Lo stato brasiliano vuole acquisire i dati biometrici di oltre 140 milioni di elettori in modo da rendere le prossime elezioni “sicure”. Per arrivare a ciò si pensa che sia necessario catalogare le impronte digitali di tutte le dita, la fotografia e la firma di ogni persona. Il nuovo certificato elettorale riflette queste informazioni. Senza questo certificato, lo stato non può imporre l’embargo economico contro l’individuo, che a questo punto non potrà più richiedere un passaporto per scappare dal paese.

Il certificato elettorale non è che uno dei tanti strumenti di identificazione e sorveglianza nelle mani del governo brasiliano: la carta d’identità (che tutti dovrebbero portare sempre con sé), il CPF (il codice fiscale brasiliano), la patente di guida, il certificato che attesta il servizio militare o l’esenzione (obbligatorio per gli uomini), il libretto di lavoro, il passaporto, il certificato di nascita, il certificato di matrimonio…

Uno pensa che il governo ha già abbastanza informazioni sui suoi soggetti ma, apparentemente, il bisogno di rendere “sicura” la “celebrazione della democrazia” vuole che la gente dia informazioni ancora più personali alle autorità. Se occorrono tutte queste informazioni per rendere il voto sicuro, non è che le elezioni passate erano una frode? Chissà.

Ovviamente è tutta una finzione, una cortina di fumo che serve a nascondere l’ennesimo passo verso la concentrazione del potere totalitario nelle mani dello stato. La scusa relativamente innocua delle elezioni sicure è solo un precedente messo su per garantire allo stato un potere di controllo della popolazione ancora più ampio e, più in là, chiedere ulteriori informazioni private.

Niente di tutto ciò è necessario. Neanche l’obbligo di voto è necessario. Lo stato continua a far finta che l’obiettivo sia garantire elezioni esenti da frodi quando, in realtà, potrebbe benissimo abolire l’obbligo di voto e smetterla di punire chi non vota. Senza l’obbligo di voto, le ragioni alla base della schedatura degli elettori sono irrilevanti.

La più grande ironia è che il Brasile avrà, teoricamente, un sistema di identificazione sicurissimo e, allo stesso tempo, un sistema di voto elettronico immune da contestazioni. È praticamente impossibile sapere se la macchinetta elettorale non è soggetta a frode, visto che non esiste un sistema indipendente di verifica e revisione, né esiste una ricevuta per l’elettore. La macchinetta è una scatola nera, contestata solo da frange estreme dell’élite, come Leonel Brizola, deriso e disprezzato ogni volta che sollevava dubbi al proposito.

Questo è il sistema elettorale perfetto per la classe di governo: Combina il massimo della sorveglianza, l’obbligo di voto che garantisce un’affluenza altissima, e nessuna possibilità di verifica e conteggio indipendenti. Legittimità totale dello stato, dunque, e nessun dubbio sul suo potere.

Il sogno del totalitarismo tropicale morbido.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

The Brazilian state intends to acquire the biometric data from more than 140 million voters in order to make our next elections “secure.” For that goal, it is supposedly necessary to collect, from every person, the fingerprints from all fingers, their picture and signature. The new voter registration card is produced reflecting the newly collected information. Without this card, the state directs an economic embargo against the individual — who is no longer able to get a passport to flee from the country.

The voter card is but one of the many tools of identification and surveillance the Brazilian government possesses: ID (which should be carried at all times by every person), CPF (the registration to the federal revenue service), driver’s license, military enlisting or dispensation certificate (mandatory for men), employment record book, passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate …

One would think the government should have sufficient information about its subjects, but, apparently, the need to make voting “secure” for the “celebration of democracy” requires people to turn over even more of their private data to the authorities. If so much information is necessary for us to have secure voting, is it possible that our previous elections have been a fraud? We are left to wonder.

Of course, all of this is but a lie, a smokescreen designed to distract from the fact that this is another step towards total power concentration in the state. The relatively innocuous purpose of guaranteeing clean elections is just a precedent put in place so that the government can amass even more power to control the population and, down the line, demand even more private information.

None of this is necessary. It is also not necessary that voting should continue to be mandatory in Brazil. The state continues to pretend that its purpose is to guarantee elections free of fraud when, in fact, it could easily just end the obligation to vote and stop punishing those who do not. Without mandatory voting, the argument to relist the voting population is irrelevant.

The biggest Brazilian irony is that we will have, theoretically, an extremely safe identification system while, on the other hand, we have an electronic voting system immune to contestation. It is virtually impossible to know if the electronic ballot box is not prone to fraud, since there are no independent means of verification and auditing, and no physical voting receipts. The Brazilian electronic voting is a black box, whose only opponents are those on the fringes of the ruling elite, such as Leonel Brizola, who are promptly laughed at and scorned should they raise any doubts over it.

This is a perfect electoral system for the ruling class: It combines maximum surveillance, mandatory voting which guarantees very large turnout, and no possibility of independent verification and recounting. Therefore, we have total legitimacy for the state and no questioning of its power.

It is the dream of the gentle tropical totalitarianism.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Totalitarismo Identificativo.

I go to school at Arizona State University in Tempe, which is a few miles east of central Phoenix. A sizable handful of libertarians including myself have been very active in the protests against SB1070 at the state capitol and elsewhere. In my observations, there have been very few non-Latinos who care enough about the bill’s passing to show up in protest. By virtue of our being present, us mostly white libertarians were racially profiled and asked many sincere questions by Latino individuals regarding who we were and why we cared about the bill’s passing, as we would not be directly impacted or negatively profiled.

We outlined the nonaggression principle for those we spoke to and summarized the idea that as long as one is being peaceful one should be left alone. We stated that it doesn’t matter what color, ethnicity, region of origin, or any other secondary characteristic one possesses, but that purely by being nonaggressive, individuals should be free to make choices for themselves on where to live and who to voluntarily associate with. We handed out thousands of fliers on this message and generally received a very pleasant welcome.

It was not all lovely and earnest welcoming though. I flew my Free State Project Gadsden flag and occasionally donned a Guy Fawkes mask, which created a mixture of genuine intrigue and warrantless scorn. Many people assumed I was there in support of SB1070 because protestors who supported restrictive immigration policies showed up with Gadsden flags earlier in the week to demonstrate before loud crowds with megaphones scared them off to the indictment of “white supremacist!”

One lady called me a teabagger, and one gentleman told me to go fuck myself. I kindly alerted him that I was there in opposition to the bill, to which he replied, “Oh, let me grab a flier then!”

This really bummed me out. Any individual who flies a Gadsden flag against peaceful immigration and freedom of movement is so terribly confused that it breaks my heart. It is the equivalent of flying a black flag for statism. What else could “Don’t Tread on Me” mean besides “I want to be left in peace?” The deradicalization of this flag as symbolized by its vulgar use in the Tea Party Movement (when not flown by principled libertarians who sporadically pepper the Tea Parties) means another radical symbol has been moderated; another element in the language of revolution has come to stand for blasé reformism and some vague idea of what a ‘just’ government should be.

Personal Gadsden-flying experience aside, the great bulk of the rhetoric opposing this bill at the rallies and through the media has come to focus on racialized enforcement of the law and racial profiling. Despite reassurances from SB1070 sponsor and state senator from Mesa Russell Pearce that “Illegal is not a race, it is a crime,” law enforcement is given quite a long reach to determine what is reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. This will realistically mean that day laborers soliciting their agorist services, individuals speaking Spanish in public in an English speaking country, and eating at Filiberto’s could be construed as reasonable suspicion of undocumented immigration status. Brown individuals in Arizona have already been detained and arrested for not having proof of their citizenship while ‘in’ the country. My friend was asked for his documents while out drinking at Tempe’s local hot spot Mill Avenue by a cop on a Segway in a goofy but intimidating display of force.

This racialized enforcement will be short-lived however. By focusing on the racial profiling aspects of this bill, activists neglect to address the fact that in its benevolent spirit of fairness the state will agree to treat us all as equals under the 14th Amendment and will soon be arbitrarily asking for the documents of all citizens. Yes, the old familiar libertarian fear of “Papers, please,” will soon be coming to Arizona.

Obsessing over racial profiling is a good way to scare up support. A solid chunk of Americans instinctively recoil from what is presented as a racist policy and oppose it on those words alone, but this is but one small nibble of the immigration chimichanga. This focus obscures larger menaces that loom ahead.

I am far from the first to note that the state created an immigration problem through the welfare state. When Arizona utilized its 10th Amendment rights to enforce immigration restrictions to protect their racket from becoming overburdened, the country at large responded in outrage. Democrats in full Hegelian majesty are now swooping in to save the country and undocumented immigrants through biometric national ID cards and equal enforcement of mandatory identification statutes in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The ability to remain anonymous in what is still a relatively open society is drying up. Aw, shucks. Look at the feds protecting our privacy and well-being. Their concern is really quite touching.

This being primarily a racial issue illustrates the ways in which the debate has been framed to exclude from public discourse the sovereign nature of the individual, the downfall of welfare statism, and the irrationality of closed border policies. Without tackling these core problems, repealing SB1070 will be just another example of politics as rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

If you are an activist regarding this issue, please join me in attempting to steer the debate away from the focus on racialized enforcement and to rally people against closed border policies and statist invasions of privacy. Otherwise the 14th Amendment is going to back us straight up against the fence of the equal opportunity cattle yard.