However, the public persists in thinking they are a good idea. We are not, perhaps, a philosophical nation, and tend to believe that the loss of freedoms attached to ID cards will matter only to the terrorist and criminal. We little see that they will matter to us, because they will greatly add to the state’s database on us, and enable all of us — guilty or innocent — to be tracked and monitored in a way we recall from certain European states in far unhappier times. And does anyone of intelligence still believe that the government is inevitably honest and trustworthy, or the police competent and reliable?
There can be only one reason for this complacency: it is that our people are too cosy, too cosseted, too self-absorbed to see beyond the ends of their noses — or, rather, beyond their widescreen tellies, their state-of-the-art white goods, their shiny new cars and their holidays in Ibiza. Affluence has become the enemy of vigilance. Because we have so much materially now, we have stopped remembering the value of what money can’t buy. In the days of Hampden, or Wilkes, or Cobbett, or John Bright, the average English man or woman had nothing nearly so valuable as Magna Carta and, later, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights. Until time of war we as a people loved our liberty too much to accept state control. Now the consumer society has given us more tangible possessions to treasure, and our love of our freedoms has been relegated. Perhaps we should call it the Singapore Syndrome, after a nation that has long complemented wealth with the rod of iron. Sadly, unlike that and many other such countries, we have a vast heritage of liberty to lose.
It is a sad but undeniable truth that war compels us to “park” rights and liberties to ensure the collective resolve and efficiency needed to defeat the enemy. As libertarians have such difficulty understanding, individual freedom stands on the shoulders of the overall safety and welfare of the community and is largely meaningless without it. The menace of Islamicist and other terror is a perfectly valid reason to give up political and legal freedoms, particularly freedoms related to privacy and anonymity. The tragedy may be that prosperity has made us so addicted to material comfort and so self-absorbed that we forget to demand them back.
This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man. Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown.
Winston Churchill, House of Commons, September 3rd, 1939.
I have a very hard time grasping the privacy concerns expressed in connection with the I.D. card controversy. My anonimity is already compromised in so many ways that one more will do little damage. Deeds to real estate, professional licenses, passport, drivers license, firearms license, library cards, health insurance records, academic recbank records--got the picture?
Am I harmed by something that will make it easier for law enforcement to pick up undocs and G.S.C.'s? (That's "grungy street critter) No, the references I.D. card won't stop sophisticated terrorists; yes, it will improve quality of life. in general.
Posted by: Lou Gots at July 2, 2005 11:04 AMGood post Peter. I too fail to see the loss of liberty inherent in being identified to the state. The English are subject to much more serious losses of freedom, such as in the loss of freedom to protect one's life and property from intruders. Noone has a right to be anonymous in society.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 2, 2005 2:58 PMBut surely the question isn't whether one has a legal "right" to be anonymous, but whether one should put any political value on the freedom to be. Granted we should be empirical, not ideological about this, and that the complexities of cyber-crime, cyber-terrorism, etc. are changing the whole game of defence and law enforcement. It's fine and patriotic to offer our support to the good guys, but it seems to me even conservatives are losing their traditional suspicion of the state and coming to see it more and more as our protector and source of benificence whose actions are to to be judged on utilitarian grounds alone. As for ID cards, this is a little like our discussions on morality and the family. There is never any one thing that can be said to be the direct and sole cause of the problem. The problem is the cumulative effect they all have on our view of the nature of the state and its relationship to us in normal times, whatever they may be.
Posted by: Peter B at July 2, 2005 6:48 PMIt is a sad but undeniable truth that war compels us to park rights and liberties to ensure the collective resolve and efficiency needed to defeat the enemy.There's the real issue – as the article author states, there's little evidence for and much evidence against these IDs cards in any way ensuring the collective resolve and efficiency need to defeat the enemy. In fact, I suspect that such IDs will make it easier for our enemies because they'll only have to forge one document.
So, Mr. Burnett, I would ask you – should we "park" liberties for the sake of parking them, even if that doesn't contribute to the fight against the enemy? Or should those suggesting such parking have a positive obligation to show how, in real life, such restrictions would help?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 2, 2005 7:20 PMWell, I don't think we should park our liberties in time of war, and particularly not for this war. I understand why being obliged to show ID to the government upon demand is a liberty violation. But I have no idea why people think that carrying around a government issued ID card to use when I choose to do something.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 2, 2005 7:31 PMBecause the "temporary" "parking" always turns out to be permanent. Or have none of you actually noticed the long-term expansion og government over the last 200 years?
Posted by: Tom at July 2, 2005 8:26 PMBecause the "temporary" "parking" always turns out to be permanent. Or have none of you actually noticed the long-term expansion of government over the last 200 years?
Posted by: Tom at July 2, 2005 8:26 PMAOG:
Excellent political question. Abominable legal question. And therein lies the modern dilemna.
Posted by: Peter B at July 2, 2005 8:38 PMTom: I don't think we should park our liberties even temporarily. But how is having a government issued ID card a violation of our liberty?
Posted by: David Cohen at July 2, 2005 9:55 PMPeter:
I think AOGs question was far more practical than either political or legal.
Until that question is resolved in the affirmative, then there is no dillemma to be had.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 3, 2005 7:24 AMBeing required to have it and show it, or you're allowed to do this that and the other thing, is a violation of your liberty.
Posted by: Tom at July 3, 2005 9:09 AMExcuse me, "NOT allowed..."
Posted by: Tom at July 3, 2005 9:21 AMAOG
"no evidence" of the effectiveness.
Wrong, USSR is good example of greater surveilance = less crime (presumably terrorism also).
Regarding the "temporary" nature of parking our rights, now that has no evidence, unless one uses the example of the USSR collapsing. (I could use even more appropriately East Germany as a society that had Less crime, but collapsed)
Posted by: h-man at July 3, 2005 9:35 AMthe cccp had much higher crime levels than they were reporting (think SARS and the prc).
Posted by: cjm at July 3, 2005 10:37 AMIt can't be a loss of liberty to be known to society . To be in society pretty much mandates that you are known to others in that society. A group of people who are unknown to each other is not a society.
It may be a hassle to have to show an ID to buy cigarettes or board an airplane, but you have not given up a liberty in the process. Economic transactions are contractual agreements between people, and are voluntary on both sides of the transaction (not counting for non-discrimination laws). For most small transactions it is not important for a seller to validate ID, but that does not invalidate the fact that a seller has a right to know who he is contracting business with.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 3, 2005 12:29 PM"It may be a hassle to have to show an ID to buy cigarettes or board an airplane, but you have not given up a liberty in the process."
What a bizzarre statement.
Posted by: Tom at July 3, 2005 12:47 PMTom: If you don't want to show the ID, don't fly. It's no more a violation of my liberty to have to show an ID than it is that I have to pay for my ticket. Now, it probably doesn't make us much safer to have to show ID, and the government shouldn't, generally, mandate that we do useless things, but I find it hard to see a liberty interest in unidentified flying.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2005 2:16 PMfor me, the "tripwire" is when the state can demand a form of identification on demand; i.e. when you are walking on the streets, etc.
Posted by: cjm at July 3, 2005 3:01 PMh-man;
You wrote
Wrong, USSR is good example of greater surveilance = less crime (presumably terrorism also).
I could point out that ID cards are not the same as surveillance, but the most telling fact is that when the USSR collapsed, it wasn't invaded by Western gangsters. It was Russian gangsters who invaded the West. Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 3, 2005 5:12 PM
David - If you're a woman, you can't drive in Saudi Arabia. If you're a woman and you don't like this, don't live in Saudi Arabia. See, no violation of your liberty!
Be serious.
Posted by: Tom at July 3, 2005 5:23 PMAOG
Fair enough. In that case use East Germany as an example. (but forget it, i don't want to bicker)
More important to me is the recent pedophile murders in Idaho, committed by a man who had a history of similiar crimes. He was arrested in Minnesota for molestation recently and had been released. Probably because the MN judge didn't have the man's records. Perhaps a National ID (with the appropriate high-tech stuff on it) would assure the idenity of such criminals who are hopping around different jurisdictions. I believe that would be "effective"
As David is suggesting above, you will have to show the damage to legitimate rights of law abiding citizens other than speculations as to your general uncomfortableness.
Posted by: h-man at July 3, 2005 7:16 PMPeter,
We have states in order to protect society (in an ideal world). The state is a necessary evil. The least power that the state should have is to know who it is that it is tasked to protect. I'm just arguing here that there is no right to anonymity. Now there are many ways that the state can abuse its power to acces your identity. The state shouldn't have automatic access to all the information about you, but only enough to do its job of protecting you . Anonymity is not the same as privacy. You can't have anonymity, but you can protect a lot of your privacy in an ideal state.
Tom, if the showing of your ID does not stop you from boarding an airplane or buying cigarettes, then how has your liberty been compromised? Unless you are a wanted terrorist or underage smoker.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 3, 2005 7:49 PMIt violates one's right to travel without getting permission from the government first.
Posted by: Tom at July 3, 2005 8:35 PMTom: Been driving without your mandatory government-issued ID recently?
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2005 11:28 PMAnd the government-issued identification plate that you are required to display in a prominent location and not to obscure?
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2005 11:31 PMOh, and the government-registered vehicle identification number that has to be etched onto various parts of your vehicle and displayed on a plate visible from outside the car?
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2005 11:33 PMEver been pulled over by the gun-toting, deputized representative of the state who demanded to see your manadatory government-issued picture ID and vehicle registration and told him to pound sand?
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2005 11:35 PMAnd that flight you're so eager to make anonymously. Did you pay for it with cash, or with your credit card?
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2005 11:37 PMOk, Ok, Ok. I agree that those 18th and 19th century thinkers we look to for inspiration couldn't have forseen computers, which is what is driving this and making the idea so compelling, and perhaps ultimately unavoidable. But surely it is more than a tad naive to look back at the Europe of a hundred years ago, where ID cards were an expression of social and political control, and then say: "Oh, but this is completely different. This is our government, which is and always will be, benevolent at heart, and which just needs these things for our protection and service efficiency." Do we really think the day won't come when municipalities won't demand them before issuing building permits or corporations "to serve you better"?
And then, pretty soon, there will be ONE BIG COMPUTER that tracks everything about us with manadatory downloadable neuro-nanochips that track our thoughts, including the dirty ones, and then some Democratic administration will turn it all over to the UN, which will patch it all to their black helicopters...and then...and then...
Sorry. Not feeling well. Have to lie down.
Posted by: Peter B at July 4, 2005 6:20 AMDavid:
Being a Lance Armstrong wannabe, I ride my bike a lot.
Will I need to carry a gov't issued ID in order to do that?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 4, 2005 7:28 AMDavid - No. The fact that I cave in to the violation of my liberty doesn't mean that it's not a violation of my liberty.
You unwittingly make my point for me quite well when you mention that driver's licences are enforced by the state's enforcement agents. They are, as you mention, "gun-toting," which is why I cave in.
Regarding the credit cards, why would I bother paying for flight in cash when I know I have to show ID anyway?
Posted by: Tom at July 4, 2005 7:47 AMPeter,
I hope you're feeling better. Did you drink a bad bottle of schnapps, or OD on the SciFi channel?
Yes, there is always the danger of an overreaching state, in cahoots with greedy multi-national corporations or One World tranzis, to use these new technologies to gain total control over us, like those sweaty subterranean proles on "Metropolis". Theoretically, at least. I won't assent to a microchip implant. Perhaps some paranoia is in order. It's the price we pay to make sure we stay vigilant. But I'm not going to get bent out of shape around ID cards.
Maybe it is because I was once one of those government guys with a gun (not a cop, a Marine) that I'm not so suspicious of the man in uniform. You see it a lot in Hollywood films, the paranoia about the military, that they are either heartless killers or unthinking pawns of the military-industrial complex (as in the remake of The Manchurian Candidate).
Those who would never consider joining the military or the police harbor fears about those who do. They think "what kind of feeble, unbalanced mentality would give up their individuality, their easy carefree lifestyle to become a mindless, regimented killer?". These are people who think that they can stop the enemies of their freedom by actions no more dangerous than a street protest. They are like the penthouse denizens of Metropolis, enjoying the good life only because of the subterraneans who are doing the dirty, dangerous work they would never assent to doing. Rather than being grateful to them, they fear them.
Tom, your ability to travel about as freely as you do is due to the hard, dangerous work of many people in uniform. That they do their jobs with a level of dedication and absence of corruption that is unknown in other societies makes you freer than any citizen of any other state in world history. It is a small price to pay to at least let people know who you are.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 4, 2005 11:06 AMRobert - I didn't say "Cops are evil and perform no service of value." I said being required to show ID to be granted the right to travel is an infringement of liberty.
If you want to argue that the infringement has benefits which make it worthwhile, have at it. But that's not what you and David have been arguing so far; you've been arguiing that it's not an infringement of liberty.
Posted by: Tom at July 4, 2005 12:09 PMTom
If you are going to measure liberty on an absolutist scale, then I guess that you could consider the requirement to be identified to society as an infringement on liberty, in the same way that an object that is 5 degrees above absolute zero could be called warm. To be more specific, I would reword my statement to read "Anonymity is not a liberty that anyone should expect to enjoy as a member of a society".
It is fine to say that you should be allowed to fly on an airplane in total anonymity, but how would you then expect the airlines and the police to protect your security in that case? It seems that you are trading one liberty for another. You gain the liberty of anonymity at the expense of giving up your liberty of safety from harm by others. The terrorists should have the same right of anonymity, right?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 4, 2005 1:09 PMRobert - If you want to debate whether the infringement of liberty is worth it, I have no objection to make. I was just prompted to get on my keyboard by the assertion that it's not a restriction of freedom at all (e.g., David's rhetorical question in his post of 7/2/05, 9:55 pm).
Posted by: Tom at July 4, 2005 7:37 PMRegarding flight, my solution would be to take the Second Amendment seriously, give pilot and co-pilot Uzis, and let anyone else who wants to take a handgun aboard take one. Re-wargame 9-11 with that scenario in mind.
The plane that was brought down in an empty Pennsylvania field was brought down by the spontaneous action of private citizens, not the state's enforcement agents.
By the way, didn't we have to show ID before 9-11?
I don't take issue with the notion that some freedoms may have to be restricted during war. I just think the Consttiution should require that such restrictions really be temporary, in that they should automatically expire after, say, five years. And any government employee who tries to get around this, from secretary in the local dogcatcher's office to President, should be immolated. (If you don't like it, don't run for Prez.)
Finally, regarding an earlier point that I enjoy more freedom and prosperity as a US citizen than most people who have ever lived: Indeed I do, Robert, indeed I do... Because the US is a nation with a limited government.
More freedom, not less!
Posted by: Tom at July 4, 2005 8:51 PMTom: Liberty is that we get to say what we think, that we get to hear what we choose, that we get to write what we wish and that we get to read what we please. Liberty is our right to defend ourselves against the government, and to control the government rather than be controlled by it. Liberty is all citizens being treated equally before the law, to have the law known to us before we act and to have the consequences of acts be predictable. Liberty is being owed due process before we are punished for violating that law and before our property, our freedom or our life is taken from us.
Liberty is not, in any way, shape or form, being able to get on an airplane without showing our driver's license.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 4, 2005 11:38 PM"Liberty is not, in any way, shape or form, being able to get on an airplane without showing our driver's license."
Wrong. The liberty to get on an airplane without showing ID is a liberty, namely ---wait for it---the liberty to get on an airplane without showing ID.
Posted by: Tom at July 5, 2005 11:51 AMMr. Duquette;
It's not the front line government people who frighten me, it's their bosses like Nancy "How does this government thing work again?" Pelosi. There's exhibit #1 on why we shouldn't trust the government. Sadly, even the most loyal and dedicated Marines can't protect me from her.
h-man;
No, I disagree. It should not be the naysayers who have to demonstrate the possible damage, but the proponents who must (1) show where in the Constitution the action is authorized and (2) that the beneficial effects outweigh the cost in liberty. If there's one place the precautionary principle should be used, it is in granting a government additional powers of any sort.
In the specific case you cite, I don't agree that we should accept a national ID on the off chance that maybe, someday, if we get lucky, it might perhaps be used to stop a crime. Which brings me to a point I've made elsewhere, that these kinds of things are not designed to improve the situation, but only to mask the failure to do anything substantial to fix real problems. Wouldn't we all be far better off, in terms of both liberty and security, if instead of pushing national IDs, Congress got the FBI to fix its computer systems? I don't see why I should sacrifice even a minute spec of liberty so the FBI can continue to screw up. Let's have Congress and the federal buearocracy make some sacrifices of hard work before asking anything of the citizenry.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 5, 2005 6:33 PM