Every once in a while
an issue surfaces that defies a nice neat and simple clear cut position.
When the U.S. Congress set a deadline of Oct. 26, 2004 for upgrading passports
and visas to include biometrics, most observers paid little attention. Surely,
the idea that the behemoth of all databases, that lists and tracks individuals,
smells sour from the get-go. Experience proves all too well that when a government--any
government--secures an effective method of advanced people control, the result
will be unavoidable abuse.
a strange way to put it--unavoidable abuse--because the entire notion of
people control is so offensive and abhorrent to our basic sensibilities that
it seems unthinkable to accept the concept. However, we live in a world that
seldom respects the natural rights of individuals, let alone protects and
strengthens those rights. Abstract postulations of how the world should be
rarely have much traction when the primary interests of the State are threatened.
the debate over the need for the establishment of the State is endless, the
reality of its power is overwhelming. Market anarchism proponents hold
that their perspective is a continuation of the natural law ideal, taking
it to its logical extreme. In principle the idea is appealing, logical and
noble. Consider how Joshua Holmes conceives the concept: “Under the classical
republican ideal, the state is the protector of the rights of men. The state
provides those services needed to secure rights--police, courts, defense--and
the people in exchange pay taxes for those services. Where market anarchists
dissent is that the state shuts down the market for competition in those
services (violating the right to liberty) and extracts payment for the services
it does provide under threat of violence (violating the right to property).
Instead we argue that even the services of police, courts, and defense, even
the provision of the law itself, should be voluntary, no different from choosing
a phone company.”
the tenets are a reflection of an ideal. Much of what we propose and ascribe
emulates a better moral way of life. So we have no objection to strive to
achieve the impossible. However, as long as people organize themselves into
societies, the practice of administrative government will take some kind
of shape and form. While it may not be intellectually inevitable that the
State must be created, it certainly is the first order of business for a
species burdened with a flawed and corrupt nature and amoral in practice,
this dilemma the question arises: Does the State has a duty to administer
an efficient system of border entry? We pose the inquiry as an issue
of foreign access, and readily accept the universal right of a person to
leave any jurisdiction. Of course the practical issue of where can one go
is usually affirmed by location at birth. Since governments reserve
their own standards for foreigners to apply for nationalization, it certainly
follows that a society is well within its own interests to ban any factions
that may pose a risk to that community. Exclusion is healthy and often is
the only practical method to preserve the identity and integrity of a particular
way of life. Therefore, keeping out undesirables is desired.
method that will be utilized, uses the following technology. “Biometric systems
reduce patterns in a person's fingerprints, irises, faces, voices or other
characteristics to mathematical algorithms that can be stored on a chip or
machine-readable strip. When arriving travelers put their fingers into biometric
scanners or stand in front of face-recognition cameras, a computer will check
whether the patterns it detects match the ones the subjects gave when they
were first scanned. The system also will check whether visitors appear on
watch lists of suspected terrorists or are immigration violators.”
this intrusion violates our desire to remain anonymous to a faceless, yet
omnipresent ‘Big Brother.’ This assessment is a given and need not be analyzed.
Nonetheless, the issue that persists is an urge to impose harsh restrictions
on the unwanted, while maintaining the freedom of voluntary association and
globe-trotting for the ‘civil libertarian’ privileged.
comes with the certainty that governments want reciprocal treatment. With
the recognition of uniform globalism, the International Civil Aviation Organization,
a Montreal-based United Nations agency that sets travel standards, presents
the Catch-22. Any astute person will admit that regulations are designed
for compliance from law obeying persons. Criminals, spies, terrorists and
politicians ignore the rules made for ordinary people.
Brits would say: “in order to sort this out,” let’s face the harsh reality
of this impasse. Equality among all peoples of the world is rubbish. Using
visas to apply for temporary entry is valid and necessary. Obtaining the
franchise to visit the United States should become far more difficult. Have
you been on an international flight lately? Why allow “we are the world”
to be played on our head sets? Instead of compelling Americans to register
for the cattle cars, fumigate the herd and cut out the unsound. Reduce visas
by 90% and issue only to societies that demonstrate a heritage and appreciation
If it means that as an American, we will be restricted or banned from international
travel because a foreign country places unacceptable demands, we should vote
with our feet and remain in the States. After all, when was the last time
that a foreign country refused our money?
culprit is the U.S. government and its enthusiasm to destroy the liberty
of our own fellow citizens. A nation must be willing to defend its borders.
A nation must maintain a common language. And a nation must preserve its
founding heritage and cultural tradition. Assimilation that results in sovereignty
dilution is suicidal.
registration for foreigners may well make sense. But induction of our citizens
into a DARPA database as a condition of exiting Oceania is obscene. Americans
enjoy the covenant of individual liberty, endowed by their Creator. Government’s
only rightful purpose is to respect that liberty, while serving the populace.
Citizens have domestic rights that foreigners do not possess. Our choice
is clear. Demand that we are protected, even at the cost of having our worldwide
travel denied by alien countries. But resist any prerequisites to be tagged
as a digital domesticated and trained canine. Forget about being fair and
treating the rest of the world as equals. Protect America First and preserve
our own liberty.
Sartre is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed political operative. His website is Breaking All the Rules.