ID Mur
by Max Raskin Usually when my school foists tyrannical measures onto the student body, a mere "wesayso" will suffice. But for once, my principal has made the arduous trek out into the realm of rational discourse – a strange and foreign land to the bureaucrat – so that he can lay out the case for compulsory identification. Though a personal attack on the intelligence of Herr Principalschführer would be infinitely more entertaining, I was so proud his page-long letter contained only a few egregious errors, that I won’t engage in any ad hominems. He obviously put a great deal of time into crafting such ludicrous arguments, so I may as well reciprocate by vitiating every one of them. People will then see that instead of grounding his decision in rational thought and "big boy" arguments, my principal has acted as an infant, pining for what he wants with what amounts to emotional conniptions. There is no logic to support his case; like any despot, his power rests solely on the threat of punishing students who disobey him. The first question usually asked of the student carping about the IDs is – who cares? The person who asks this question is shifting the burden of proof. But given the sort of brute who would ask this question, such an answer will not do. So I will put forward the case against compulsory identification. Being labeled with a number is a form of degradation wherein the individual is relegated to an animal who must summarily submit himself to the will of his authority. His individuality is reduced to six digits. Our country was founded on the principle that people should be allowed to live freely, provided they do nothing to harm others. If one believes that public schools have a right to exist [they don’t], this means students should be allowed to do as they choose, provided they do nothing to harm the rights of other students. So for instance, using a bullhorn in class is unacceptable, whereas not wearing an ID tag certainly harms no one. And what should get people worried about this measure is that it is indicative of the direction our country is headed. What sorts of countries have forced people to identify themselves? Totalitarian ones. The Nazis were meticulous record keepers. They had tabs on every individual in society and thus could carry out their insidious program. We should not forget that the Jews of Germany were forced to identify themselves with papers and an ID tag of sorts. "Oh God! Surely you’re not comparing your situation to those Jews of Germany! Are you?" People always question why the Jews "went like sheep to the slaughter." It is because people unfailingly assented to the government and its plans. A police state doesn’t occur overnight; those objecting to the Nazi Germany analogy need only understand that by the time the situation gets bad enough to compare Bush with Hitler accurately, it will be too late. Better we get to work now while we still live in relative freedom. But to further the analogy: What of the students who have Jewish last names? Is that not a form of identifying them as such? And branding people with numbers as a form of dehumanization was a favorite tool at the Nazi death camps. Comparing this move to those of the Nazis is extreme to say the least – but we have to remember that it is only extreme in degree. The principle employed by both authorities is the same: In order to live in a more secure, virtuous society, we should put our trust in the government. And this is why I loathe the ID cards so much. They represent a collectivist mentality; these lofty goals of "security" and "efficiency" are placed above the rights of the individual. So the case against the ID cards becomes simple – I don’t want to wear one and shouldn’t have to if it doesn’t harm anyone else. Now onto my principal’s first point. He asserts that "one of his basic charges I have as principal…is the health and safety of our school community." With this statement Papa Principal has carte blanche and assumes the role of mother and personal savior to make us safe. But does security really trump all? The simple fact of the matter is that as a teenager I am infinitely more likely to die in a car crash than a school shooting. So why doesn’t he take away our right to drive? And what about heart disease? Should Papa tell us what we are allowed to eat in school? It is a noble goal to provide us with a safe environment, but not when this "safety" takes precedence over all else. Life involves risk. It should be up to the parents and their child to decide what risks they are willing to take; this is not the choice of some bureaucrat who has a minimal understanding of each individual. Next Principal tells us "our perception of school security has changed." He is correct. Whereas before he acted like a levelheaded adult, now he runs around like a chicken with his head cut off averring that, "them terrists is coming!" Because these changes did not occur after Columbine, it can be assumed that what "changed" perceptions was 9/11. How often have we heard this trite, neoconservative shibboleth? While the deaths of three thousand Americans are a horrible tragedy, let’s remember to put it in perspective. The National Safety Council reports that 1-in-730,490 Americans will die in bath-tubs each year. Emeritus Professor Michael Rothschild at the University of Wisconsin has calculated that if terrorists destroy one mall a month, a person has a 1-in-6,000,000 chance of being killed. Wouldn’t it then make more sense to install guards in every bathroom and require security cameras in every tub? Terrorists are evil people, but they are a ragtag bunch whose sole power comes from their arguments against American imperialism. No, it is not the foreign enemy that we should be wary of, but rather the domestic one – our own government. They are the ones who have the power to do the most harm to us. Most people know the terrorists are evil, whereas few are willing to speak out against our government. While we resist the terrorists, we acquiesce to the State; we give the government more power and more obedience. It is the government that can aggress and depredate under the guise of legitimacy. But to those not concerned about rights and human liberty, i.e. Republicans, these arguments mean nothing. They want a point-by-point debunking of the effectiveness of such security measures. It would seem logical that if it can be shown the ID cards will do nothing to make the school more secure, then we ought to abandon the endeavor. As I mentioned earlier, police states take time to develop. As Principal notes, wearing ID cards is simply, "the next step in this process" of making the school a safer place. The first step was for teachers to wear ID. Then they required visitors to "‘buzz in,’ sign in, and wear a nametag to enter the school." The obvious question is – how will these minor inconveniences deter a person intent on shooting up a school? Either the security threat will be a student, in which case having an ID card will actually help him, as he will have total access to the building; or the threat will be a psychotic adult, bent on murder. Do we really think for one second that this sociopath will feel any compunction lying to get into the building, forging a fake ID, or stealing/buying one from a student? His entire argument is predicated on this one tepid assertion, "With all student [sic] and staff wearing IDs we will know immediately if an unauthorized person is in our school." How? If someone sneaks into the building early in the morning with the students, how will the administration know? Are there going to be secret student police going around constantly checking people for IDs? What if a student’s ID is covered by his sweatshirt? Will he be tazed? The problem is you can never know immediately, unless the actions of every student are constantly monitored. What if the unauthorized person lies to get in? It doesn’t take a criminal psychologist to know that a bad person will lie to achieve his ends. And merely knowing that a criminal is in the building means nothing. Because response time cannot be immediate, there is still going to be great risk even if you know the person is in the building. So why not post armed guards in every classroom? [This is not a serious suggestion]. But no matter, "We have installed security cameras." Right. But if I am not mistaken, were there not security cameras at Columbine? If anything, I would argue those images gave fame to the two deranged students and offer an incentive for future students wanting to become famous on TV. What cameras are effective at is putting the students under the watchful eye of Big Brother. But who cares? Big Brother is just there for our safety and the videos will never be used for anything except catching the bad guys. Right? No tyranny ever proclaims that "We want to trespass on your liberties so that we can control the citizenry." No, it’s always, "You need to give up some of your freedoms to be safe. We can make you safe – is that not worth the minor inconvenience of cameras everywhere? And we pinky swear we won’t abuse our power." The bottom line is that these ID cards will do nothing to prevent any terrorism or lone gunmen scenarios. If anything, they could help identify students to possible shooters and give student shooters the all-access pass they need. Far from making the school safer, these IDs actually detract from the security of the building. The final argument made is that college students, vocational school students, and, presumably, our parents are forced to wear ID tags in the "real" world. But no parent or college student is forced to attend his job or school. Unlike the government, businesses and colleges have no right to compel people to follow their rules. As private property owners, colleges and business owners have the right to make whatever silly rules they want. But do not mistake the public school system for a private institution; because its "patrons" are coerced through compulsory attendance laws and its profits extorted through taxation, as long as the public school system exists, it must follow different rules than a private institution. We ought to err on the side of more freedom, not less, as students and parents are thrust into this arena with no choice. We must recognize that it is the student who is the victim; he should not be aggressed against any further. If private schools want to have ID tags, I have no objection to this. If private schools make the wearing of pink leotards compulsory, those committed to the idea of private property must not object. A person can choose not to attend private school; these schools have competition. A person must attend public school; his money has been stolen for this purpose, and he is thus coerced into doing so. But am I going to do anything about it? Practice civil disobedience? Of course not! As I mentioned earlier, I simply wanted to point out that this decision stands purely on brute force. It is immoral and unconscionable. As George Washington so forcefully asserted, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force." Once again I don’t advocate breaking the law. My retort to Thoreau’s "under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison," is one cannot do much for liberty stuck in a cell with a three-hundred pound felon who goes by "Alice." December 13, 2007 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. He was a summer fellow at the Mises Institute in 2007. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com |
