I have temporarily run out of abuse to heap on William Hague and his apology for a Conservative Party. Instead, I will discuss Tony Blair's proposal that every person arrested in England should have samples of DNA taken and stored. These samples, he says, are needed to help catch criminals. The usual "civil liberties" groups have started their usual whine about privacy—but will, as usual, get nowhere. I have done rather better in my two radio interventions on the matter, but do not hope that I can affect how the debate will end.

The problem is that whenever this sort of proposal is made, debate is constructed in terms of either consenting to exactly whatever is proposed, or doing nothing at all about crime. Within this structure of argument, opponents can be presented as indifferent to crime, or even as more interested in the rights of criminals than of their victims. The secret of winning such debates lies in persuading enough people to reject the assumptions that underlie the structure of debate. Let us briefly examine these assumptions.

First, it is assumed that a DNA database is essential if crime is to be reduced. This is not so. It would be better to legalise drugs. Millions of consenting acts that are presently illegal would then drop out of the crime figures. At the same time, competition from legitimate suppliers would bankrupt the criminal gangs that have turned parts of London and Manchester into low-intensity war zones; and lowered prices would reduce the vast number of burglaries and street crimes now committed by drug users.

For those acts still criminal we could have much stronger punishments. The notion that serious threats to lock criminals away for very long periods, or to flog or mutilate them, or to hang them, will have no deterrent effect is so laughable, that only someone with a Sociology degree could propose it and only a fool could really believe it.

Then the laws regarding self-defence could be changed. It is a scandal that respectable people in this country are not allowed to use whatever force they think necessary to defend their lives and property. Tony Martin is in prison for the bizarre crime of "murdering" a burglar. If he is to blame for anything, it is for his moderation in not going after the other two thieves who broke into his house and executing them as well.

Each by itself, these reforms would take us back to the crime figures of about 1970. Combined, we might find ourselves back in the 1950s. Of course, the authorities affect horror and even incredulity at the thought of doing these things. They would rather have their DNA database.

Second, it is assumed that a DNA database would reduce crime. Undoubtedly, it would have some effect, but this would be mostly against those criminals likely to be caught and punished in any event. There might at best be a small drop in the coast of policing.  But anyone aware of the optimistic claims made when fingerprinting was first introduced must know that the more intelligent criminals will simply take more care to hide their identity. That will need more this time than wearing gloves. But I doubt if it will need anything very hard or expensive.

Third, it is assumed that a DNA database would be used only for crime control. Even granting that our present rulers are entirely to be trusted—at the very least a dubious assumption—we cannot be sure what they will be like a generation from now. But we can be sure that a database set up now to cover those who are arrested will, without any positive extension, soon cover most of the adult population. It would a useful tool for any government wanting to decide who should and should not have children. I am sure that other tyrannical uses would soon be discovered. As Albert J. Nock once observed, every time we give a government power to do things for us, we also give it the power to do things to us. I cannot think of a better illustration of this truth than a DNA database.

These are the assumptions within which all present debate must proceed. So long as they continue unchallenged, there can be no effective opposition. I am proud of how well I challenged them in one of my radio interventions of last week. But I am sure that others can and will do better.