National ID is the Ultimate Vicitmless Crime
From Wendy McElroy
I am opposed to universal governmental ID, partly because such a system is inconceivable without mandatory enforcement and the punishment of those who commit no crime other than the created one of refusing to carry government papers. Declining to put a piece of paper in your wallet must be the ultimate “victimless crime”…after all, who is harmed by the absence of a paper on your person?
Authorities will argue back: society is harmed because in order secure society’s safety, they must know who you are. One objection to this argument is that it is a slippery slope. If it proves anything, then it proves far too much because there is no intrusion into privacy that cannot be justified once you agree with the principle that minding your own business endangers others. Why can’t policemen break down your door at 2 a.m. in order to ensure you are not raping someone? Why can’t they put a 24-hour Orwell style camera into your home to make sure you’re not manufacturing explosives? After all, if you don’t have anything to hide, why would you object?
It is the right of every individual to lead his of her own life peacefully and without interference from third parties unless there is good reason to suspect criminal activity — that is, violence against property or person. The requirement that a state (or third party) *must* provide cause before interfering with peaceful activities is one the bastions of freedom that prevents the rise of totalitarian government. The principle that a person who has done no provable harm should nevertheless be monitored by the government is the foundation of a police state.
The demand for every citizen to provide ID at the snap of the government’s fingers reverses the logic of individual rights and due process. It says that you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence (that is, identify yourself with appropriate documents) or the presumption of guilt stands, and you will be punished for you non-identification. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why wouldn’t you be carrying appropriate ID? The presumption of innocence is replaced by a presumption of guilt.
In the foregoing scenario, society has all the rights; individuals have all the responsibilities. Which makes you wonder where society got those rights if they did not first reside with individuals at some point. But this takes us into rights theory…
Instead, I’ll provide some practical objections to mandatory governmental IDs. They include:
1. There has been a steep rise in the systematic federal surveillance of ordinary citizens that foreshadows a state in which all information may be considered mandatory to reveal, to have listed in a database. Again, it is a slippery slide. Why not your medical records? Why not your sexual partners — society has a right to know in case you are spreading a disease.
2. Historically-speaking, national IDs or national registeries have been notoriously used by governments to oppose peaceful citizens. American used census and tax data to round up citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps in WWII. The Naziis used records to find Jews — indeed, one of the reasons they were remarkably successful at this endeavor in Holland was because the meticulous national records maintained there indicated religion. National ID has played a key role in various genocides and mass actions. Thus, the gathering and maintaining of such data constitutes a real threat to dissenters, minorities, etc.
3. Government IDs quickly become essential to everyday life. Consider airlines that now demand a government photo-ID before boarding you. This makes the right to travel contingent upon government’s approval. Thus, the government intrudes ever more deeply into every crevice of daily life: bank accounts, licenses from fishing to practicing medicine, insurance or medical treatment, employment, etc. It is not merely an ID so that police can identify you in a dark alley at night. It becomes a card that separates those who do not have it (e.g. the homeless) into second class citizens, unable to function in normal society. Again, notoriously, governments have used this power as a political weapon: the Soviet Union comes to mind.
4. Government IDs quickly become used across the board by all governmental agencies so that when you register for your card you are *de facto* registering for the draft, giving information (e.g. your address) to the tax people, etc. Governments may deny that information will be shared but sharing seems to be the inevitable reality. Today, in the US, when you register your child for public school, the information is sent to the draft bureau so that no child can escape becoming cannon fodder in a future war.
5. On a purely emotional basis, the State requiring ID raises images of an owner branding cattle. It is a statement: you belong to the government and not to yourself.
I not against ID in general; it can serve valuable functions. One valid purpose of ID is the authentication of who you are — that is, to identify you to people who are strangers. Consider a business deal: a seller may require identification before taking a check and do so with propriety because you approached him or her for an exchange. Another valid purpose is certification — that is, it verifies possession of certain skills like a medical degree. These functions benefit the bearer. Ask yourself who benefits from national IDs: amorphous entities like society and the state at the expense of the bearer. Or, at least, the bearer who wish to decline. And this is always the mark of how much freedom a society has — does a peaceful individual have the right to say “no” to an interaction and not be punished for doing so.
Related posts:
- Will National ID Protect Us From Identity Theft?
- Google Teams With The National Security Agency (NSA)
- Non-Aggression Principle and Vice: Where’s The Crime?
- EFF Sues Feds For Info on Social-Network Surveillance
- Video: The Ultimate Reboot
