We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – I will not comply Let me make my position unequivocally clear: I will not comply. If this scheme becomes law, I will resist it with every fibre of my being, joining the ranks of those who have historically stood against arbitrary power. This is a fight we cannot afford to lose, for it edges us closer to the continental nightmare of citizens as compliant serfs, beholden to an all-seeing state.
To understand the gravity of this threat, we must first confront the profound dangers it poses to our civil liberties. At its core, a mandatory digital ID transforms the relationship between citizen and state from one of mutual respect to one of constant suspicion and control. Imagine a world where accessing basic services, banking, healthcare, employment, or even public transport, requires scanning a digital credential that logs your every move.
This isn’t hyperbole; civil liberties organisations like Big Brother Watch have warned that such a system would create a “bonfire of our civil liberties,” enabling mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale.
– Gawain Towler
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Just to clarify; do you actually have civil rights inherent in the individual in britain? Or are what pass for civil rights there subject to the will and whim of those in power?
Subotai Bahadur
For those who don’t know, Gawain Towler was press officer for Nigel Farage & UKIP and subsequently for Reform UK. Although he is no longer in a press roll at Reform, he is, I have no doubt, still very much a key insider.
Nigel and Reform UK will resist this, and, once elected, repeal it. In the meantime, it will push the party’s support up by a few percentage of the electorate. All the more so, given that the leader of the opposition has, incredibly, decided to sit on the fence about it.
Aetius.
Indeed, Gawain was elected to the Reform Party board, so yes, he is very much on the inside.
Damn this government to hell, and the Blairite knaves and fools promoting National ID cards.
The “debanking “ saga was but a taste of the problems that can arise.
To be fair, our rights in the US are subject to the will and whim of those in power. Imagine gun rights under Kamala. Imagine free speech under Obama.
We have a stronger position for the fight, but we still end up having to fight for each enumerated right. We’re two USSC Justices away from being the UK.
Except for the guns. It always comes back to the guns. They will be our salvation, just from the fear they engender. Not sure what saves the UK. Gov has no fear of the non-islamic population there. It should.
bobby b 9-25-2025 at 8:41 pm
I was actually thinking of what each people regards as the source of rights. For us in the US, it was embodied in the Declaration of Independence from the rule of britain.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
As I can observe, in britain rights are considered a revoke-able grant from those in power which are not in any way innate in the people. Agreed that in both cases things may have to get Clausewitzian, and we have the advantage there.
Subotai Bahadur
@Subotai Bahadur
I was actually thinking of what each people regards as the source of rights. For us in the US, it was embodied in the Declaration of Independence from the rule of britain.
I didn’t comment on this earlier because I don’t know where you live. But another commenter compared it to the US. The thing the OP is complaining about is the issuance of an id card that all Brits much carry and is necessary for use in many types of day to day transactions.
We already have that in the USA — it is called a drivers license.
My fear on this stuff the OP refers to, even though I would be vehemently opposed to this card, is that of bolting the barn door after the horse has already fled.
The Brits already have amazingly little privacy. The government can track all your financial transactions, or nearly all, there are cameras on every street corner, license plate readers on every road, they snoop on your internet traffic, your phone calls, and you have in your pocket a little tracking device where they can find where you are and where you have been.
About the best we can hope for is to restrict the government on the usage end of all this data. It is all out there. Adding another little card won’t add all that much to the database.
BTW, I read recently that Trump is introducing xAI into government databases, and Elon himself at DOGE did a lot of work to make government more efficient. This, I think, is scary. One of the few protections we have is that the government is utterly, keystone cop level, incompetent at almost everything they do.
Imagine if, for example, they did a Lucy Connolly on every British person who posted a “hateful” comment online. I mean half the British population would be doin’ porridge. It is only the government’s utter fecklessness and incompetence that prevents this from happening. God help us if the government gets more efficient.
FWIW, as always, there is a Yes Minister Episode dealing with this called “The Economy Drive”.
To me, this new little card isn’t just one more card of data. It’s the card that grants you permission to function – to exist – in UK society.
Sure, we have drivers’ licenses here. Out of custom and habit, we use them to prove our identity when needed. But that’s been our choice (except for flying.)
But I buy cars with cash. I buy gold with cash. I buy food and clothes and books and drugs and guns and ammo with cash. I have been known to pay rent and make loan payments with cash.
In none of those instances was anyone concerned with who I am. No one said “we need to know your identity to sell you this candy bar.”
Look at China’s digital ID system. You need that ID to do most anything. Losing it is life-threatening, because no one can deal with you without it.
I’d say this new system isn’t just “one more little card.” It’s sui generis, a new thing for the citizens of the UK, one that brands them as subjects of the current government.
@bobby b
Sure, we have drivers’ licenses here. Out of custom and habit, we use them to prove our identity when needed. But that’s been our choice (except for flying.)
I don’t agree. Try to cash a check without a DL, or buy a beer, or cigarettes, or enter a federal building, or do a transaction at a bank, or get a job, or buy and sell bitcoin or many other things.
But I buy cars with cash. I buy gold with cash. I buy food and clothes and books and drugs with cash. I have been known to pay rent and make loan payments with cash.
But you are surely a rare bird. And, BTW, try to take $10,000 in cash out of the bank to buy your car, and see what happens.
Look at China’s digital ID system. You need that ID to do most anything. Losing it is life-threatening, because no one can deal with you without it.
You are right, no doubt it could get worse: often when there is a system in place it can more easily be extended. I’m very much opposed to it, but I think the bird has flown from the cage, and our best hope is to try to reduce its impact.
Fraser Orr at 9:35pm…”and Elon himself at DOGE did a lot of work to make government more efficient. This, I think, is scary.”
I had the same thought at the time: “oh no, don’t get all the various government computers modernized and able to talk to each other!”
However, I find solace in knowing that once Elon’s people go back to making money, the government types will be back in charge of the systems which of course will then grind down into their former states of near uselessness. We can hope!
@bobby b & Fraser Orr
I bought a car recently, not exactly for cash, I wrote a check for it. They did require my driver’s license and ran some kind of background check. I was *told* that the state of Ohio now requires all cash auto purchases be background checked as an anti-terrorism measure.
I have not been able to verify the truth of this, but thought it was on topic. FWIW.
@GregWA
However, I find solace in knowing that once Elon’s people go back to making money, the government types will be back in charge of the systems which of course will then grind down into their former states of near uselessness. We can hope!
I have often thought that the best way to keep the government in check would be to insist that they are not allowed to use computers, just do everything on paper (preferably with a quill pen.) If you look at statutes from two hundred years ago their most notable quality is that they are short. All these two thousand page “you can read it when you pass it” bills only seemed to come about with the introduction of word processors into government.
John:
Definitely on topic.
You ran into the Patriot Act, which requires dealerships to check your name against the DOJ’s list of known bad guys.
And the dealer chose to do it using a driver’s license, because that’s become the default ID card.
But the Patriot Act doesn’t require a DL – only that the dealership check the correct name. The dealership chooses to use your DL to verify this, but it could insist on a library card or a school yearbook pic or . . .
And that sort of gets into why I think the UK’s digital ID is a different thing. We use our ID’s now to prove who we are.
But the digital ID isn’t used for that purpose. It’s used as a ticket, a membership card, that gets you into the door of social interaction and commerce. It encapsulates a right all its own, beyond proving your name. It’s your state permission to exist.
To answer the question of S.B. on whether there are any civil rights, in the sense of limits on government power, in the United Kingdom.
As the Covid lockdowns (which did NOT “save lives” – quite the contrary) showed us – the answer to S.B.s question is “no there are no rights, in the sense of limits on the power of the state, the officials-experts-judges and so on, in the United Kingdom”.
“Law” in the United Kingdom means the will of the state (including the judges who do NOT operate on the basis of the “reactionary” principles of the Common Law), and “rights” are money and services from the state, “justice” is also the will of the state – in short such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham have won, and such thinkers as Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and Lord Chief Justice Sir John Holt have LOST.
As for paying fines for not carrying an I.D. card – I am sure the regime will be happy to collect the money, and if people refuse to pay the fines – the regime will send them to prison, where they will be abused by the gangs (often from a certain religion) who now have influence in many prisons.
I think the Britcard will be the One Card to rule them and in the darkness bind them.
Frazier Orr. Love the idea of quill pens. You can use that as a counter when progressives say the 2nd amendment only guarantees muzzle loading muskets.
In 877 AD King Charles the Bald of France, formally accepted that there were limits to state power (that a King was NOT like an old Roman Emperor – that the law was NOT the will of the state), for example he, the King, could not lawfully take land from one family and give it to another family.
In around 1100 King Henry the First swore an oath that he would NOT be like his brother King William the Second – that he, Henry, would not violate the laws. This showed that the basic laws were NOT the will of the King – and there was no “Parliament” at this time. The basic laws were from natural law – natural justice.
In 1215 Magna Carta again stated that the King must not violate the basic laws – again this shows that the law was NOT the will of the King, and, again, there was no “Parliament” at this time.
Judge Bracton (a few years later) laid out the principles of law – showing that the law is NOT the arbitrary will of judges – but, rather, was the logical application of the principles of natural justice. Again there was no “Parliament” at this time.
Both Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke in the 17th century and Lord Chief Justice Sir John Holt in the 18th century stated that PARLIAMENT (not just the King) must NOT violate the basic principles of law – of natural justice (which are NOT the arbitrary will of judges – for the judges were also bound by the principles).
The Founding Fathers of the United States rejected the Blackstone Heresy – the doctrine of Sir William Blackstone that whatever Parliament said (say – everyone with blue eyes to be executed) was “law” and must be obeyed. That is the point behind in the Federal Bill of Rights – and the Bills of Rights of the various States – which do NOT “give people rights” (rights do NOT come from government) – they recognize the liberties (the limits on government power) that already-exist – from natural law – natural justice.
All the above comment is, de facto, now considered “Crime Think” in the United Kingdom, which is now (not in the past – but now) a land dominated by the sort of philosophy pushed by Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham – and other deniers of the existence of the human person – of humans as free will moral agents.
The philosophy that is now dominant in the United Kingdom is not compatible with the Bill of Rights – American or British, which are based on a totally opposed philosophy (on the “nature of man” and so on) to that of Hobbes, Hume and Bentham (and others).
The modern politics of the United Kingdom naturally follows from the sort of philosophy that is now dominant in the United Kingdom.
To take the example of an extermination camp – if humans are not beings (not moral agents), but, rather, have all their actions predetermined, then the humans doing the exterminating can not be morally blamed for what they do – because they do not have the ability to choose to do other than they do (thus showing that “Compatibilism” is a hollow fraud), and if humans are just “bundles of sensations”, not persons, then it does not matter if they are exterminated – or enslaved.
If the “freedom” of people is just like the “freedom” of water after a dam is removed (just the water rushing about flooding places – no MORAL CHOICE by the water, or the humans) then, yes indeed, Mr Thomas Hobbes and the others are quite correct – such “freedom” is of no moral importance (not if there is no such thing as a “person” – no human BEINGS), and tyranny is fine.
Thus the “euthanasia of the constitution” as Mr David Hume put it – meaning the unwritten limited state constitution of the United Kingdom (long destroyed now) which was based (as he knew well) on principles of philosophy (on such things as the “nature of man”) that Mr Hume rejected.
In short – according to the philosophy now dominant (long dominant) in the United Kingdom, there is no basis, no foundation, to oppose I.D. Cards – or anything else.
By the way – “Thomas Fairfax” is a name of honour, he was a great man.
The late F.A. Hayek argued (in “The Constitution of Liberty” and other works) that we could have the politics of the “Old Whigs” without the principles of philosophy (on such things as the “nature of man”) that were its foundation – the Gentleman was mistaken.
If we accept “modern philosophy” (which is not really “modern” – as Ralph Cudworth, and many others, have pointed out – what is considered “modern” is a series of evils that go back thousands of years, Mr Hobbes, and so on, did NOT invent these evils) then tyranny follows.
Not astonishing as these false philosophical doctrines (these evils) are designed to justify tyranny.
This is surely a ‘poll tax’ moment. If enough people refuse to comply with an ID card, it’s a dead duck. I refuse. There are presently 738,000 signatures on the petition.
Being old, I still have my post war ID card – my Mum saved it. I also have my ration book, which, the way things are going, I might well need! Oh and I have some of my Dad’s petrol coupons.
One Card to rule them all, One Card to find them,
One Card to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Britain where Keir lies.
The importance of implacable resistance cannot be overstated
@bobby b
You ran into the Patriot Act, which requires dealerships to check your name against the DOJ’s list of known bad guys.
I’m not really clear on what the Brit Card is for, AFAIK it seems to be focused on employer verification of right to work. Of course we have this here, it is called an I-9, something that is very onerous on employers (I’m an employer, and I even have to prove to the government that I, me, the owner of the business have a right to work in the USA. I haven’t done one for a while but I think you need to show a passport and some other document, though there are certainly a menu of choices.)
Of course it is a total disaster. Tens of millions of people work in the USA without an I-9 or with a faked one. And no doubt Britain’s experience would be the same. But of course it has nothing to do with immigration. The Royal Navy could easily send back all the small boats and they could easily track actual visa overstays if they wanted. Consequently the law abiding suffer onerous regulation that does nothing of any value, and the bad guys just ignore it.
This. I believe, is what they call a pretext.
FWIW, a word of hope. Here in the USA FinCEN and organization of the Department of Treasury, put out a rule, called BOIR, that required all small businesses to register details of the beneficial ownership of those companies, in extreme detail (including passports and other documents.) However, there was huge resistance to this rule and it was eventually overturned for domestic corporations.
So, I’m not often too hopeful about these things, but there was a recent example of the good guys winning.
I know I’m just quibbling on a small point here, but that was only an example of the good guys managing not to lose again. “Winning” requires a higher standard.
😉
BTW, I have worked in the US for more than half a century, and no one has ever asked me to prove citizenship to start a job, either with private employers or state/fed employers. I think it was always assumed that, if you looked vaguely Norwegian, you were safe.
“This. I believe, is what they call a pretext.”
Agree. The Brit Digital ID has been modeled, I think, directly on the Chinese ID. It is much more of a “show me your papers!” kind of thing than merely an ID.
I don’t follow British politics closely, so could some answer a few questions for me? I understand that the British government is claiming that the digital ID has something to do with addressing the immigration crisis, but I haven’t read any reports linking this program with deportations. From the reporting that I’ve seen, the logic goes something like this:
1) Digital IDs issued to all legal residents.
2) ????
3) Immigration crisis solved!
How does the government explain that this will work to solve the immigration crisis? Will “asylum seekers” entering the country be denied digital IDs? Will illegal immigrants without a digital ID be subject to automatic deportation? What am I missing?
Excellent comments – I have nothing to add, other than to thank the people who have written them.
Nick in Florida,
It will do nothing except control those legally in the country. I wish I could be of more help but I’m both just tired (as in sleepy) and sick of all this… I hope someone else can explain further for you because I fo think it is important that you (and everyone) knows what is going on.
@Nick in Florida
How does the government explain that this will work to solve the immigration crisis? Will “asylum seekers” entering the country be denied digital IDs? Will illegal immigrants without a digital ID be subject to automatic deportation? What am I missing?
The theory is that they will not be able to get a job or presumably welfare and so one of the major incentives for them to come in the first place.
Of course the theory is wrong as I explained above in my post of what happens in the United States.
Fraser Orr and others….
British government ministers are doing the rounds on television today – saying how the new I.D. system will lead to everything being electronic, including money – “it works in Sweden”.
The agenda, the international agenda, being to know, and eventually control, what people spend “money” on – that it must be spent on certain things (not other things) and in a certain period of time.
Anyone who believes that the leftist establishment, which hates and despises the British nation – indeed hates and despises the very concept of an independent nation, wants this I.D. system to end mass immigration, is mistaken.
I have no delusion that the government actually wants the digital ID system to end mass immigration, but was only curious on their stated rationale for it. Isn’t the already giving known illegal immigrants work permits and welfare benefits?
How do they CLAIM that would change under this system? Have they stated that they will deny past and/or future illegal immigrants IDs and pull their benefits? Have they announced that anyone would be deported? If they won’t deport them, will they just allow future arrivals just roam the country without IDs and, presumably, work permits and benefits? Or will the new arrivals be just given a verbal scolding and handed benefits anyway, because the state would still have a “humanitarian” obligation to care for them?
How does the government claim they will handle a mass of angry, military-aged male illegal migrants who have no IDs, no right to work, and are denied welfare payments? Does the government really expect these people to say, oh well, I guess Britain is not for me so I will just might as well scamper back to my hell hole of a country? No one is stupid enough to believe that will happen.
My point is that without a commitment to mass deportations, the idea that the ID system would have ANY effect on mass immigration is farcical on its face. As I have not seen any reporting on the government committing itself to deporting illegal migrants, the ID system transparently has NOTHING to do with immigration and everything to do with controlling the legal residents of Britain.
Nick in Florida.
There are “barbers” and “nailbars” (both normally fronts for laundering drug money and money from other criminal activity), and “carehomes” in almost every English town that are staffed by illegal immigrants who have no legal right to work in the United Kingdom (the carehomes get their staff from agencies – the agencies employ the illegal immigrants, under false identities).
The government (the officials, the police and so on) know all this very well – and do nothing about it.
Why should they claim anything to the British people?
They, the regime, have the power – and we do not.
So they have no need to convince us of anything.
Even when Conservatives such as Jacob Rees-Mogg were in office (were ministers) – they were NOT in power. Remember they had no right to hire-and-fire officials – and “personal are policy”.
The growth of the “Administrative State” has undermined both liberty and democracy, and now is undermining the very existence of the nation.
In an American context – Senator Roscoe Conkling was correct to oppose the creation of the Civil Service (the bureaucracy), but things have gone much further in terms of rule by officials in Britain.
By the way….. the elected government are now on the same page as the officials (including the judges – who, in Britain, are appointed by a committee of establishment leftists), there is no conflict any more.
Everyone with power (or position) is on one side – and the British people are on the other side.
It is hard to see the British people winning.
“There are presently 738,000 signatures on the petition.”
Over 2m now, only 12 hours after your comment.
@Nick in Florida: “How does the government claim they will handle a mass of angry, military-aged male illegal migrants who have no IDs, no right to work, and are denied welfare payments?”
Starmer and Co have specifically stated DID will NOT be used for access to welfare payments or the NHS. So what change will DID make to an illegal? They are already working in the black economy, so no change there, yet will be able to still access welfare (and social housing) and get free healthcare and schooling for their children. It would not affect the illegals one jot to not have a DID. So the aim of DID CANNOT be to make the UK a hostile environment to illegal immigration. Rather its to abolish illegal immigration, by making all the illegals legal. If you just give DIDs to everyone, hey presto! no illegal immigration. Plus you have a wonderful tool to control everyone with. THATS what its for.
Jim – correct Sir.
Paul,
The thing is illegal immigrants are already beyond the law by definition. Legal restrictions on criminals can’t work. Starmer et. al. seem intrinsically incapable of realising the simple fact that criminals break the law. It’s what they do. In some cases it is what they are. If Starmer thinks (which is a question in itself) that he’s gonna prevent illegal work he doesn’t understand how criminals operate which is a major fail for a KC! If this is implemented it will increase the cash-in-hand economy* and increase the number of illegals in the country and some of those will be essentially trafficked slaves. This will mean TTK for yet another reason. We will have “citizens” who are monitored to ensure they are “good” but get to enjoy the delights of the NHS etc and Untermensch coming in by the boatload. We’ll have Eloi and Morlocks.
*Not that I have a problem myself with the idea that “cash is tax free” per se. Not that I have ever accepted cash payment for a job. Not ever. Wouldn’t even think of it.