Guardian columnist David Aaronovitch, who occasionally writes quite sensible things about Iraq and All That, has decided to resume normal service as Bullying Blairite Columnist, on the subject of compulsory ID cards.
The usual reasons in favour are trotted out. He says they are convenient. No doubt they are in many cases. So, for that matter, would be carrying a tattoo on one’s forehead with an ID number and message, saying, ‘State Licensed Guardianista’ or whatever.
I can quite see how, in a minimal or even anarcho-capitalist private ‘state’, how citizens could freely choose to have ID cards carrying all kinds of info. Then again, they might not choose to do so. I find it a great bore to point out to collectivists of various hues that if X is such a grand idea then it should not be necessary to compel citizens to have X. Take banks, for instance. I see no reason why, in a truly liberal order, banks could not give clients incentives to carry photo-ID credit cards to cut fraud and hence cut charges to their customers. Indeed such transactions would be quite normal and no-one would have grounds to complain given sufficient consumer freedom.
Then, perhaps realising that the usual reasons for compulsory ID cards amount to little more than making life easy for the police and the security authorities, Aaronovitch comes to his guiding motive: “What is convenient or aesthetic for the individual is not, unfailingly, what is good for society.”
That is true. It’s one reason I always rather liked Mrs Thatcher’s misquoted remark about there being no such thing as society. ‘Society’ may indeed in some sense be better off if Pc Plod and his colleagues knew of my wherabouts 24 hours a day. ‘Society’ can take a hike, thankyou very much.
So when Liberty (one of those annoying civil liberties groups, ed) talks of ID cards turning people into “suspects not citizens”, I am bound to ask whether Liberty has any concept of the duties – as opposed to the rights – of citizenship.
Well, those folk over at Liberty can no doubt answer Aaronovitch’s question for themselves. But I think we ought to feel grateful to him for framing the question so bluntly. He is right. Social democrat statists like him think that the entity he calls ‘society’ is somehow possessed of some claim on the citizens who compose it. For him, carrying an ID card is a badge of collective solidarity and hence non-ownership of such a thing demonstrates one’s anti-social (heaven forbid) character.
One thing is for sure. No one is ever likely to be in danger of thinking Aaronovitch believes in personal liberty. The next time I read one of his more sensible pieces about the Middle East, I will bear that in mind.
…but surely the whole “war in Iraq is absolutely right” thing fitted equally well into the Bullying-Blairite Columnist remit.
nice. compulsory id cards, just like they have in china.
next step: compulsory microchipping at birth.
A_T, well, you are quite right to note that Aaronovitch is in favour of the war, but that hardly makes him “bullying”, since his case for the war was on the grounds, which is quite liberal, that Saddam’s disgusting regime involved huge loss of liberty for the Iraqi people, never mind any of the other considerations about WMDs, etc.
The crazy thing is though, is that Saddam would have loved the kind of ID card system backed up by computer databases of the sort the UK government has in mind.
Another point worth mentioning. ID cards were used in the Second World War with terrifying effect against the Jews. The Nazis had a total database on where Jews lived and worked. I am amazed, given David Aaronovitch’s ethnic background, that he does not see the dangers ahead. And no, I am not saying we are faced with a similar situation right now but surely, the dangers do exist in some form.
Hmm….. I quite agree w/ the article. ID should not be the gov’t s business. For one thing they are *VERY* sloppy with that data. I collect old computer equipment, and used to get old machines that had been thrown out, from the maintinence guy of a building that (amongst other things ) housed some major offices of the US Social Security Administration. The stuff they left on those machines… Eeep.
Anyway, I *DO* have a photo-id credit/debit card from my bank. and it’s rather nice. I can often use it as ‘official ID’ many places, thus I can keep my drivers lic. in my pocket. Amongst other things, the credit card has my name, photo, and a few bits of info needed for a bank transaction on it. That’s it. No address. No SSN. No birthdate. No random other crap that I don’t think anyone else needs to know. Gads, what an improvement. The only problem I’ve had with it is thst the picture needs to be printed in better ink, as mine has rather faded. 😛
The usual reasons in favour are trotted out. He says they are convenient.
This is the basic argument I have with Statist collectivists. I concede that it is more effecient as need arises. There are economies of scale in collectivist transfer programs, I agree. But for every positive (depending on value judgement) there are negatives and unintended consequences which follow. There would be little or no crime if we were all forbidden from leaving our homes. If we were prevented from interacting with one another there would be little cause for irritation. Hyperbolic examples to be sure, but illustrates the point the security and freedom are opposites and desiring more of one is at the cost of the other.
Amazing…so you guys favor a foreign policy that is more likely to make Britain a target for Islamic terrorism — yet at the same time you oppose measures such as stricter national ID requirements that would make it easier to verify the identity of suspected terrorists!
MARCU$
Amazing…so you guys favor a foreign policy that is more likely to make Britain a target for Islamic terrorism — yet at the same time you oppose measures such as stricter national ID requirements that would make it easier to verify the identity of suspected terrorists!
I assume you mean supporting action in Iraq. I can’t speak for Brits, here in the US there are two parellel notions. First, War is fought overseas with non-citizens and is the last resort in trying to increase overall security for ourselves, domestically, and our trading partners, overseas, while maintaining our liberty (you assume it increases risk and are entitled to that opinion as the outcome of any war is left in doubt to some degree, topically and historically). Second, special identification for non-citizens guests would be sound, while identification for citizens would be an encroachment on the very liberty we are trying to protect. If a person is a citizen, born or naturalized, they are afforded the same liberties and individual rights to be free from State control. Suffice it to say the liberal crowd here in the US would be up in arms if the (Bush/Ashcroft) government tried to pass such a resolution as ID’s. If there is some common element to both sides of the aisle here is the notion of liberty. Unfortunately liberals and conservatives are too willing to cede away liberty in return for security for their own pet causes.
It is a mistake to think that ID cards enhance security. It is what the proponents of ID cards claim, and probably also beleive, but they are wrong. The French or Spaniards, for example, have IDs, but I don’t think they have more security than Britain.
I’ve no doubt you can have ID Cards without state oppression. They are however an very useful tool of oppression.
… And when they are openly proposed as part of a campaign of repression by a state that is rapidly becoming more oppressive, the chances that that’s what they will be used for is high. There’s a chain reaction between state controls driving us towards totalitarianism.
I very much doubt if the hiijackers of 9/11, many of whom managed to pass themselves off as respectable citizens, would have been foiled by the requirement to carry ID cards.
Actually, if you read the main thrust of Aaronovitch’s article, he seems to be getting steamed up about abuse of asylum and the welfare system. But ID cards would be cumbersome and intrusive way to deal with the first issue, and not much use in the latter.
Of course, if we want to stop welfare “cheats”, we need to tackle the problem at source, ie, abolish the Welfare State. Somehow I don’t see Guardian columnists warming to that idea!
It just amazed me on Sunday when I saw that idiot David Blunkett say on David Frost’s programme, that he ‘didn’t have a clue’ how many people were living in this country without the knowledge of the state.
And his solution? I’m going to introduce a compulsory national identity card. Yeah, like that’s going to make all those unknown immigrants jump forward and say ‘Yay, gimme one of those there national ID card things, so you’ll know where I am.’
Beggars belief. The ID card idea breaks down right there, but there’s more…
Blunkett, to counter this, then says ‘Nobody will be allowed to work or use state services without the card.’
Already in this country you’re not officially allowed to work without a National Insurance number, or use state services (such as a GP service), without the state knowing who you are. And we already know that no hospital will ever turn away someone from an Accident and Emergency department, regardless of whether they have a card or not, perhaps the only state service that unknown illegal immigrants may occasionally use.
So, again. The ID card idea breaks down once more.
Yes, not having an ID card will greatly inconvenience a law-abiding person, such as myself, but what actual difference is it going to make to an illegal immigrant? Absolutely none.
No, sorry. Once the these-are-impossible-to-forge forgeries appear on the market, it will become much easier for them to get jobs, and use state services without being hindered by Blunkett’s useful idiots. The only people who will be hindered will be those who refuse to carry one of the damn things.
And will it stop people claiming asylum? Absolutely not. Asylum seekers may even welcome being given an ID card, so they can sell it overseas for a profit then claim they’ve lost it once their friend has got into this country using the card.
And will it stop terrorists? Yeah, right. People like Al-Qaeda, who are prepared to kill themselves, are going to be slowed down by a piece of plastic with their retina map on it. Even all the ones currently living right now, with British passports, in a muslim community near you.
It’s absolutely laughable. And as for this invisible Socialist God called ‘Society’, if David Aaronovitch would like to come to my house and show me what it looks like, maybe I’ll believe in it. Until then I’ll take society to be a description of the various relationships between individuals, the same way grass marks the various relationships between a group of individual sheep in a field.
“Hey, let’s all worship the grass, man, it binds us all together,” said the Ram.
“In what way can we best celebrate this relationship?” asked Baby Lamb.
“By reserving all the best grass, for me,” said the Ram. “For I am your leader.”
“Says who?”
“Says David Aaronovitch. Your life is better served if you serve me better, for I am the state, this field is mine, and you belong to me.”
“So when you say you’re a ‘public servant’, you actually mean you’re our ‘private master’?”
“Got it in one, lamb. Now get off that juicy grass. It’s mine, and I’ve got your number.”
Oh no, I’m re-writing Animal Farm again!!! 🙂
But the worst aspect of ID cards should be so obvious to anyone of any kind of Jewish persuasion, I find it incredible that any of us such people aren’t all foaming at the mouth at the idea of a national ID card.
A truly totalitarian society NEEDS to have a national ID card (or internal passport, or whatever the latest name for this evil is.) So in introducing such a card, even if he’s oblivious of this obvious fact, David Blunkett is either deliberately taking this country towards totalitarianism, or making it easier for a future totalitarian government to come into existence. Which is it David? Are you evil? Or are you just stupid?
“Take banks, for instance. I see no reason why, in a truly liberal order, banks could not give clients incentives to carry photo-ID credit cards to cut fraud and hence cut charges to their customers.”
Interestingly Photo ID’s on credit cards do not work (as ID cards themselves will not.) A company I worked for provided the option for customers to have a photo on the credit card but found that statistically it did not have any effect in reducing fraud, causing tem to phase them out.
As ever the solution must be one that woks not one that appeals on an emotional level but is useless.
Rog writes:
As ever the solution must be one that woks not one that appeals on an emotional level but is useless.
I agree with Johnathan earlier, the only real solution is to abolish the welfare state.
That way when people come to the UK they will know that they’re going to have to pay their own way. And when they’re here, paying their own way, they will create wealth, trade, and business, which will benefit everyone else who is already here, as the free market adjusts.
We will then also welcome everyone who wishes to come here, rather than resenting them, and Britain will become a much friendlier, wealthier, and happier place to be.
Obviously the millions of people in the government’s client groups who currently benefit from the taxes generated by the welfare state, may be a bit upset, so you’ll never hear this solution mentioned by the benefitters-in-chief, at the Guardian, but until it is faced, this situation will only continue to get worse, in this age of more-or-less open borders, jet travel, and remote Afghani Kasbahs selling authentic UK National ID cards, probably even before the ‘real’ ones come out (made with the same technology, in probably the same factories).
Already in this country you’re not officially allowed to work without a National Insurance number, or use state services (such as a GP service), without the state knowing who you are.
And in terms off eligibility for the NHS at GP’s surgeries as well as hospitals, enforcement of the eligibility requirement is laughable. As a foreigner, I was asked whether I was eligible, I answered in the affirmative, and that was that. I offered to prove it but they weren’t interested. If they don’t ask for it, having an ID card won’t help there either. If they want to check eligibility, ID cards are not necessary.
As you say Margaret Thatcher is always misquoted or rather quoted out of context when she said ‘There is no such thing as society’. The next, universally omitted phrase, was ‘society consists of other people’.
Thus her point was society as a body is not a useful concept, since it leads people to abrogate their individual responsibilities. As in ‘they’ should do something about it, as opposed to I ought to do something about it. The Good Samaritan was not society, but an individual who cared. Once we get into socialist ideas about ‘society’ we quickly end up with ‘society=state’ which is a short step from ‘society=state=current despot’ aka T Blair
I was at university with David Aaronovitch. He is an unqualified wanker. This guy has never been a neo-stalinist, as claimed, or any kind of social conscience libertine. David Aaronovitch is only intersted in his own media celebrity, a bit like Tony Blair. The end.