Skip to main content

Real ID mixes Big Brother, National Security, and Immigrant Paraonoia

Thanks to Privacy Maven for this one.

Libertarians (and a lot of other people who don't know they have libertarian leanings) have always been worried about a National ID Card.

Quoth Robert Heinlein (as Lazarus Long):

When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.


Unfortunately, we ain't got space travel yet.

And the Feds have just realized (a) that they can get a national ID done in essence through mandating Federal standards for driver's licenses, and (b) that they have a much better coercive tool than withholding highway funds for requiring the states to participate: if your state doesn't play ball, you won't be able to get on an airplane with that state's driver's license.

So take a couple of minutes and listen to Homeland Security Czar Michael Jerk-off explain the 1984 version of protecting your privacy by eliminating it:



Sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Those nasty terrorists won't be able to sneak around any more, and we can identify all kinds of illegal brown people for deportation. And when you've got your Real ID, you'll know that you are really you, so nobody will be able to con you any more.

Note also that this is represented as a "Service" to you from the Government.

I'll skip all the highbrow commentary, just for tonight, and concentrate on the paleo-libertarian deep inside me, howling with primal anarchist fury.

Our society--any society--needs grey markets and black markets, needs people who hover on the edge of visibility, needs avenues through which people can move with minimal government notice. And needs all these things badly enough to put up with the slightly increased risks to security (which have never actually been quantified) or the significantly increased risk that the next Guatemalan landscaper who side-swipes you with his 1951 Ford pickup won't have a driver's license on him.

Why?

Because a free society rests on the inability of the government to clamp down, not the government's promise never to use the means at its disposal against law-abiding citizens, that's why.

In the past, during the Civil Wars or the World Wars, we have been asked as citizens to accept temporary and situational limits on our civil rights. Even then it often proved difficult to turn the clock back once those wars ended.

With the advent of the Cold War, followed by the War on Terror, we have been sold the necessity of turning over our civil rights in generational terms. During the Cold War we needed to find and suppress the traitors in our midst, the Communist sympathizers, and the KGB agents rifling through the trash cans behind the Sears Roebuck for atomic secrets. Now, in the War on Terror, we are told that we need to find the jihadists in our midst, the radical Islamic sympathizers, and all those Latinos stealing jobs from the many high school graduates who wanted to grow up to clean hotels.

And it's never going to end. The emergency will never be over.

But I do have one consolation: like always, the government will do this so badly that there will still be holes in the system

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba