No2IDeas (part 2)

in my previous post i highlighted some of the major shortcomings i see in the No2ID campaign. mainly a) that it panders to the arguments of authoritarian government, essentially supporting rather than attacking statist invasions into "private life" and b) that its chosen methods are disempowering to individuals, providing yet further support to agents of the state.

i am not alone in these views, and recently a friend who has been involved in both no2id and defy-id had an exchange of views with an anonymous no2id organiser (let's call him X) about some of his concerns. X labelled himself "an extreme libertarian... one who would normally be classified as on the right." he continued:

So I constantly compromise my principles and keep my mouth shut about my unrelated opinions in order to work with people whose bullying authoritarian and collectivist presumptions repulse me.

In particular I'm very sympathetic to the point that "It won't stop illegal immigration," is pandering to the idea that most immigration ought to be stopped. But I accept that changing the public mind at such a fundamental level is neither necessary nor by any means sufficient to progress the campaign. That it isn't is a good thing, because it would actually be a hugely difficult task, perhaps impossible, and while not actually successful would be counterproductive for the campaign as a whole.

The same is true of any number of other themes: the (un)reality of the terrorism threat, "organised crime", the construction of paedophilia, health and education services assisted bureaucratic centralisation, the idea that more policing is better, safety and security in general...

so X acknowledges that many of the arguments of no2id's campaign are not libertarian arguments, and that they are statist, but doesn't think that changing these commonly held views are "necessary" or "sufficient" for "progressing the campaign". so why does he remain with this campaign in spite of the "bullying authoritarianism" and "collectivist presumptions" of his fellow no2iders?

My approach has always been pragmatic. I'll do whatever it takes. I don't believe we can win without appealing to the mainstream. Perhaps even then we can't win, since the real problems of public choice and bureaucratic decision and control are too abstract for, and seem benign to, many of our immediate supporters. But there is no chance without the mainstream.

it seems to me that the no2id organisers, and those members of the public who are against id but don't believe they can change the debate, are essentially conforming with the government's wishes as regards the demands and scope of the campaign against id. it is in the state's interest that we be entirely dependent on them for almost all aspects of our existence, including the bringing about of social change. beliefs that "it would actually be a hugely difficult task, perhaps impossible" to counter the common perception that immigrants are to be criminalised, or to have a "pragmatic" approach (i.e. working within the existing system) are not the beliefs of a libertarian, of any shade. it's a bit of a cliche, but "demand the impossible" is a great anarchist riposte to those whose "pragmatic" approaches help to support the status quo. changing public attitudes on immigration is no more impossible that halting the id card scheme. we won't win any battles with the state whilst strengthening its hand on other front. this is true whether you're a libertarian of the right, the left, or neither.

i also take issue with the idea of "appealing to the mainstream", or rather, what this phrase commonly denotes. the mainstream here means only the socially included for a start, not the whole of society. as such it means pandering to the views of those who speak loudest in a capitalist, patriarchal, neo-colonial state. inevitably the predominant influences on "mainstream" opinion in society will be those that have benefitted most from these influences. the idea of pandering to the mainstream, rather than challenging it, is fundamentally conservative. how can we claim to be supporting the freedom of the individual whilst constantly altering our arguments to fit the views of an abstract, collective mainstream? what this really entails is the scenario that has already been described by X: "I constantly compromise my principles and keep my mouth shut". that's not something i would ever want to do.

all in all, i think the flimsy "libertarianism" of the no2id ideologues should be exposed for the conformism that it is.

for more information on an anarchist campagin against id see defy-id. the nottingham group's site is also particularly useful.

No2IDeas (part 1)

i expect that readers of this blog will be relatively aware about the government's proposed identity card and national identity register (NIR) scheme. you will also, no doubt, be aware that there are various campaigns that have sprung up in opposition to the proposals, the most prominent being No2ID. perhaps unbeknownst to you is the reality that No2ID is largely organised and run by the so-called libertarian right. the anarchist anti-id card network is called defy-id, and whilst it does not boast the support of assorted MPs and lords, or political bedmates ranging from global-/monopolise resistance to UKIP and the Libertarian Alliance, it is, in this blogger's opinion, a more principled and consistent campaign.

no2id has become the biggest anti-id campaign and the default organisation to turn to in order to register a protest against the id scheme. this is worrying, because they use the government's own socially exclusive, anti-immigration, anti-terrorism rhetoric, in a manner that surely many of the campaign's official supporters (such as CAMPACC for example) would surely reject. for example, on their site they list the following reasons why the id scheme won't work:

Terrorism
ID does not establish intention. Competent criminals and terrorists will be able to subvert the identity system. Random outrages by individuals can't be stopped. Ministers agree that ID cards will not prevent atrocities. A blank assertion that the department would find it helpful is not an argument that would be entertained for fundamental change in any other sphere of government but national security. Where is the evidence? Research suggests there is no link between the use of identity cards and the prevalence of terrorism, and in no instance has the presence of an identity card system been shown a significant deterrent to terrorist activity. Experts attest that ID unjustifiably presumed secure actually diminishes security.

this is the wrong place to start. the government realises that it won't stop terrorism - they've admitted it publicly in the past. terrorism is a smokescreen for the real aim of the identity scheme which is a step closer to a total surveillance society, and the encroachment of state control over everyday life. no2id state this themselves in the paragraph, but they still give credence to this reason by putting it as the first of the government's arguments to refute. more importantly, by talking about terrorism as something that should be of prominent importance in everyone's minds, and that we should be expecting the state to counter, no2id lends their support to the idea that the state should be protecting us. it also ignores the fact that most terrorist atrocities are carried out by states like the UK, and feeds into racist and religious prejudice. these are not libertarian arguments, they are statist.

Illegal immigration and working
People will still enter Britain using foreign documents—genuine or forged—and ID cards offer no more deterrent to people smugglers than passports and visas. Employers already face substantial penalties for failing to obtain proof of entitlement to work, yet there are only a handful of prosecutions a year.

from pandering to the government fear-mongering about terrorism to pandering to government fear-mongering about "illegal immirants". again this reinforces the idea that immigration is something we should be worried about and that the state should be something to protect us from immigrants. again it panders to racist untruths about "foreigners" and demonsises some of the most vulnerable people in society, asylum seekers. this argument stems from the assumption that immigration is undesireable and that immigrants are to be kept out, and that it is the state's job to do this. there is no attempt to dispel any of the myths about the extent of immigration, or the reasons why people are entering the country. where is the place of a true libertarian in a campaign that fails to question borders? then we move on to:

Benefit fraud and abuse of public services
Identity is "only a tiny part of the problem in the benefit system." Figures for claims under false identity are estimated at £50 million (2.5%) of an (estimated) £2 billion per year in fraudulent claims.

(dramatic drum roll). that's right people, it's not the tax-evading superrich who are the parasites in our society, it's those who try a dodge here and there to get a slightly bigger fraction of the meagre scraps doled out by the benefits system. not only do no2id support the state, they also support the wealthy power elites that run the corporations. you'd think the libertarian right-wingers would be supportive of the entrepreneurial skills of the benefits blaggers but in fact they foam at the mouth at the suggestion that anyone at the lower end of the economic scale might be cheating the system.

aside from their arguments, no2id support the state in their methods as well. apart from supporting no2id, they suggest the following options for taking action against id: writing to your MP, lobbying your council, and renewing your passport. in other words, their best ideas for taking on the id scheme are lobbying your elected representatives, thus supporting the very system that has produced the unaccountable government and its id scheme in the first place. nowhere is there any suggestion that anyone might be able to make change through their own actions, except in the timing of renewing their passport. whilst there was a "pledge of resistance" that was doing the rounds a while back, it seems that no2id only support legal (i.e. state-sanctioned) resistance to id. the mass illegal resistance that beat the poll-tax is presumably not what they have in mind. however, the government has brought in all manner of new offences to fine and imprison those who refuse to be registered, and so mass resistance by legal means is unlikely to be possible for long.

to be continued...