I oppose all ID cards, and I assume most here do too. Yet, I must ask, apart from opposing everything every government does, what is the specific objection? I hate it, but have not been able to articulate exactly why. I’m particularly looking for answers from minarchists (I’m an anarchist) who object to it without being able to rely on “I oppose all government acts.”
National IDs are usually used as part of internal movement systems; one of the most prominent examples of this being the internal passport system of the Soviet Union. From a minarchist or classical liberal perspective they could be opposed as being unnecessary things that will ultimately introduce a new serf system in which individuals are unable to freely move.
Edit: Taking a leaf from one of R. Paul’s arguments against the census: National IDs, especially the newer ones that come with those special chips capable of monitoring the location of individuals, are capable of collecting large amounts of information about their holders. Needless to say you could see the incentives for the government to sell this information off, and if it finds that to be a good source of revenue we can expect it to increase the amount of information it gathers via National IDs. If you think the census every ten years is annoying enough, imagine a continuous running one. Funded by tax payers nonetheless.
Michelangelo’s response was good.
I’ll extend on theory:
On Mises.org we use an ID. It can be used to contact us (PM/email), we use it to let others track our posts, and Mises.org uses it to be able to punish us if we harm their property. So it has a clear purpose that is beneficial for all the parties involved, who voluntarily agree to it’s use. That is a private ID.
The difference with a private ID and a government ID is that the government is a monopoly. This means they can force it on us. The reason they want to force it on us is because it can improve their slave-system. We are the cows and they try to milk us. It can be used to stifle individuals when they put up resistance. It can be used to control our movements, it can be used to force us into endless paperwork to drown our capacity to be free. The list goes on and on..
The point is that because it is NOT voluntary, that it doesn’t benefit us; and in fact is very nefarious. It’s all part of the “if you don’t do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”, which is then equated with “if you follow the law, you have nothing to worry about”. But since the law is monopolistic and constantly used to wage war against us, we DO have something to worry about. Michelangelo’s example of the Soviet Union is a prime example.
Here is the text of the 4th Ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think that the Constitution, the highest law of the land that is in reality a bunch of limits on the power and scope of the US Federal Government, explicitly prohibits the Federal Government from creating such a device. The id card is really a form of person papers. Anyone inside the borders of the USA comes under this limitation of federal power.
Of course I fully understand that Congress and the President violate their oaths to the Constitution regularly and see it as binding individuals and states to their will. Of course this is all done under the approval of the 9 Federal Employees dressed in funny clothes who vote what the Constitution really means.
You’ve probably read this already, but here is an article on the subject by Paul himself.
Because it creates artificial demand and diverts capital from its most productive uses to provide a false sense of security for whatever the reason of the day is.
maybe i should elaborate on that a tad more to stimulate the thread.
who does an id card benefit? the individual? what does the id card do? does it provide a standard the market does not have to develop? does increased cost to taxpayers for court administration regarding id theft benefit taxpayers? couldn’t the market provide better solutions for standardizing the collection and use of personal information? in a free market where competing companies were liable to individuals would your personal information be better protected? what innovations in the area of personal information collection, use, and competing standardizations have we missed out on? for that matter what other innovations have we missed out on? if the market had to bear the expense of this innovation instead of the taxpayer via government monopoly and coercion would the technology be cheaper?
I dont see that a problem…let them have it.
We still have passports as a national ID anyways. So what???
I am no anarchist.
You’re not forced to apply for a passport or to carry it on you at all times.
You may not be an anarchist, but this shouldn’t exclude you from being against unwarranted and unnecessary government compulsion in our lives.
True…but what is the big deal anyways. You should see what other governemnts around the world do and nobody cares.
Look at Cuba…guys are dying on hunger strikes
Yeah, straw-man argument, mate. The US is busy vaporizing innocent people with their Predator drones… See, I can do it too!