Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:24:02 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Subject: Brown on Klein and Robbins and National ID
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

To: freematt@coil.com
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:11:23 -0400
Subject: Brown on Klein and Robbins and national ID
From: David M Brown <dmb1000@juno.com>

Matt,

I thought you might want to run my rebuttal to an article Shawn Klein 
posted recently, in response to my criticism of James Robbins's 
quasi-endorsement of a national ID card in a recent article. 
Robbins's article was published in The Objectivist Center's flagship 
publication, Navigator. You distributed the original post in which I 
criticized Robbins and TOC for this unholy abomination. Klein's 
remarks are quoted below, followed by my own.

BTW, you asked "What is Wrong With Objectivism?" I'd say a better 
question is, "What's Wrong With Erstwhile Alleged Advocates of 
Freedom?" You yourself have shown in a recent post that the 
I'll-give-up-all-my-rights-and-how-fast-do-you-want-me-to-do-it 
syndrome is hardly restricted to those influenced by a particular 
author, or even those of a particular ideological camp. Still, thanks 
to L.Neil Smith for letting us know that although Ayn Rand was 
correct on many matters, she was not correct on all, and that we 
should all just be who we are....

* * *

Klein's article was posted by the 
<mailto:Objectivism@wetheliving.com>Objectivism@wetheliving.com 
discussion group, which has no connection to TOC.

Klein says that "The Objectivist Center is not calling for a national 
ID card, or any other specific policy positions. That is not what the 
Center does, it is not a policy institute. The issue of a national ID 
card is a technical matter for political science and/or law [sic]. 
Philosophy can only give the standards and principles by which such a 
measure must be judged. For example: Is it effective at creating 
security? Does it violate individual rights?

"In his commentary, James S. Robbins, a contributing writer to the 
Center's monthly magazine wrote--and I am paraphrasing--that he could 
see supporting a national ID measure if certain conditions and 
protections where met and if such a measure would be useful in 
providing increased security.

"This is hardly advocacy of a national ID card. It is a hypothetical 
consideration about a particular measure. And even if it were 
advocacy, the viewpoints of the writer's are just that, the 
viewpoints of _the writer's_. In fact, Mr. Robbins begins the 
sentence with the following phrase 'Speaking for myself...'

"The principles that Mr. Robbins appeals to are in agreement with 
Objectivism [sic] and the ideas he expresses are of interest and 
importance to Objectivists. That is what is required for the Center 
to publish him, whether are not all his claims are ultimately correct 
is a question for the reader to decide.

"The Objectivist Center does not require that its writers be in 
complete agreement with the entire corpus of Objectivist thinking and 
all the concrete positions Objectivists take: just the fundamental 
and broad principles. There is no party line; though one needs to be 
writing within Objectivism, he does not need to be wholly in 
agreement with it. Rational individuals can disagree honestly.

"I invite the members of the list to read Mr. Robbins' article as well as
the other articles written by Center staff, in particular the Center's
Position Statement at:
<http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/position_statement.asp>http://w 
ww.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/position_statement.asp

"Mr. Robbins' article:
<http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/jr_what_will_happen_now.asp>htt 
p://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/jr_what_will_happen_now.asp

"The kind of inflammatory language that Mr. Brown uses to 
misrepresent TOC is something I would have not expected to make it 
through the rubric.  Clearly, TOC is not advocating fascism -- even 
if it were advocating national ID cards, that is not quite sufficient 
for fascism -- and Mr. Brown's ad hominem attack was unnecessary. Mr. 
Brown, or anyone, could have stated any of his disagreements with the 
claims Mr. Robbins made in his commentary without the insulting and 
confrontational language.

"Regards,
"Shawn Klein
"Note: The views expressed here are my own, and not necessarily anyone
else's at The Objectivist Center."

Following is my reply. --DMB <<mailto:dmb1000@juno.com>dmb1000@juno.com>

BROWN ON KLEIN ON ROBBINS AND THE
OBJECTIVIST CENTER AND THE PROPOSED
GROOVY NEW NATIONAL ID CARD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(October 17, 2001) RE Objectivist Center webmaster Shawn Klein's 
misguided response to my "misguided" protest of James S. Robbins's 
and TOC's apparent advocacy of national ID cards:

Sure, The Objectivist Center does not have to agree with every word 
of an author's article in the Navigator in order to publish it. 
Thankfully, TOC is not like the neurotic Ayn Rand Institute, which 
outlaws all dissent and controversy.

But I wonder if TOC would think it is okay for Navigator to publish 
articles advocating economic steps on the road to socialism, "so long 
as" its own official views were allegedly explicitly different.

What's appropriate to publish in an organizational organ depends in 
large part on whether that publication is an avowed "open forum." 
Navigator clearly is not intended to be an open forum, except perhaps 
in letters to the editor. It does embrace discussion and dissent, but 
obviously within certain confines. Navigator wouldn't publish an 
article advocating nihilism, subjectivism, or serfdom (well, only 
_steps_ on the _road_ to serfdom, apparently). It wants its articles 
to be informed by a certain Enlightenment perspective.

The other problem with Klein's comments is his differentiation 
between Robbins's article and TOC's position statement. The problem 
here is that one of the points on the Position Statement is very 
ambiguous and door-opening with respect precisely to the sort of 
position that Robbins takes. To wit:

"Measures that limit [rights to liberty, property, and privacy] are 
justified only if they are objectively required for security and are 
tailored to minimize restrictions on other rights."

This is not a statement that rights are a contextual matter. This is 
a statement, presumably carefully considered and mused and mulled 
over, that actual contextually justifiable rights can be forfeited or 
trimmed if the "security threat" calls for it. There is not even a 
stipulation that a very temporary emergency must be involved, as when 
grabbing an oar that belongs to somebody else so you can save 
somebody from drowning. So even if certain TOC principals don't agree 
with Robbins, they might well have to regard his proposal as "open 
for consideration" or as an "incredibly technical matter that can 
only be resolved by appropriately trained experts such as bureaucrats 
and brain surgeons."

TOC is in a bind here. Obviously, any actually implemented national 
ID card will not be withdrawn after the "end" of the "emergency." (If 
you believe it will be, you also believe that income tax withholding 
was dropped after World War Two. And I've got a bridge to sell you.) 
On the other hand, if TOC believes that Robbins's call does violate 
its own stated principles of when and how to slice and dice my 
individual rights, how did his explicit endorsement of this new step 
on the road to total tyranny make its way into their flagship 
publication?

* * *
I have been chastised for using the word "fascism." I agree that 
nobody in this country, including Robbins and his apologists, is at 
present advocating the equivalent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany 
in one fell swoop. Robbins is merely adding his own voice to the 
many, many other voices who are merely and trivially proposing that 
my freedom be restricted, curtailed, squeezed and shrunk a little 
more and a little more and a little more every single day -- despite 
the fact that _I_ don't pose a "security threat" to anybody, and 
never have (unless bitching about hazards to my political health 
constitutes a security threat).

So I suppose, in order to be clear to Klein and other readers, I 
should have said, instead of "Bring on the fascism," "Bring on the 
fascism in incremental precedent-setting bits and pieces until the 
day when I can't do a goddamn thing without the permission and 
handholding of Papa State, at which point, of course, even you will 
object, thanks a heap." That would have been more precise.

And I will state for the record that I do not regard Robbins as 
vicious. He is merely craven and obtuse, and I will be happy to sign 
an affidavit to that effect.

But now that the glaring and obvious deficiencies in his position 
have been pointed out, where's the retraction and apology from 
Robbins? And where's the official apology from The Objectivist 
Center? If Klein cares about his rights, he should be _thanking_ me 
from the bottom of his heart and even sending me money for my post, 
not chastising me. He should be sending me a check for a hundred 
dollars, at minimum, in compensation for my labors. (I prefer via 
PayPal.)

It is bootless for Klein to point out that Robbins stipulates that 
"appropriate safeguards, delimitations, and Christmas gift wrapping" 
must be in place before the national ID card is instituted. I already 
_have_ -- or am supposed to have -- the applicable safeguards. 
They're called the Constitution and my individual rights to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The national ID would 
_constitute_ a further violation and curtailing of my liberties. 
Okay? (And that's another ten bucks you owe me.)

Further, in addition to its _per se_ violation of my rights, this new 
mandatory paper-carrying requirement would give all the bureaucrats 
and cops yet another weapon against me. Or do James Robbins and Shawn 
Klein and David Kelley believe that Robbins's yet-to-be-spelled-out 
"safeguards" are really going to keep all those people in line? (Like 
the way they all scrupulously adhere to the Bill of Rights, I 
guess.)  

Klein says the national ID is a "technical matter" that must be left 
to the experts. No, it is not a "technical matter." It's a personal 
matter. This isn't brain surgery, Mr. Klein. The national ID, with 
its thumbprint and social security number and microchip and 
amber-encased slice of DNA and hologram image of my groin, would only 
make it easier to monitor and control me even in areas where nobody 
has any right whatever to monitor and control me. That is obvious. 
Perhaps Klein is comfortable leaving the disposition of his own 
personal freedom to "the experts" and forfeiting the responsibility 
of a free man. I refuse to abdicate that responsibility.

Like expert Cathy Young, expert James Robbins seems to regard the 
sheer fact of his trepidation and trauma under the current 
circumstances as a sufficient logical warrant for the rest of us. 
Expert Robbins gives no explanation whatever in his article of how a 
national ID card might help security nor how it might have hurt 
security. The mere pronouncement of his opinion is supposed to sway 
those of us who _do_ care about the particular exercises of freedom 
to which he is indifferent.

Yet the legal enactment of Robbins's un-argued-for opinion would, on 
the sheer face of it, dramatically expedite the systematic violation 
of our rights, regardless of any pro forma safeguards. Why isn't 
concern for this obvious prospect to be acknowledged and proved 
illegitimate, if the progressive destruction of what little is left 
of my capacity to keep my private affairs private, would indeed save 
us forever from all terrorism, all germ and nuclear sneak attacks and 
box-cutters?

I'll tell you why. Because history and common sense cannot be 
deployed here in favor of Robbins's assertion. How can Robbins argue, 
"Well, if a terrorist has to get a national ID card, he then won't 
then commit a terrorist act"? He can't. Robbins has no arguments, 
just feelings.

I have feelings too. I feel that if I have to present identification 
papers wherever I go, that hurts _my_ security. It would make me 
_feel_ like I am a serf in a police state. My particular feelings 
don't trump Robbins's feelings. But the reason I would feel like that 
is because that's what the situation would nigh be. The fact that 
others might not feel the same way is irrelevant. A great many of the 
denizens of Patrick McGoohan's Village feel right at home. So what? 

This is probably a 17-step road. We're at step 6 or 7, say -- 
certainly very far from a Nazi-like police state. But we used to be 
at 2 or 3. Robbins says, oh, we should jump to about 9 or 10 if it 
helps our security.

But, don't worry, adds Robbins, the ratcheting can stop there, just 
so long as we install appropriate safeguards and delimitations; and 
at least we won't be annihilated by terrorists. Klein says I forgot 
to mention the fact that Robbins said there should be safeguards. 
Robbins and Klein and Kelley can assure us until doomsday that it 
won't ever come to anyone being arrested or held for questioning if 
he happens not to have his ID card with him when he shops for 
groceries. They may well be right. But why is the act of bringing us 
closer and ever close to that day a _good_ thing? Why is a _good_ 
thing for a leading organization promoting reason, justice, freedom, 
and individual rights to advocate (or publish an article advocating) 
a measure that only brings us closer to that day? Why? Why? Why?

(Needless to say, Robbins and Klein and Kelley, like the rest of us, 
haven't had time to read the fat anti-terrorism bills that must now 
be reconciled in Congress. So there lies another puzzlement. What 
makes them so sanguine about the prospect for even those minimal and 
pro forma "safeguards" that even _they_ might concede are advisable? 
And the reporting so far on these bills hasn't exactly been 
auspicious.)

I support the war on terrorism. We were attacked, we should respond, 
and we should stamp out the enemy. And take appropriate security 
measures here at home. But I do not support any war against myself.

* * *

People of America, I say unto you, there is no legitimate "security" 
reason, even, why I should be forced now to have a state ID to open a 
bank account or cash a check. Yet giving away my thumbprint is now 
mandatory to get a check cashed at a bank which is not my own -- two 
forms of ID and a lock of my hair no longer suffice. (Which is why I 
never cash checks that way any more.) Are these uniform security 
precautions followed by all banks everywhere because, in a free 
market, no bank would ever allow me to open a confidential and 
anonymous account that could be rendered secure for the bank and for 
me by a signature and secure password? Or because no bank is 
_allowed_ to provide such level of privacy?

Privacy doesn't kill people. People kill people. But we are starting 
to hear now from security "experts" like Robbins that we have no 
particular right _at all_ to this cherished phantom, privacy -- that 
toward which all of civilization is striving, according to Rand's 
Fountainhead. (I recommend this novel to all the policymakers at 
TOC.) Yet privacy is something you can _buy_ and provide for 
yourself, if only you are _allowed_, as a free man, to buy it and 
provide it. It's a good like anything else. And I want that good.

I regard Robbins's TOC-sponsored advocacy or quasi-advocacy or 
virtual-advocacy of a national ID card as a direct personal assault 
on me and my liberties, one that I would never have expected from 
that quarter. TOC is adding its prestigious weight to too many 
clamoring and thoughtless voices. Their advocacy and sponsorship 
makes the job of turning us into serfs .0001 percent easier, which is 
.0001 percent too much.

The Objectivist Center must explicitly repudiate Robbins's 
"hypothetical" call for a national ID card as well as its own sloppy 
new notion that some of my actual rights may be crimped and curtailed 
so long as "other rights" are not too badly mangled in the process. 
They must have the guts and the integrity to say, "Yeah, we bungled 
big-time here. We've been busy. Lots of pressures lately. First the 
towers, then the war, then this anthrax thing. Things have been 
hectic. It sort of slipped through. Sorry. We won't do it again." Or 
not. Up to them.

But, whatever, I am not a number. I am a free man.

David M. Brown <<mailto:dmb1000@juno.com>dmb1000@juno.com>


Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/