This morning I was watching the news about the US requiring UK passport holders to either provide biometric information on it or stand in queues and pay money for visa for any visit to the US. Bugger. And I was looking forward to travelling to the US more regularly in the future. It did strike me as a move out of the blue and rather harsh in the light of both the Anglo-American relationship and the global trade and tourism links between the US and the UK. But, I thought, the terrorism meme has won the day and the US is going to ‘protect’ itself back to the Middle Ages.
However, as the day progressed I have learnt that the situation may not be as bad the media represent. Apparently, the news reports that talk about passengers having to have biometric passports containing fingerprint details as well as digital photographs are, quite simply incorrect. It is true that discussion has been taking place between the USA and all of the 27 countries on the visa waiver programme regarding mandating this information on the machine readable passports currently being issued and it may be that some countries will have to comply. However, at present, no such stipulation has been enforced and it is felt “unlikely” that such measures will be forced upon the UK.
For the time being nothing has changed. The position remains as originally stated by the US – all travellers from the UK had to be in possession of machine readable passports by 1st October 2003 or would require a visa. The deadline was subsequently seen as unachievable and it was extended until 26th October 2004. Advice given to corporations by their agents acting as liason to the US Embassy and the Foreign Office remains that UK travellers will have to be in possession of a machine readable passport by the 26th October in order to gain entry into the USA under the visa waiver scheme. (A machine readable passport is one with the electronic strip on the back and containing a digital photograph of the holder).
I am still confused. Despite my reservations about the BBC and other major media I find it hard to believe that they would report such a huge factual error about this matter and got ‘biometric’ confused with ‘machine readable’. I am quite anxious to know the truth not only for the impact such measures would have on my personal travel arrangements but also their implications for introduction of biometrics into documents in the UK in general. Daniel Johnson points out in the Telegraph today:
British passports are not, of course, biometric; nor, for that matter, are American ones. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the Government will be speeding up their introduction – as a form of ID card – before you can say “David Blunkett”.
The Telegraph also has doomsday reports about his issue. Can anyone tell us what’s really going on?
Despite my reservations about the BBC and other major media I find it hard to believe that they would report such a huge factual error about this matter and got ‘biometric’ confused with ‘machine readable’.
It doesn’t actually surprise me even remotely that someone at the BBC would make a huge factual error about any even remotely technical subject. But that might be just me.
The Daily Telegraph gets a little sloppy in reporting the new US visa controls, which will require visas for British visitors who don’t have biometric data incorporated into their passports – if said passport is issued after October 26, 2004. New British passports won’t meet this requirement until mid 2005.
The Telegraph’s main headline: Britons will need visa to visit America – Travellers face embassy chaos as US imposes security curbs, implies that all UK visitors will need visas. Anyone just looking at the headline would probably jump to this conclusion, although the second paragraph clarifies the matter.
Associate Editor Daniel Johnson seems not to have read that far. In his prominent comment piece, Johnson first incorrectly refers to “The Bush Administration’s decision to require all British nationals to obtain visas in order to enter the United States,” and then, in the next paragraph compounds the error:
“Hitherto, most British visitors have not required visas for the United States. From next October, they will, unless they have biometric passports that encode all kinds of personal details.”
Nope, Daniel – “most British vistors” will not – only the ones who have passports issued after October 26. But Johnson never mentions this fact.
There’s a lot of media “FUD” around on this today, and I think the media have got things slightly wrong. Listening to this this morning I was a little concerned myself.
The media are *technically* correct in what they are saying, but they have made some errors.
If you have a Machine Readable Passport (the ones with the 2 lines of OCR text on the picture page) and its a recent one, you’re fine. That is acceptable to the US for the Visa Waiver scheme… for now.
If your passport expires after October then you will have a problem. From October 24 2004 passports will only be accepted for the Visa waiver scheme which also have the biometric data on them – given that these passports are not going to be available for another year and a half, there will be an overlap which will affect thousands who’ll have no choice but to get a visa.
My gut feeling is all Visa Waiver people will end up having to give fingerprints within a year regardless.
This raises a huge number of concerns that I have, even ignoring the liberty issues, I’m not convinced by the technology. My father was a fingerprint officer and worked on a number of automated systems. His concerns then remain, I think, today. Firstly, the system is only as good as the fingerprint taken, and secondly there are more than a few human activities which will render fingerprints pretty useless.
I wouldn’t want to be on the recieving end of an INS screwup with a pissed off INS guy.
A good friend is BA crew; he has to travel on a Visa and flew into JFK last week. It transpired that the official who entered his record 2 weeks ago in Atlanta managed to log his ID with a co-workers fingerprints and the guys at JFK had no idea how to fix the mess.
This could get messy.
Scott Burgess: My sources tell me, as I already mentioned in the post, that at no point UK passport holders will be required to have passports with biometric data. Only machine readable passports will be required after 26th October 2004. I have a machine readable passport now, apparently requirement for biometric data is not even on the table for the UK visitors…
When did Britain start issuing machine readable passports? My first Australian passport was machine readable, and it was issued in 1987.
The 1993 issued one I’ve just replaced was machine readable, I think it was when we moved to the “pink” passports.
Believe it or not, I have that movie!
It’s cute.
–But, I thought, the terrorism meme has won the day and the US is going to ‘protect’ itself back to the Middle Ages.–
Considering that London’s a major terrorism link, NOT requiring info could be homicidal for Americans.
Your inconvenience or our death.
No choice.
The 9-11 flights weren’t international.
Besides, apart from blowing them up in flight a transatlantic hijack makes no sense for another 9-11.
No plane which has been hijacked is going to make it anywhere.
Considering that London’s a major terrorism link, NOT requiring info could be homicidal for Americans. Your inconvenience or our death.
I suppose the UK should have been doing the same to the Yanks as the US has been a major Irish terrorism link for decades.
In reality of course it is all bullshit as none of it will actually keep out a determined terrorist.
The reporting here has shown pictures of people being finger printed on arrival, as part of the passport scanning policy. A digital photograph and fingerprint is taken when you hand your passport to the customs official. Linking a current photo and digital fingerprint seems trivial.
It doesn’t seem like a big deal. I certainly wouldn’t have a problem doing that when I entered another country as a guest. If, however, my country required that of me to travel between states, I’d have a tizzy fit, but foreign travel isn’t a right. No country has to let you in.
I’ve seen many people turned away from entering another country–both in the U.S. and Britain–back when the punk rockers looked scary and menacing. Perhaps this will reduce the arbitrary denials based on how someone looks.
My understanding, based on what I heard on ‘Today’:
After a cutoff date in October…
If you have a passport carrying a barcode which was issued before the cutoff you can still enter the US under the visa waiver scheme (but you might be photographed and fingerprinted on arrival? – I forget).
If you have a passport issued after the cutoff date in October this year then you will require a visa unless the passport carries your fingerprint.
This sounds odd – “the current model of UK passport issued in the past is okay, but passports of the same model issued later are insufficient” – but that’s what I picked up. I am confused.
but foreign travel isn’t a right. No country has to let you in.
I couldn’t agree less. I do not really see why a state has any right to prevent peaceable free association between anyone… of course I realise that what is being discussed particularly is preventing non-peaceable association by terrorists, but less particularly, the general idea that free association (and the travel that makes it possible across the borders of a nation-state) is anything less than an alienable right is not something I could ever agree was legitimate under normal circumstances.
Linking a current photo and digital fingerprint seems trivial.
US immigration officers are bad enough to deal with. I am personally not looking forward to factoring technology glitches into the equation.
As my friend at BA pointed out. He got in this time without a hitch, but it only takes an INS guy with a bad day and he’s deported with a 3 year ban, no question, no appeal. That’s also the end of his career.
Mrs du Toit is correct. Being allowed into another country is a privilege accorded by the citizens of that country. You don’t get a vote on their rules.
I’m 100% with Perry on this. I don’t think that between nations, especially stable friendly ones there should be as few controls on movement as possible.
That felt strange to type… 🙂
Gabriel, every story on this that I’ve seen says the same thing – if a passport is issued after Oct 26, it must contain biometric (not merely ‘machine readable’) data. However, Brits can still travel on machine readable, non-biometric passports issued prior to Oct 26, as long as those passports are still valid.
Here are some cites:
“New U.S. laws mean all travellers must carry biometric data in their passports, such as digital images or fingerprints, if they are to enter without a visa after an October 26 deadline.”
Reuters
“The change, which the US believes will reduce the chances of terrorists entering the country, will only affect travellers who need new passports after an October 26 deadline.
[…]
people entering the country under the visa waiver programme must carry new high-security passports that contain digital information identifying the holder by unique biometric data, such as fingerprints or iris patterns.”
Guardian
“But new passports issued after 26October must hold “biometric” data such as digital images or fingerprints – or a visa will be needed. ”
the BBC
So far as I understand it:
From Oct 26th 2004 if a non-biometric passport is issued after this date the holder will need a visa.
From Oct 26th 2004 All passports must be machine readable (this is not a problem for British people)
From Oct 26th 2004 all visa waiver people will have to give fingerprints and photographs on entry as people from all other countries have needed to do for the last 3 days, although newspaper articles have indicated that in practice many INS officers have been fingerprinting and photographing visa-waiver visitors.
Sometime in 2007? All visa waiver people will need biometric passports.
Because of these rules I will not vacation the US. I am fed up with INS agents treating me like I am OBL, this will just make their behaviour worse. I am not a criminal and there is no way I will allow myself to be treated as one.
I agree with Verity and Mrs. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it was in MY country that religious fanatics murdered 3000 people in the span of few hours. Before that day, as an immigrant myself, I had this idealistic, libertarian notion about open borders policy.
Unfortunately, this idealism of mine was blown away that morning. Now I know that it was not idealism, it was naiveté.
Incidentally, I recall that on my visits to UK in the 90s I was asked for my passport number by hotel register clerks. I assume that the British government was tracking my movements even then, just as a matter of policy. Well, now as a matter of policy dictated by life or death situation we ask visitors for a photo and a fingerprint, same as required for Americans to obtain a drivers license. At this point all the solace we can offer visitors is this: “We apologize for the inconvenience”.
Katherine, asking foreign nationals for a passport number is common all over the world.
I’ve had my passport photo copied in some US hotels too, prior to 9-11. Its generally not a government thing but a security thing for hotels.
“We apologize for the inconvenience”.
Having stood many hours in immigration queues in San Francisco that sounds pretty hollow.
I am entirely with Perry and Dave. I am for free movement. However, we live in a world with legal conventions that work under the assumptions that we have no such rights.
US immigration officers are bad enough to deal with. I am personally not looking forward to factoring technology glitches into the equation.
British ones are as bad, if not worse, unfortunately. (Three years to go before I am eligible for naturalisation). The British ones win in terms of technological cluelessness, although this may be a good thing rather than a bad thing.
Katherine, being on the receiving end of a violent attack by foreigners in your own country is hardly a uniquely American experience… in fact it is hardly an American experience at all other than for a couple aberrational incidents, so I find the ongoing hysteria on the other side of the Atlantic rather baffling. Sure, ‘fight terrorism’, but to be honest I am more worried about the harm caused by cack handed American bureaucrats running riot than the inept twits who make up 99% of what is left of Al Qaeda. This entire farce is just an example of the powers-that-be ‘doing something’ and justifying the ever larger army of public sector workers with their snouts in the tax trough.
I hear mixed reports about the British. My wife was South African (now has a UK passport) but once she got her indefinate leave to remain stamp, the immigration process became almost silly. At one point her “Visa” was a small rubber stamp with a handwriten note in biro saying “As in other passport.”
I have American friends working in the UK who claim to have more problems from the INS going home than they get coming into the UK.
However, the flipside is I know South African friends who’ve come close to being deported.
I see that Terminal 1 now has a separate UK Visa holders queue, that should make life easier.
Well, I have entered the UK on tourist visas, student visas and presently on a “UK ancestory visa” which allows me to work. I always have received lots of questions on the tourist and student visas, but nobody every seriously tried to stop me entering the country (although I have had one or two cases where the officials have been gratuitously rude). On the present visa, the inspection is generally cursory. Presumably they are concerned about Australians who might want to work here without permission, but since I do have permission they don’t seem to care much.
On the other hand, I have seen other people really be given a hard time from standing behind them in the queur, and I have occasionally had friends who have gotten into immigration difficulties and who have nearly been deported.
I have only ever entered the US as a tourist, but I have never encountered US officials to be anything other than very polite, to be honest. (I have entered the US only five times, whereas I must have entered Britain something like 25 times, so the experiences aren’t that comparable).
I don’t believe in countries, only individuals. Your right to travel freely is absolute (provided you travel over unowned land, or with the permission of the land owner) – but if you want to travel in unconventional ways, you may need to take unconventional measures. I believe the Mafia can make travel arrangements for those wishing to “avoid imperial entanglements”. Contact your friendly local Mafioso for details. Caveat emptor.
The absolute respect for property rights means that large groups of people have the right to control association with people outside their borders. The country is simply an extension of property rights of a larger group.
I understand that is in conflict with libertarian ideas that determine that borders are inconsistant with property rights, but would you feel the same about home owners associations? Cannot a group of people purchase a piece of property and agree to abide by the rules established by a group? No one is forcing them to purchase a home where those rules exist. Why should a group of people be denied those same rights, simply because the land is bigger?
People can leave a country and immigrate to a place without those rules if they don’t want to abide by them.
Would you want to be forced to have any stranger enter your home without your permission, lest risk being accused of denying free association? There is no difference except the size of the land and the numbers of people involved.
Unless you are prepared to live with the consequences of simply allowing anyone and everyone into the US, regardless of their identity or intent, then you should agree that some kind of immigration/entry control is necessary. Anyone who has done any work in security can tell you that access control is the core of any security plan, and identification is the heart of access control.
I tend to think that the US should have the ability to turn away people who are, at a minimum, known threats, so I think that some kind of entry control is a good idea. I am not an anarchist, so I believe in nations and governments, and one of the core functions of any government is security against outside threats.
Once you have got this far, then you are obviously looking for the best kind of identification. These days, that is biometric. It may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else. In principle, then, I have no objection to the US (or any other country) requiring biometric ID before allowing you entry.
Of course, the execution of this really rather elementary security measure has been left up to the already famously inept TSA, so we can expect it to be botched.
Scott Burgess: I know what the media say – that is why I wrote this post as their reports contradict what my sources tell me. I have been expressly told that the media are simply wrong in mentioning biometric data in connection with the UK at all.
I was not asking for random opinions here, I was hoping that someone who actually knows what’s going on from sources other than media would be willing to illuminate us.
You can talk about America being an exclusive club and how every tourist is a potential terrorist all you want, but the reality is that America needs tourists and foreign money.
America needs to attract $500 billion of foreign investment every year to pay for the fiscal and current account deficits. Tourism brings in hundreds of billions of dollars to the American economy. Already since 1992 tourist revenues to the US have slumped by $154 billion, how much further will they decline with these new measures?
You cannot one hand insult foreigners when they come to America and on the other expect them to keep investing unprecidented amounts of money in America.
I also feel there is some possibility that the US may decide in a fit of pique to default on its debts one day. I am not sure what would happen then.
Until I reached what I assume is a “critical mass” of entries and exits I used to get a really hard time from immigration in the US for business trips.
I still do occasionally, although in Seattle I suspect its warped by not wanting to annoy the local employers who generally you will be visiting (Microsoft or Boeing sir?)
The trouble is they ask just silly questions in an attempt to get you to admit you are really coming into the US to work. Top of the list is “Why is it necessary for you to come to the United States to meet these people?”
“Ummm… because its an American company and I’m selling something to them?”
“Why?”
ARGH!
The press is useless. The details are here:
US Department of State factsheet
Straight from the horse’s orifice.
David
Della, while I’m certain that the tourism executives would like to make more money from tourism, please keep in mind that the US GDP in the third quarter of 2003 was $11,107.0 billion. link I personally feel that the strength of the dollar in the ’90s was responsible for the decrease in tourism. We can only wait and see whether the dollar’s weakening will help tourism.
I fail to see what is so “insulting” in asking a visitor to prove that he or she is not travelling with false documents, when it is well known that passports can be forged, or stolen.IHT article: EU Passports: An Easy-to-Steal Tool for Terrorists One quote from the article: “It is impossible to know exactly how many phony European documents are circulating throughout the world, but the police in Belgium cite one ominous indicator. They have compiled a list of 2 million blank travel documents that were stolen in recent years and thus could potentially pass for the real thing once names are filled in.”
Any store which uses electronic theft prevention systems is, perforce, treating every one of its customers as potential thieves, and yet, people still go shopping.
You also don’t help your credibility by a wild-eyed statement that the US may “in a fit of pique” default on its debts one day. Do you have any evidence of this, or is this something you would like to see happen?
$11,107.0 billion is a full year figure, not the GDP total for a quarter. US indebtetedness is estimated at 33 trillion dollars, or 294% of GDP which exceeds the previous record of 270% set during the great depression. If the US doesn’t sort out its debt addiction it’ll hurt everyone.
If there was two shops which sold pretty much the same thing, to get into one shop you had to show a membership card, and to get into the other you had to show a membership card, convince an asshole you were not going to steal anything, give your fingerprints and have a photo taken on both entry and exit (biometric exit controls coming soon), which one would make the money?
Let me clarify my phrasing: by the third quarter of 2003, the US GDP stood at $11,107.0 billion. My point is merely that the US economy does not rest on tourism alone.
From David’s posting of the US Dept. of State fact sheet, a digital fingerprint of two fingers, and a digital photo does not sound like a huge burden. Getting through immigration has always been a hassle, and probably always will be a hassle. If anything, a system which checks one’s fingerprints against a trustworthy database , might cut down on the time spent answering silly questions.
As to the shops, it probably depends on the depth of the discounts and the quality of the goods on offer. People in the US (n.b., I assume you’re not posting from the US), swarm to “discount clubs,” which depend on membership cards, and have personnel stationed at the doors to check one’s receipts. Just about every retail store has security cameras stationed to track shoppers, and there are probably more discreet anti-theft measures in widespread use. One could regard such measures as insulting, but shoppers don’t seem to mind them.
HOAs own the land. Countries don’t. National territory claims are not property. They’re just guys with guns bossing around the real individual property owners.
Property rights don’t aggregate. Ownership is not “democratic”.
Free association be damned, I accuse border police of denying property!
If you travel over unowned land, or owned land with the owner’s permission, then anyone seeking to stop you is an aggressor.
Gabriel, I was going to write on this for the blog yesterday but was busy with other stuff. I think the timing of all this is particularly unfortunate for the American tourist industry, which in any other circumstances would be licking its lips at the prospect of a bumper year, thanks to the strength of many currencies such as sterling and the euro against the dollar. At $1.83 in the spot market, which is the current sterling level against the buck, a Brit can get a fantastically cheap holiday in the US.
I expect the hotel and leisure industry lobby groups in Washington DC will be creating merry hell over the visa issue.
I am due to renew my British passport in April this year and I will be interested to see what I have to do. Of course, if I find out anything more illuminating about the situation I will let folk know.
Gabriel said: “I know what the media say – that is why I wrote this post as their reports contradict what my sources tell me. I have been expressly told that the media are simply wrong in mentioning biometric data in connection with the UK at all. ”
Here’s the relevant bit from the State Dept link that David provided:
“by October 26, 2004, countries in the Visa Waiver Program are mandated by the USA PATRIOT Act to certify that they have programs to issue their nationals machine-readable passports that incorporate biometric identifiers ”
Nobody so far has provided a clarification of my point that biometrics is not required for the UK visitors at all for any foreseable future. My starting position is that the media reports are simply incorrect on this issue. The link to the official site was singularily unhelpful, I could not find anything relevant to my questions.
If the reports about fingerprinting and photos are true, then I think the US is making a huge mistake, not in trying to protect itself but in going about it in the most ludicrous manner. Databases, identifications, screenings, fingerprintings and all sort of other methods that involve top-down control merely crowd out the provision of security by individual citizens. Oh, and they do not work either…
For a more extended argument see White Rose, a blog set up for the particular purpose of demonstrating that the trade-off between security and liberty is a false one.
OK, what are biometric identifiers then? A digital photo?
My last comment posted simultaneously with Scott Burgess’ one…
Oops … forgot the second bit:
“Any passport issued after October 26, 2004, must be an ICAO-compliant travel document that uses biometrics, if the bearer applies for admission into the United States under the Visa Waiver Program.”
Jonathon, if I were you I’d do it sooner than later just in case.
Still, the passport application checking service at Post Offices is definately worth while. They spotted a silly error I’d made, and the new passport arrived less than a week after the form had been dispatched by them.
I can see the Visa Waiver vanishing over the next few years if this trend continues, which will be a pain.
Still, unlike certain Schngen countries the US, for the time being, gives Visa’s which last for the life of the passport rather than a few months or a year.
Scott: Thanks!
Della:
“I also feel there is some possibility that the US may decide in a fit of pique to default on its debts one day.”
It’s not a matter of “fit of pique”. You default on your debts when you are broke. That will happen to the US some day, if current policies continue – by current I mean – as in the last 50 years.
Gabriel said: “OK, what are biometric identifiers then? A digital photo?”
Also from the link that David provided:
Question: What does the word “biometric” mean?
Answer: A measurable, physical characteristic or personal behavioral trait used to recognize the identity, or verify the claimed identity, of an enrollee. Among the features that can be measured are: face, fingerprints, hand geometry, handwriting, iris, retinal, vein, and voice. Biometric technologies are the basis of an extensive array of highly secure identification and personal verification solutions.
Hmmm, it’s still not clear if a digital photo is adequate, but I suspect it probably won’t be.
Prediction: This deadline will be extended, at least for UK citizens.
PS – You’re welcome!
Couple points here.
“Biometric identifiers” are any unique physical characteristics of an individual. They can include old, low-tech things like fingerprints and bite prints, and things that need high-tech for detection, such as retinal scans, facial shape, or even DNA. “bio” just refers to the biological aspect of it, and metric of course is that odious system of measurement devised by the pernicious French. In this case, however, I think it just means “measure”. So a measure of unique biological identifiers. (Once again, tech jargon becomes a fascistic abuser…)
One advantage of putting biometric identifiers on documents is that the documents become self-authenticating. The document has a smart chip or other machine readable code, into which the document is inserted. The machine then “reads” the person’s unique features, by doing an electronic fingerprint scan, a facial scan (hence digital photos), or perhaps a retinal scan. Even if no other records are linked to this scanning post by database, the documents are more secure because a common form of identification fraud – passing a genuine document to a third party for use, is prevented. Sure, you can still make fake documents and imprint them with genuine biometrics of the person who will use the documents – but the startup costs are usually prohibitive and the back-alley forgers will have trouble with it.
The U.S. Visit program goes in another direction. It takes a quick scan of the fingerprints and a photo of the person seeking entry into the U.S., and does a “one against many” check of their unique signature. The check is performed against terrorist checklists. (This is a little more accurate than name checks, eh, Mr. John Smith? As long as there’s no hit, the person passes through without a hitch. If there is a hit, the person gets referred to secondary screening, for slightly more in-depth questioning.
I understand that the process requires about 15 seconds extra, compared to the old “questions and documents” interaction that used to be prevalent. It is limited to countries from which you need a visa to visit the U.S., or to persons from the 26 or 27 visa waiver countries, who nevertheless are traveling on a visa. The entry data is to be retained for 3-4 years, after which it is to be voided from the computer system. It is operating in most of the biggest airports and seaports, and eventually is intended to be in operation in some form at all border crossings.
The use of technology in this arena is a mix of burden and benefit. The benefit is, soon enough, you will be able to travel and pass very quickly into other countries. Just wave your smart passport in the air, and a reader will scan it and scan you as you walk along. For places where people make commuter level crossings – Windsor, Ontario, into Flynt, Michigan (auto workers); Tijuana into San Diego – this can be a great blessing.
The danger of course is not in the technology, but in how it is used. There have been complaints because the U.S. intends to use travel information, among other things, to determine who to screen for searches under the new Capps II program – a computer program using objective criteria to “mark” passengers for secondary search prior to getting on planes.
As long as the data is collected and held in confidence, and not used for abusive purposes, it has the potential to be very useful in preventing both terrorist acts, and common crimes that occur trans-border. The potential for abuse here is open, and obvious, however, so the work of privacy advocates in this area is probably very worthwhile.
It’s also important that people educate themselves about this issue, I think. There is going to be a lot of it coming down the pipe; it is as inevitable in a few years as Palm Pilots were in 1990, it’s just how the technology is going to develop. Even if government isn’t pushing biometrics, I’m positive that corporations will be using the technology to prevent fraud and streamline recordkeeping and security operations. I firmly believe we’ll be better off with smart libertarians pushing hard for good policy decisions, than if we get panicky and start howling about big brother. In other words, if we’re calm and smarter about the issues than the hysterical folks on both sides, we may get a seat at the table. It’s a natural issue for technocratic libertarians to want to address, and I think blogs may actually be a good way of debating the issue.
But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
HOAs own the land. Countries don’t. National territory claims are not property. They’re just guys with guns bossing around the real individual property owners.
Julian,
Did you need a visa to get here from the planet Libertaria?
OF COURSE the countries own the land (or, to be more specific, the boundaries) — property title is maintained according to GOVERNMENT law and regulation, not some anarcho-syndicalist collective’s.
Property rights exist thanks to State protection of same. You can argue with the rightness or wrongness of this fact, but you can’t deny its existence.
If the State did not protect this, Hitler could have invaded France on the pretext that he wasn’t invading FRENCH territory, just some estates owned by people living on the other side of the Ardennes.
We are not one big happy global family of individuals — we’re a collection of nation-states.
Get used to it.
Kim du Toit: I shall never ever get used to that and neither should Julian Morris. I pray for the day when ‘nation-states’, whatever that means nowadays, will exert less and less influence of the life of the individual. Just because it does not look like it, I do not intend to drop that desire.
Get used to that.
Kim du Toit: property precedes and does not require government. Anarchic or near anarchic societies have existed, and protected personal property at least as well as any contemporary state. Basically, the trick is to seperate law from legislators and treat it instead as a body of knowledge discovered by tradition, tested by reason and experience.
The argument can validly be made, that the only thing states have done for property rights, is enshrine violations thereof into legislated law.
As to the whole “we” thing, anyone who says “we” to me that way is trying to “beg the question”. I am not part of your “we”.