Most people here probably feel a bit uneasy about the introduction of mandatory government ID cards.
But how do you feel about voluntary ID cards in an 'ideal' libertarian society?
Let's say I own a shopping mall, which is suffering from a wave of theft. It's putting my customers out of business. I do a survey of shoppers in my mall and find that 80% of them would feel safer if there was more security -- like RFID chipped ID cards which would be required for entry. If the other 20% don't like it, they'll just have to shop somewhere else.
So I call an RFID company and they tell me that they could create a unique card for my shopping mall, but that it would be more cost effective, and more convenient for the shoppers if I simply subscribe to their branded universal ID card. This ID card is used by a number of other businesses for various reasons, but there is only one database.
As thieves are forced to visit malls with much looser security measures, it eventually ends up that those of us who like to go to shopping malls (or anywhere else which has taken these security measures) have no choice but to sign up for at least one brand of ID card if we want to continue to visit malls. If there are a group of people who simply refuse to sign up for an ID card for whatever reason, they'll take their business elsewhere. If this group is too large, the malls will have to change their security policies, or face losses.
I have posted this because I can not see how it is incompatible with freedom. I should be able to refuse entry to my property for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Similarly, if somebody wants to come in to my house, they are required to take their shoes off -- and I refuse entry to people I don't like even if they've done nothing wrong.
What I am looking for is somebody who will say to me "wait a minute, that wouldn't/shouldn't happen in a free society because..."
You'll have to forgive me if your answer seems obvious to everybody but me -- I am quite new to the idea of a stateless society.
One more thing -- if indeed this sort of thing might happen without government... would it be logical to conclude that 'public property' is much more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? Afterall, the London underground was public property on 7/7. Perhaps if it had been private, there would have been security measures in place to deter this kind of tragedy. The New York airspace was public property on 9/11.
Can anybody rebut this conclusion with acts of terrorism that occurred on private property? What about the jet that was hijacked by the 9/11 terrorists -- does this disprove my conclusion? or were there governmental factors in play here? I have heard somebody on the radio saying that one of the reasons 9/11 happened that the airline company did not want to reduce their profits by installing more robust cabin doors. Are there any rebuttals to this argument? The only one that I can think of is that passengers were lured in to a false sense of security by government agencies who are supposed to prevent this sort of thing. Without these agencies, passengers would make sure they are travelling with what they perceive to be the most secure travel company. Are there any better arguments out there?
Thanks.
Interesting point. It is entirely possible something like that would develop. OpenID works similarly on the internet. You choose one of many equivalent registrars you register with, who then provide you with a unified ID you can use with many different websites without the need to register induvidualy at each.
Your view doesn't seem to be incompatable with liberty. So long as there is choice. If I feel an ID company is abusing my rights, I can leave. The issue with Gov't universal ID is that we have no choice, no opt-out. Competition between ID companies would lead to provide people different levels of service that are acceptable to them.
As for the 9/11 argument or the London bombings: in a free society, terrorism on a mass scale would likely die out. What power structure are they trying to change? Whom are they rebelling against? There is no government to make a point against. The only attacks would be by madmen who simply want to kill for the sake of killing. The London bombings I dont know much about, but 9/11 would never have happened in a free society, because the pilot, and any passanger who desired, would be armed. Knowing this, the airlines would have bullet-proff cabin doors. And the terrorist would have been shot in the back trying to break into it. Airlines could also have sky marshals hidden amongst the passengers. People would choose to fly the airline that best provides security, though again, without a government, the terrorists would have little to target.
JParker:Your view doesn't seem to be incompatable with liberty. So long as there is choice. If I feel an ID company is abusing my rights, I can leave. The issue with Gov't universal ID is that we have no choice, no opt-out. Competition between ID companies would lead to provide people different levels of service that are acceptable to them.
Great. By the way, I'm definitely not trying to form an argument for government ID cards.
JParker:As for the 9/11 argument or the London bombings: in a free society, terrorism on a mass scale would likely die out. What power structure are they trying to change? Whom are they rebelling against? There is no government to make a point against. The only attacks would be by madmen who simply want to kill for the sake of killing. The London bombings I dont know much about, but 9/11 would never have happened in a free society, because the pilot, and any passanger who desired, would be armed. Knowing this, the airlines would have bullet-proff cabin doors. And the terrorist would have been shot in the back trying to break into it. Airlines could also have sky marshals hidden amongst the passengers. People would choose to fly the airline that best provides security, though again, without a government, the terrorists would have little to target.
I do agree with your conclusion that terrorism would die out. I suppose my questions about terrorism made the assumption that terrorists would still be around. But let's say that they (however unlikely) were still around. Would the elimination of public property be better equipped to prevent these sorts of disasters? Afterall, if the majority of people could not care less about safety or security, there would be no demand for it in the marketplace. If, because of this, an act of violence happens that could have otherwise been prevented, are consumers getting what they asked for?
Mr Jones:Afterall, if the majority of people could not care less about safety or security, there would be no demand for it in the marketplace. If, because of this, an act of violence happens that could have otherwise been prevented, are consumers getting what they asked for?
Yep. People are responsible for themselves. Though, if terrorists were still around and targeting 'public' places, I doubt the corporations that ran these places would not provide great security. Think about it, before 9/11, the private airport security people did their job fantastically. How many guns were on planes? How many hijackings? Almost none in the entire world! Even 9/11 was done with nail clippers (which the FAA told the security companies was ok to have). So there was no market failure, only government failure. All the more reason to take government out of the equation. Companies with great security will be able to charge more, because I (and most people I would think) will always pay more for a safer service. Though if the market didnt care about security, that isnt a market failure either. Its the market making a decision. I dont have to use the unsafe airline if I dont want to, so how does it affect me?