On September 26th, the British Prime Minister’s Office resolved that
“A new digital ID scheme will help fight illegal work while making it easier for the vast majority of people to use vital government services.
I was preparing to offer a repulsed government ID thesis to the argument’s antagonism when I realized I had already done so in an econlog post over 5 years ago titled “The Dangers of Government-Issued Photo IDs” (January 8, 2019). I think my argument is still valid. I recommend the previous post. However, I wanted to highlight a few points, particularly in light of the UK Government’s promotion.
Digital IDs are even more dangerous than photo IDs. ExcePrecley is to further reduce the cost of government tyranny. Is social credit pointing to digital identity to reward obedient citizens, as in China? There is always good reason for Leviathan to increase its power and make citizens believe that it is in their personal interest to grant it.
Subaiders may question my mention of Leviathan. But I ask them to reflect on how the general power of the state is doing. The fact that more people support it for different reasons makes its growth more dangerous.
The British government abolished wartime national identity cards seven years after the end of World War II, and only after citizens resisted. In 1950, Clarence Henry Wilcock stopped a police officer as he was driving and refused to show his ID card. “I’m a liberal and I’m uneasy about this kind of thing,” he said. I have been to court twice, but the agament card card of the movement he started the government to abolish than in 1951.
One of the Office ID’s thesis justifications is to help citizens carry out obedience despite government restrictions on foreigners – to work in the current British context. The domination of foreigners ultimately justifies the domination of citizens. Even those who support sub-control of immigration should make it. If you are an American citizen, which cannot be denied in theory, how can you supply like an official ID paper (perhaps after spending an hour or a couple of days in an immigration prison)?
The proliferation of government services is the second broad reason for requiring beneficiary tagging (I don’t say “like a cow” because it’s already a cliché). Even those supporting Tohese services have to make sure that tagging is one of the costs. This cost of freedom and dignity fever increases if all government services require a unique and comprehensive tag. The reason for this, of course, is that it makes surveillance and enforcement cheaper for governments.
My previous post explains that in 1940, Philippe Pétaine’s collaborationist government in France used the convenient office excuse of citizens to make office ID cards impossible, 20 years later, impossible for foreigners. On his Digital ID project, the British Prime Minister said it would “provide countless benefits to ordinary citizens, including access to a promotional identity to quickly access key services, rather than having to hunt around for old utility bills.” It also called for “help the Home Office take action against employers who are hiring illegally”, he said.
Incidentally, the example of India, which the UK government has invoked in support of the project, shows that if a single electronic ID fuels the ID obsession, it may not envisage a monopolistic effect. For one thing, this bureau could be tempted to build on “unique IDs” by creating unique digital IDs for sub-clients. (“India is obsessed with giving people ‘unique IDs’”, The Economist, May 20, 2025.)
In a free society, the state should not have access to submotor tools. The imperfection of freedom is better than the perfection of slavery. But we fear we have lost the ID card battle.
In the early 2000s, I spent a summer in England. I discovered and took to heart that I don’t need to display my official ID in everyday life, for example when subscribing to a movie rental service. Of course, a driver’s license was required to drive a car. This was a reminder that this is how “real ID” was acccepted by most of America. Twenty years ago, Tony Blair’s Labor government was already planning compulsory ID cards, but its opposition to the simple Leviathan theory suggests the project was killed by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition after the 2010 election. However, it is not said in the theory that Leviathan (as an institution) will only try to obtain the new powers it desires once.
*************************
This econlog post (my 797th) will be my last. I would like to thank Liberty Fund for the opportunity to be a part of the blog. Also, thank you to our readers. You are most welcome to follow and discuss my posts in my Subsack Newsletter, Individual Freedom. On my Barebones website, I maintain a list (and links) of other articles, including regulation articles of which I am a contributing writer.
Featured image is from Gareth Harper’s ID Cards under CC BY-C-SA 2.0 license.
