Previous message:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02709.html
*******
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:38:45 -0700
From: lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As always, Kipling said it first and best (and Kipling was one of Rand's
favorite poets, so it fits). Verses 3 and 4 are the relevant ones,
re:what has become of Rand's legacy under her 'intellectual heirs'.
The Disciple
By Rudyard Kipling
He that hath a Gospel
To loose upon Mankind,
Though he serve it utterly--
Body, soul and mind--
Though he go to Calvary
Daily for its gain--
It is His Disciple
Shall make his labour vain.
He that hath a Gospel
For all earth to own--
Though he etch it on the steel,
Or carve it on the stone--
Not to be misdoubted
Through the after-days--
It is His Disciple
Shall read it many ways.
It is His Disciple
(Ere Those Bones are dust )
Who shall change the Charter,
Who shall split the Trust--
Amplify distinctions,
Rationalize the Claim;
Preaching that the Master
Would have done the same.
It is His Disciple
Who shall tell us how
Much the Master would have scrapped
Had he lived till now--
What he would have modified
Of what he said before.
It is His Disciple
Shall do this and more....
He that hath a Gospel
Whereby Heaven is won
( Carpenter, or cameleer,
Or Maya's dreaming son ),
Many swords shell pierce Him,
Mingling blood with gall;
But His Own Disciple
Shall wound Him worst of all!
*******
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:48:03 -0400
From: Robert Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Cato Institute
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Hudgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: National IDs
Roger, David:
James Robbins' support for national ID cards is, I believe, incompatible with
Objectivism. Perhaps you will consider re-publishing the following op-ed -- or
providing a link to the Natl Review Online website where it appears.
Regards,
Bob
--------
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-levy102401.shtml
The ID Idea
Goodbye to privacy.
By Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the
<http://www.cato.org>Cato Institute.
October 24, 2001 10:10 a.m.
Martin Anderson, former aide to President Reagan, writes of a Cabinet
meeting at which Attorney General William French Smith proposed a national
ID card to curb illegal immigration. No ID, no job. Anderson caustically
suggested an alternative that would be cheaper, lighter weight, impossible
to lose, immune to counterfeiting or theft, even waterproof: Just "tattoo
an ID number on the inside of everybody's arm." Naturally, Reagan
understood the allusion, and the idea was never again taken seriously �
until now.
In the wake of the calamitous events of September 11, Rep. Nancy L. Johnson
(R., Conn.) suggested a national ID using fingerprints or retinal scans.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) reportedly supports the idea. And in the
hallowed halls of Harvard, self-described civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz
proposed a "voluntary" card, with a chip that matches the holder's
fingerprints. Dershowitz understands the incompatibility of national IDs
and civil liberties, so he is promoting his card as "optional."
Optional indeed. Imagine Osama bin Laden's henchmen waiting to sign up for
their IDs. That's about as likely as criminals volunteering to register
their guns. Moreover, terrorists who are capable of destroying the World
Trade Center are surely capable of obtaining forged IDs (even the high-tech
variety), bribing officials who issue or check the cards, creating false
identities that survive scrutiny, or using persons with legitimate cards to
do their dirty work. Make no mistake: The predictable failure of a
voluntary system will lead to compulsory IDs. Remember the elective tax
check-off to finance political campaigns? Like clockwork, that fiasco
spawned unrelenting calls for mandatory public funding.
Dershowitz disagrees. "It's a tradeoff between privacy and convenience," he
says. Look at drivers who avoid long delays at tollbooths by acceding to
electronic billing, triggered by a device on their dashboard. Well, yes,
but terrorists, who plan their odious crimes years in advance, aren't
likely to mind a few minutes of waiting in line to dodge electronic
tracing. Furthermore, the dashboard device affords a real choice: Give up a
little privacy, and save a lot of time. That's not what proponents of a
national ID have up their sleeves. Their choice is: Give up some privacy by
showing your card, or give up yet more privacy by subjecting yourself to
surveillance, search, detention, or worse. If too few people go for the ID,
the government will simply raise the ante � making its searches
progressively more insufferable until the ID is less repellent by contrast.
True, we use identification cards every day � for, say, driving and
check-cashing. But the primary purpose of a driver's license is to affirm
that the holder is qualified to operate an automobile. And when you show an
ID to cash a check, you're doing it to prove you are the payee. By
comparison, neither specific skills nor a particular identity are required
to engage in the majority of day-to-day transactions. Even our Social
Security cards may be used only to track payroll taxes; federal law forbids
their use for purposes of identification. We must not be compelled to "show
our papers" every time we want to buy goods or services.
For security purposes, photo IDs are already required at airports. If the
national ID were limited to name, address, photo � even fingerprints � and
its use were confined to airports, few would object. After all, passports
must now be exhibited for all international travel, despite the obvious
implications for ethnic profiling. But the ID scheme is far more insidious.
First, the card will be effective only if scores of activities require its
display. Terrorists are not stupid. They will select forums like theaters
and sporting events, which are not as easily protected. Consequently, the
number of ID-restricted activities will increase, and the card will become
more burdensome and invasive. Constraining its use means limiting its
effectiveness. Expanding its use means violating more privacy rights. And
you can rest assured that the ID will remain with us long after the need
for extraordinary security has receded.
Second, to target terrorists, a national ID must be linked to a central
database of personal characteristics and private records and transactions.
That data will be maintained by the federal government � unlike the
information on car drivers, which is kept by 50 separate states. The
pressure to include ethnicity as a factor will be irresistible, thereby
exacerbating the profiling problem. No doubt, government officials will
make the case that the ID and its linked database should not be limited to
foiling terrorists. How about the drug war? Immigration? Gun registration?
The potential for abuse is boundless. Keep in mind, it's been only four
years since Congress rejected legislation to add photos, fingerprints, and
retina scans to our Social Security cards; and only seven years since
Hillary Clinton urged a national health card containing our lifetime
medical records.
The keepers of the data will promise confidentiality, of course. But tell
that to the Japanese-Americans who were interned after U.S. census data
were compromised during the 1940s. Tell it to taxpayers whose personal
records were illegally snooped by IRS agents in the mid-1990s. But none of
that seems to concern Dershowitz, who asserts that no right to anonymity is
"hinted at in the Constitution." Of course, that turns the Constitution on
its head. The Ninth Amendment tells us we have an untold number of rights
that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The question is not whether we
have a right to anonymity, but whether government has the power to take it
away.
When it comes to political writings, for example, the Supreme Court said in
1995 that "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It
thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First
Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from
retaliation." An extension of that doctrine to cover oral speech will be
tested this coming term, when the Court decides whether door-to-door
canvassers for Jehovah's Witnesses can be required to display a permit with
their name on it.
To be sure, the right to anonymity is not absolute. But before stampeding
toward a national ID, we should listen to Justice William O. Douglas, who
cautioned a half-century ago: "To be let alone is indeed the beginning of
all freedom."
*******
From: Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FC: The Objectivist Center applauds national IDs,
torture, snooping?
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:50:45 -0700
I would patent the process of powering large cities off of the spinning
corpse of Ayn Rand, but it would probably conflict with the one by the Disney
Corporation. (They are using Walt to power the electrical light parade at
Disneyland during the power shortages.)
*******
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
