Smash the State

A while back, I posted a semi-rant on folks in The Family who seem to have their lives on hold until after “the revolution”. Joey at The Freedom Symposium followed up with some observations of his own, and we started a conversation which was interrupted by his taking some time off. Now that he’s back, I’ll revisit the subject and perhaps even include what I’d thought was the main point of my first post, but which got left out entirely!

It’s come to this at last. Governments around the world are calling for national ID (NID) cards, or for increasing the security measures on existing cards. The justification, of course, is the current war on terrorism. Ask “Cui bono?” (Who benefits?) of 9-11 and the answer looks increasingly like “Authoritarians everywhere.”

And I do mean everywhere. NID hype is playing loudest in the United States and Britain, yet other countries are working hard to join the goose-stepping. For example, Malaysia has recently instituted compulsory NIDs for citizens age twelve and up. The cards have computer chips which store copies of the subject’s fingerprints. Other places are considering similar moves.

NIDs—especially “smart cards” that can carry a great deal of encoded information—are viewed as the solution to many “problems” the Thought Police have. They can be used to: verify identity via biometric information; reveal banking, health, voting, and similar records; and track travel and purchases, for starters. Because of the presence of biometric information—supposedly unique body information, such as a fingerprint or retinal scan—these cards are touted as strong security against would-be terrorists. According to various polls, Americans are increasingly willing to accept a NID, primarily because they think that it will increase security.

Sovereign individuals ought to consider this NID movement as the most dangerous threat to liberty on the planet. (The enumeration-and-tracking fervor isn’t limited to the national scale; UN officials have heard a proposal for a global unique identifying number for each person in the world.) The more people can be tracked, monitored, and checked, the easier they are to control. The easier they are to control, the less free they are.

Particularly insidious are the so-called “voluntary IDs”. While originally used for apparently benign purposes (such as getting social welfare benefits in some Scandinavian countries), it’s usually an easy matter to expand their use, and the information required of the subjects. It’s also easy to take something that’s widely accepted on a voluntary basis and quietly make it mandatory. A clear case of function creep is the American Social Security Number; old cards stated that the number “is not to be used for identification purposes”. (The law says these ID uses are illegal too, not that the Department of Justice cares.) Anyone who’s tried to get a driver's license, passport, or even see a doctor without giving the number knows how antiquated that notion is. Many businesses won’t do business with someone who doesn’t give a number.

The databases collected by various interests are often sold, in whole or part (in America, this can include birth, marital, and driving records, banking information, medical records, credit card usage, and buying habits at stores with “discount” cards, such as supermarkets). If all these databases—plus whatever the Thought Police require on the card—use the NID number, it won’t take much to build a formidable dossier on anyone, without that individual’s knowledge or consent. The potential for misuse by petty bureaucrats becomes even greater, particularly against those who are viewed as unfriendly to their interests. And what might law enforcement officers with a license to destroy lives in pursuit of “state security” do? In the US, true patriots—and just about anyone who questions the war and any action relating to it—have already been given notice that they’re potential Thought Police targets.

Given the dire consequences, both of submitting to a NID and of refusing to be numbered, the choice to be made isn’t an easy one. Nor should it be made lightly. Let’s consider the pros and cons of each choice. First, the negatives:
1. If you submit to the NID, you are in the system, in the database, and along for the ride wherever the Thought Police and busybody bureaucrats decide to take you. Your every non-cash purchase may be trackable, along with all bank transactions. Your travel will certainly be monitored, and you could be required to register with the local Gestapo every time you move (it happens in many countries, and has been suggested in the US). Your medical records could be opened up to potential employers as well as LEOs who check your papers. Anyone who sees your number could access all kinds of sensitive information about you, without your knowledge or consent. It’s possible that inept busybodies—or malicious Thought Police types—could wipe you out of existence, or otherwise wreak havoc with your records, and therefore your life. If certain demographic information were included, you could be discriminated against. Much of your life will be open to The State, and your business will be conducted at their pleasure, not your need or desire. Your pro-freedom friends may call you a sellout, and you yourself may begin to question your adherence to your principles.

2. If you forego the NID, you’ll be outside the system, and depending on how diligently the state tracks and punishes those outside, your life may be better or worse than those inside. Already, getting meaningful employment without papers is all but impossible in many places, including the US. You may be severely limited in any aspect of living a normal life: no dealing with checks, credit cards, or anything but cash; no home mortgage or rental agreement; no driving; no flying; no medical care; and no respect from the mainstream community for holding fast to your principles. Indeed, if function creep proceeds so that a NID is required for every activity or transaction, you’ll not be able to set foot inside “civilization”. That may seem like a benefit, rather than a negative; but being outside isn’t always easy. While you are outside, many of your choices and opportunities are constrained by the very fact that you are free. You may become depressed if you choose to focus on this aspect of the situation. You may become a pariah, or worse, in your family or community. You yourself may begin to question the wisdom of your choice, as its challenges wear you down. You can be targeted by the state for “crimes” real or imagined. You can be separated from those you love. You can be killed.

Now, the positives:
1. Being in the system makes you much more able to transact business. This includes pursuing other pro-freedom strategies. Having papers gives you some degree of protection, so you can conduct whatever smash-the-state business you wish with fewer concerns about being an immediate target. Using the system against itself is a monkey-wrenching choice available mainly to those within the system; it’s an activity that can bring success and amusement. While in the system, you can help those who remain outside in a variety of ways. You can help them to do things they otherwise couldn’t. You can employ them, barter with them, support the grey market they rely on, or be a stop on the freedom underground railroad. With a little creativity and effort, many more possibilities offer themselves. Some offer little risk, others more. They all help you be true to your principles while appearing to go along.

2. Not being a cog in the immense state machine means that you do not support it in any way. The immense freedom that one feels as a result is amazing. The feeling of living in accordance with one’s principles is liberating, exhilarating. Knowing that you’re following the path that’s best for human nature can make many of the challenges of being outside worth bearing. You may become an inspiration to others, and may encourage others to follow the refusenik course. This will further weaken the state, helping us all to be freer of its poisonous influences. (If word of your non-cooperation gets around, you certainly will be an inspiration to others. It’s a difficult choice to make, but one very worthwhile if you’re committed to it and enter it realistically.)

I know from personal experience how lonely such a crusade can seem, particularly if you live in a statist haven and it seems you’re the only one who values freedom. I also know from personal experience that you aren’t alone. Part of the reason the thugs can institute wholesale destruction of liberty is the fear they instill. That fear is based on their willingness to back up their threats with force. Ruby Ridge, Michael New, Shirley Allen, Peter McWilliams, Elián González, Waco ... these are just a few examples.

Gandhi: the original refusenik?

I used the term refusenik earlier. If you aren’t familiar with it, refuseniks were the Soviet Jews who wanted to leave the USSR, but who were repeatedly denied permission. Because they wanted to leave, they were hassled in numerous ways, often for years. But they refused to go along with the Soviet system, enduring its worst until they died or were permitted to leave. They refused to cooperate.

If you think about it, Gandhi was perhaps the first well known refusenik. In both South Africa and India, he refused to cooperate with the tyranny of each state over its own citizens. His methods involved fighting back, to be sure, but in ways that were always calculated to show his opponent at its worst. (The movie Gandhi, starring Ben Kingsley, is an excellent introduction to the subject.) He did not initiate force, nor did he ever advocate the initiation of force by Indians. His path was that of non-cooperation.

In South Africa, where all “colored” individuals were required to carry identity papers and live as second-class citizens, Gandhi refused to carry the paper, and organized many Indians living there to join in. In India, he spoke out against British imperialism and through non-cooperation, brought about the end of British rule. One example from the movie is particularly compelling: salt manufacture and sale were heavily regulated, such that the British had a lock on both. In defiance of the law, Gandhi went to the sea and made salt. The British chose to ignore this action, but later decided to take action when hundreds of Indians followed Gandhi’s lead. In one scene, authorities loyal to Britain and Gandhi’s followers face off outside a salt-making company. The authorities beat off the Indians as they approach its gates. The Indians peacefully accept the blows, and keep coming. Some of the wounded rejoin the march, only to be beaten again. That demonstration encapsulated the essence of tyranny, and is widely regarded as the beginning of the end of British rule in India.

A difference in protests between the situations in India and the Soviet Union is that of organization. Gandhi became a symbol“and a lightning rod”for his cause. Millions of Indians came to join Gandhi’s cause, making their strength obvious. There is no comparable figure for the Soviet Jews who became the refuseniks. They acted individually, or in small groups. However, the results are essentially the same. With the world watching peaceable individuals who just wanted to be left alone to live their lives, and the tyrannical responses of the governments to them, tyranny backed off.

Making your choice

Let’s face it: the stakes are high. No matter how benign the stated purpose, no matter how trivial the information required by your local flavor of Thought Police, any NID is a privacy and security threat. With the ease of creating and altering computer records today, it would be a relatively simple matter for function creep to make that innocuous number the bane of your existence. It’s a shorter slide than any of us would like to consider from a NID to a Soviet or Nazi-style society. Your current situation may be tolerable, but how certain can you be that it will last? Do you really want the opposition forces who’ve just come to power to know you voted against them? Do you want your local sheriff to know how many and what kinds of guns you own? Do you think it’s anyone’s business what kinds of videos you like to watch?

Not cooperating will be uncomfortable, inconvenient, and ultimately, dangerous for many. But remember: sixty years ago, European Jews went along with Nazi requirements for papers. Then they went along with the yellow Star of David armbands. Then they went along with being herded into Jewish sectors. Then they went to the concentration camps—and into the gas chambers.

Life is full of difficult choices, and this time is no exception. But we do have a choice. In or out. Private protestor or active refusenik. I encourage everyone who values freedom to find some way of not cooperating with whatever identification or numbering scheme your local Thought Police have, or are working on. As Gandhi, the Soviet refuseniks, and others have showed, non-cooperation works.

Breathe in ... breathe out. Good. Do it again. I didn’t need the literal help remembering to breathe as I pounded through the frigid streets of this midwestern town, but repeating that phrase in my mind helped calm me. It also helped quell the all-too-real nausea that swept over me, and blocked reviewing what I’d just heard that caused it.

A group of us—Hunter, a couple other LRT friends and Knights, and my family—had just sat down to what promised to be a nice dinner. Jeff Jordan, AKA “the Hunter” to almost all his friends for years, had just been released from prison in Ohio. A traffic stop for speeding had turned into a nightmare (you can catch up on the story if necessary at the Liberty Round Table’s web site). Apparently something during the stop spooked the Ohio Highway patrolman (he claims he saw spare magazines or something like that on Hunter’s belt), and upon searching Hunter, apparently found two loaded weapons concealed on his person. After two nights in jail, Hunter was free on bond, and facing a felony charge of carrying a concealed weapon in Ohio. We were among the several friends close enough to help get him food, shelter, and clothing while the OHP retained possession of Hunter’s SUV and all its contents.

Hunter had told us about the stop, of course, and now we were moving on to other topics ... including those days in jail. It was chilling to hear my very good friend, a longtime ally in the freedom fight, talking about how “it wasn’t so bad” and how his jailers (Ashland county sheriffs, not the OHP) “were just doing their jobs”. How could an individual who loves freedom as much as Hunter does actually say those things?? But I’ve never been in jail; I’ve never undergone the ordeals of realizing my worst nightmare is coming true, of dealing with those who think it’s acceptable to restrict my freedom for something as trivial as driving faster than they think acceptable or painting my fence an unapproved color; I’ve never been tossed in a cell for days, unable to access anyone who might help, unknowing if anyone knows what’s happened to me ... or cares about it. Until I have, I can’t say what my response would be.

Then, after Hunter started winding down, first one friend, then another, began telling similar tales. Only some of them were even worse—they’d done nothing wrong, yet come to the unwanted attention of LEOs (law enforcement officers) anyway. One recounted how he’d discovered his pickup truck missing from its usual parking spot. When he called the police to report the theft, he got tossed in jail—and left there for a week!—because an LEO claimed to have received an anonymous tip that someone “saw somebody selling pot from it”. Nothing was found on my friend during the search, and his alibis all checked out, yet he was kept in a cage simply because some cop wanted him to be there.

Another spoke up, telling how he’d been something of a lead-foot when he was younger, and the local cops liked to harass him. After finding an “unregistered” handgun in his car during one traffic stop (this was in a state that allows concealed carry, but also allows pre-emption, so knowing all the local laws is next to impossible), he was held for several days while the LEOs apparently tried to get some dirt on him. Having failed, he was eventually released—but he never got his gun back, of course.

My mind began to spin—how could these things have happened? I looked at my dear friends—all of them individuals whom I know, and trust with my life—and the thought of them being caged like animals simply because some jackboot was on a power trip became too much for me to bear. Trying to utter something about needing some fresh air, I grabbed my coat and headed out the door.

Breathe in ... breathe out. Good. Do it again. I’m not a Pollyanna; I know that the justice system is heavily rigged in the state’s favor, and, being an entity of the state, it has become the “just us” system in terms of those it “protects and serves”. I regularly discover news reports of similar—or even worse—outrages peaceable individuals suffer at the hands of politicians, police, and courts alike in my work [note: I no longer do this work]. So I’m not naïve about what’s going on. Still, to hear all this was a shock. Why didn’t they ever tell me? .... What good would it have done to know?

I found myself outside the town’s “administrative complex”—where the police, local court, and other busybodies are housed. Suddenly sapped of energy, I sank onto a bench. Staring at the low, ugly utilitarian box, nearly empty at the relatively late hour, I tried to understand. How can those who work in that place actually think they’re doing good? What goes through their minds to justify their thefts of people’s time, money, and lives, every single day?

I couldn’t, of course. I’ve never wanted to control others, for as long as I can remember in my adult life and to some degree before that. If a person left me alone, I’d leave him alone. If someone wanted my cooperation, he’d get it if he could persuade me that doing so was in my interest as well; threats and other strong-arm tactics simply brought out my stubbornness. It had a lot of exercise courtesy of my siblings as I was growing up; rarely is it bested.

A police car drove by; the man inside looked at me with more than a passing glance. I considered my dress—jeans, cowboy boots, black leather coat—and the contents of my pockets, some of which would undoubtedly “alarm” him, maybe even be illegal to carry, and I realized that if he wanted to, he could come back and give me the same treatment Hunter and my other friends had experienced. Maybe even worse. I no doubt looked “suspicious”, an unfamiliar person sitting alone on that cold January night. As soon as I thought I’d be out of his visual range, I got up and went back to join the others, taking a circuitous route just in case he tried to find me.

Breathe in ... breathe out. Good. Do it again. As I pounded my way through the streets, barely better for my walk, a Rush tune popped into my head—not an unusual occurrence for me. But the song was one I don’t often think of; the lyric that came to mind goes “There is no safe seat at the feast ...”

I almost laughed at the irony and despair that surged through me. So many individuals still believe the myth of America—that this is the freest country on the planet, that if you’re right you’ll get your day in court and you’ll be vindicated by the jury, in a fair trial that is your “right”. So many Libertarians cling to the idea that the machinery of the state works, that it’s just “in the wrong hands”—and that if Libertarians are elected, the machinery will work properly. So many libertarians believe that some amount of “state service” is necessary to ensure and protect our liberties—that voluntary arrangements and free markets just cannot provide for the well-being of peaceable individuals, nor build healthy societies.

Here’s a metaphorical clue-by-four for everyone who fits into one of those categories: There is no safe seat at the feast. If you grant the state any authority over your property, body, or time, it will trickle through that chink and carve a cave out of your life and your mind. There’s simply no way to accommodate both individual liberty and the involuntary rule of some over others.

While I’m giving them away, here’s another clue-by-four: No one will ever value your freedom as much as you. If you value it little, you’ll get what you deserve. If you value it highly and act accordingly, the road will be rough, but at least at the end of your days you’ll be able to hold your head high, knowing that that you fought a good and righteous fight.

A colleague and too-infrequent correspondent of mine in the freedom movement has, for as long as I’ve known him, signed his emails with the line “Only interested in freedom”. The first time I saw it, my immediate response was, “Well, duh!!”, but over time I’ve come to appreciate some nuances inherent in the phrase. At the risk of sounding like a purist who wants to herd the cats, I’ve been finding myself wishing more liberty-lovers would adopt the line and its implications.

Anyone who’s been in the movement for more than a day knows that we are often our own worst enemies. Far and above all the divisiveness separating Objectivists and Libertarians or anarchists and minarchists is the human tendency to put our own personal interests or desires ahead of freedom. Thus one can find examples of individuals who say they’re anarchists supporting laws that coerce individuals into certain behaviors, or that prohibit nonfraudulent, voluntary transactions. In recent conversations with individuals, I’ve been surprised by emotionalism that often appears to be guiding their thinking, and the negative responses to even hypothetical situations that would challenge the world they want to see.

My recent time in the southwestern desert reaffirmed and refocused my commitment to the freedom movement. I discovered that I am, at heart, “only interested in freedom”. To me, that phrase has become a simple metric against which to measure any plan: will this increase individual freedom or decrease it? If it’s the latter, I’m against the plan.

I had no idea how unpopular such a simple thing could be.

If no one takes an extreme position for freedom and considers the possibilities, how will we know that our progress is truly that? Without a vision of total freedom to guide our day-to-day choices and thinking, it’s all too easy to be sucked into the quagmire of today’s unfree systems. I’m not arguing for a utopian solution, nor saying that a Grand Unified Plan for Freedom must be spelled out in excruciating detail before we act. Considering the “impractical extremes” that some libertarians dismiss is essential to our cause, and to our progress. So, for me, thinking about what kinds of justice services might be offered in a free society is just as important as opening individuals’ eyes to the current sham of justice under the so-called “rule of law”.

I’m only interested in freedom. That means that, as far as I’m able (and fortunately, I’ve a number of good friends who help me when my thinking gets muddled), I don’t let personal preferences cloud my thinking about freedom.

Thus, though I despise physical or psychological abuse, I do not advocate more laws to help solve those problems. There’s no “solving” something that is part of human nature (which is an animal nature, after all), and I firmly believe that we’d see far fewer cases of infanticide, fratricide, and related horrors in a free society. Similarly, while I don’t use many mind-altering substances, I see no reason why my preferences ought to dictate what any other responsible person can do in the privacy of his own home.

I long to see truly free markets. Consumerism has been an evolving process for millennia—why on earth should we think that it would stop simply because some don’t like the thought of “big-box stores” replacing smaller-box stores? Farmers used to sell their wares from their farms, or haul them to markets in the nearby towns to sell; then merchants came along to do that task. Then, “Mom and Pop” stores were largely swept aside by supermarkets that were able to offer greater variety and better prices, largely due to technological innovations and economies of scale. WalMart is carrying on the proud economic tradition of supplying consumer demand—something that I won’t shed a tear over. I’m happy to shop at WalMart because they offer a lot of what I want—decent merchandise at low prices. When I want something special, or a higher level of customer service, I patronize a specialty store, and happily pay for getting what I want. [Addendum: at the time I wrote this, I chose not to address the other side of the issue, viz. WalMart’s use of eminent domain and other laws to acquire property for stores. That has always been problematic for me. More importantly, as I have embraced the Discordian philosophy, WalMart has become part of the consumerist system I try to avoid feeding as much as possible.]

Zoning regulations that are thinly disguised protectionism for some special group or cause, laws that create artificial scarcity or monopolies, prohibitions on how an individual can earn a living—they’re all cut from the same statist cloth, and I want nothing to do with them. This has apparently horrified some self-proclaimed freedom lovers, for I’ve been called amoral and disloyal, among other things.

I’m only interested in freedom. What that means is that I don’t care what anyone thinks of me, and I don’t much care what anyone thinks of my ideas unless he can show me—with clear, reasoned arguments free of loaded definitions—where I’m wrong. If your view will help get us to a freer world, then I’m all for it. I don’t care if I’m right or if I’m wrong—I just want freedom.

What that means, though, is that no appeal to public good, general interest, or some other group-based outcome or situation will hold any truck with me. Individual liberty is always usurped under those banners. Far too long have they flown, keeping creative, innovative individuals in the thrall of the collectivists who would steal their labors for the benefit of others, under the guise of “public welfare” or some other convenient fiction. It is precisely this sort of horridly misguided justification of the theft of others’ time and labor that has enabled and encouraged the statists to continue to steal from each of us, under the guise of “doing good”.

It is not good to be a thief—which is what everyone becomes, whether he wants to or not under the state’s programs of welfare and other “services”. It is not good to be the recipient of stolen goods—which is what everyone becomes under as widespread a system of looting and redistributing as we see in the United States today.

I’m only interested in freedom. I’m not interested in dredging up all history’s mistakes and seeking retribution for them—there are too many, and no innocent parties among adults. I’m only interested in the past insofar as it sheds light on failed solutions, so that we may find better ones to light our way. Patents and copyrights try to create artificial scarcity—where, thanks to technological advances, none need exist in most areas. A state-supported monopoly is a monopoly of the worst sort; thus I embrace the changes that are coming to creative endeavors that seek to shrug off these outmoded monopolies. The change is going to be chaotic, and likely very difficult for many, as they adjust to the reality that their preferred way of earning a living will not suffice any longer. This has had personal implications for me, as I had the goal of supporting myself via my writing. But I’m more interested in freedom than serving my short-term wants.

I welcome the future, for all its chaotic change, because I’m confident that freedom will win. There’s nothing that the state need provide for us—private markets unfettered by taxation, state-driven artificialities, or other interference can meet human needs. Indeed, they can do so better, cheaper, and much more reliably.

It’s easy for an individual to say that he or she is interested in freedom—many people profess to be, every day. But many seem to want to be granted permission to be free—as if any state would voluntarily free all its slaves. Others agitate for freedom in some areas, while overlooking coercive measures that supposedly work to their benefit, or which allegedly help create a nicer world.

We can’t break free of our shackles if we don't have our hearts firmly committed to working toward total freedom. We won’t create a totally free utopia—but we can’t make as much progress as we might if we don’t set our sights on the highest goal possible.

I’m only interested in freedom. What about you?



Author’s note: This essay was inspired in part by Iloilo Marguerite Jones, to whom it is admiringly dedicated.

Anyone who’s been paying attention to the economic news has seen this announcement coming from a long way out: Vallejo, California, Officials Vote for Bankruptcy. If that is the start of a trend—and there’s good reason to think it might be—I think it could be a “making lemonade” opportunity for voluntaryists.

I am quite undecided about this turn of events in the housing market. Banks’ mail jingles as borrowers walk is the headline on a commentary by James Saft. For anyone who hasn’t come across the phrase “jingle mail” yet, it describes the phenomenon of homeowners walking away from a home because the debt owed is greater than its current value—and so, they mail the keys to the lender. The unmistakable signal jingle mail sends is, “I’m done here. The house is yours.”—thus breaking the mortgage contract. Is that wrong? I’ve seen a fair bit of commentary arguing both ways; but none of it has been from a pro-freedom perspective.

I don’t have much to say about it this time around, but Garry Reed did an excellent job of depicting the federal money-laundering system in We Are Taxbucks. Bravo, Garry!

One of the things some people are only now becoming aware of—and it’s happening now because of the increased focus on this sector of the financial industry, methinks—is that a nontrivial amount of Wall Street transactions are currently unregulated by federal and/or state law. As a New York Times article suggests, that seems about to change. Problem is, it won’t change in the direction that will help.

That’s what CLS posted in the wee hours this morning, but without a link to back up the claim. A Wall Street Journal article has the details (emphasis mine):

The account of Client-9's [Spitzer] appointment is part of a larger case that broke last week when federal prosecutors in Manhattan charged four people with organizing and managing an international prostitution ring, known as the Emperors Club VIP.

According to the complaint and the sworn statement, the Emperors Club arranged connections between wealthy male clients and more than 50 prostitutes in locations from New York and Washington to Paris and London. The club's Web site showed photographs of prostitutes' bodies, with their heads hidden, and ranked the women with a "diamond" system. Fees varied by rank, from $1,000 an hour to more than $5,500 an hour.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's inquiry began in October 2007, when it was triggered at least in part by a bank that filed "suspicious activity" reports on the New York governor with the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, according to a federal law-enforcement official and a lawyer involved in the matter. Suspicious activity reports are filed with the Internal Revenue Service when banks detect something unusual either through their tellers or software, including transfers of large amounts of cash, unknown counterparties, or the use of known tax havens and money-laundering centers.

The bank was concerned that Mr. Spitzer might have been engaged in "structuring," a money-laundering technique in which transactions are kept beneath $10,000 to avoid federal reporting rules, the official said. There has been a massive federal crackdown on money laundering in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and banks have been extremely diligent in filing such reports. Those reports often include details of transactions done by innocent people.

The suspicious transactions by Mr. Spitzer are a major part of the investigation, the federal official said, confirming a report by ABC News. It isn't clear if federal investigators were engaged in a crackdown on the prostitution ring when Mr. Spitzer entered their sights as an alleged client of the ring, or whether Mr. Spitzer's transactions helped trigger a probe of the prostitution operation.

So, as we were discussing previously, one can forget financial privacy from institutions. Cash is quieter; and with the economic turmoil cranking up, it may not be a bad idea for risk avoidance to keep a moderate stash on hand anyway.

It was just a matter of time, what with all the data-mining possible, and the increasing commoditization of information. Still it is sad to see that banks—once staunch defenders of privacy—have sold their souls for a few bits of coin.

Sorry, I’m still stuck in econ-land ... hard not to be fascinated by how exactly the USSA economic train is going to end up jumping the rails.

Two quotes, from two sources ... they seem to be saying contradictory things to me. If you want to play along for a few minutes, follow me ... but remember, I am not an economics whiz and that’s where we’re going for a spell.

The headline I saw this morning is cause enough for a bit of celebration: Real ID is postponed for 5 years. The main points:

The Bush administration hit the brakes Friday on a controversial law requiring Americans to carry tamper-proof driver's licenses, delaying its final implementation by five years, until 2017.

A number of states have balked at the law, objecting to it largely over cost and privacy concerns. But under the administration's new edict, states that continue to fight compliance with the law face a penalty: Their residents will be forbidden from using driver's licenses to board airplanes or enter federal buildings as of May 11 of this year.

Some might view that “penalty” as a negative, but I don’t, overall.

I see that Walter Block has continued with the deriding of anarchist non-voters for not supporting RP—or, as he puts it, “kicking people in the crotch”. (Yes, I know; it’s a lovely image of tolerance in the pro-freedom family, isn’t it?) He completely missed mine, but offered some interesting new gymnastics in the attempt, so I guess it’s my turn to add to the shouting again.

Presto shared this with me, and I have been remiss in both thanking him for it and sharing the love.