in my previous post i highlighted some of the major shortcomings i see in the No2ID Campaign. mainly a) that it panders to the arguments of authoritarian government, essentially supporting rather than attacking statist invasions into "private life" and b) that its chosen methods are disempowering to individuals, providing yet further support to agents of the state.

i am not alone in these views, and recently a friend who has been involved in both no2id and defy-id had an exchange of views with an anonymous no2id organiser (let's call him X) about some of his concerns. X labelled himself "an extreme libertarian... one who would normally be classified as on the right." he continued:

So I constantly compromise my principles and keep my mouth shut about my unrelated opinions in order to work with people whose bullying authoritarian and collectivist presumptions repulse me.

In particular I'm very sympathetic to the point that "It won't stop illegal immigration," is pandering to the idea that most immigration ought to be stopped. But I accept that changing the public mind at such a fundamental level is neither necessary nor by any means sufficient to progress the campaign. That it isn't is a good thing, because it would actually be a hugely difficult task, perhaps impossible, and while not actually successful would be counterproductive for the campaign as a whole.

The same is true of any number of other themes: the (un)reality of the terrorism threat, "organised crime", the construction of paedophilia, health and education services assisted bureaucratic centralisation, the idea that more policing is better, safety and security in general...

so X acknowledges that many of the arguments of no2id's campaign are not libertarian arguments, and that they are statist, but doesn't think that changing these commonly held views are "necessary" or "sufficient" for "progressing the campaign". so why does he remain with this campaign in spite of the "bullying authoritarianism" and "collectivist presumptions" of his fellow no2iders?

My approach has always been pragmatic. I'll do whatever it takes. I don't believe we can win without appealing to the mainstream. Perhaps even then we can't win, since the real problems of public choice and bureaucratic decision and control are too abstract for, and seem benign to, many of our immediate supporters. But there is no chance without the mainstream.

it seems to me that the no2id organisers, and those members of the public who are against id but don't believe they can change the debate, are essentially conforming with the government's wishes as regards the demands and scope of the campaign against id. it is in the state's interest that we be entirely dependent on them for almost all aspects of our existence, including the bringing about of social change. beliefs that "it would actually be a hugely difficult task, perhaps impossible" to counter the common perception that immigrants are to be criminalised, or to have a "pragmatic" approach (i.e. working within the existing system) are not the beliefs of a libertarian, of any shade. it's a bit of a cliche, but "demand the impossible" is a great anarchist riposte to those whose "pragmatic" approaches help to support the status quo. changing public attitudes on immigration is no more impossible that halting the id card scheme. we won't win any battles with the state whilst strengthening its hand on other front. this is true whether you're a libertarian of the right, the left, or neither.

i also take issue with the idea of "appealing to the mainstream", or rather, what this phrase commonly denotes. the mainstream here means only the socially included for a start, not the whole of society. as such it means pandering to the views of those who speak loudest in a capitalist, patriarchal, neo-colonial state. inevitably the predominant influences on "mainstream" opinion in society will be those that have benefitted most from these influences. the idea of pandering to the mainstream, rather than challenging it, is fundamentally conservative. how can we claim to be supporting the freedom of the individual whilst constantly altering our arguments to fit the views of an abstract, collective mainstream? what this really entails is the scenario that has already been described by X: "I constantly compromise my principles and keep my mouth shut". that's not something i would ever want to do.

all in all, i think the flimsy "libertarianism" of the no2id ideologues should be exposed for the conformism that it is.

for more information on an anarchist campagin against id see defy-id. the nottingham group's site is also particularly useful.