A very bad idea, the 2011 census long form will be voluntary

[Scott Free]

The government needs to justify why it wants our personal information. We are not a possession of the government and it has no "right" to our information. If filing a census were made mandatory it would be an act of violence against free people. Admittedly such acts are so common most people don't even notice them but still, making a census voluntary is a refreshing move in the right direction.

 

[AnnaG]

The government needs to justify why it wants our personal information. We are not a possession of the government and it has no "right" to our information. If filing a census were made mandatory it would be an act of violence against free people. Admittedly such acts are so common most people don't even notice them but still, making a census voluntary is a refreshing move in the right direction.

Yup. Voluntary is good, but if the gov't doesn't have good information on people, things could get pretty ugly for those people. So if the gov't acts stupidly on the info it has because it didn't have good info, then whoever chose to not do a form has no right to whine.

 

[Scott Free]

Yup. Voluntary is good, but if the gov't doesn't have good information on people, things could get pretty ugly for those people. So if the gov't acts stupidly on the info it has because it didn't have good info, then whoever chose to not do a form has no right to whine.

If wishes were fishes we'd all be kings.

The "if" game isn't convincing.

Consider this argument:

If government had good information things could get ugly.

It is just as valid.

Your argument about the legitimacy of complaining is likewise fallacious. The right to complain does not hinge on ones participation in the theater created by authority. Authority must at all times justify its violence. People are under no obligation to justify themselves under oppression. A demand for explanations would only be made by someone who profited from said violence and oppression (or were so badly off they thought they did and so thereby support it).

 

[AnnaG]

If wishes were fishes we'd all be kings.

The "if" game isn't convincing.

Consider this argument:

If government had good information things could get ugly.

It is just as valid.

Your argument about the legitimacy of complaining is likewise fallacious. The right to complain does not hinge on ones participation in the theater created by authority. Authority must at all times justify its violence. People are under no obligation to justify themselves under oppression.

You feel oppressed? Someone twisted your arm to fill out a census form? They hooked you up to a polygraph to make sure you weren't lying when you answered questions? lmao

So according to your "logic", someone that does not vote in elections has just as much right to whine about a politician as someone who did vote. Sorry, but I think that's more of a privilege than a right.
My suggestion would be for you to avoid doing censuses and quit whining at those who don't mind them.

 

[Scott Free]

So according to your "logic", someone that does not vote in elections has just as much right to whine about a politician as someone who did vote. Sorry, but I think that's more of a privilege than a right.

Prove it.

Otherwise you are just making a subjective value judgment.

 

[AnnaG]

Prove it.

Otherwise you are just making a subjective value judgment.

Hey, life's a biT ch, ain't it. Your opinion that long forms should be gotten rid of is also a subjective value prejudice, especially when you seem to want to convince everyone else that they should be just the same as you. Difficulties are metastatic, Scott. *Plays the violin for you*

 

[Scott Free]

Hey, life's a biT ch, ain't it. Your opinion that long forms should be gotten rid of is also a subjective value prejudice, especially when you seem to want to convince everyone else that they should be just the same as you. Difficulties are metastatic, Scott. *Plays the violin for you*

I didn't say they (census) should be gotten rid of but that making them mandatory was an assault on freedom and could be dangerous. I think it follows that an assault on freedom is necessarily dangerous which is why authority needs to be justified (especially when handing out edicts). In the case of a mandatory census it isn't justified given their historic missuses.

When you said someone who doesn't vote hasn't the right to complain I thought you were presenting a priori, and that you could prove it. My mistake.

I challenged you because I wanted to hear your argument but apparently you don't have one.

Do you know how much of what you believe is just opinion? I'm not being an @$$ I'm just curious.

 

[JLM]

Alright then. Let's try it nice and simple then.

Why is the census unnecessary? You've mentioned computers, but having a computer without a census means that people will need to spend many hundreds of hours tabulating data, just to get to the point where it is usable, if enough data even exists on that subject to come close to the coverage of a census.

Then you mentioned cost. Well the census is still going to proceed, except they're going to send out more forms. That is an extra cost...

I really don't care about winning or losing, I don't come on here for that. And I don't mince words.

I do care about the competitiveness of my country. This is going to hurt our nation, it won't make it better. It won't save us money. It will decrease productivity. It will make the true effects of policy on the poor and uneducated difficult to ascertain. It will add costs, and thus barriers, to entrepreneurs.



Yes, well like I said, you get what you give.

OK I'm going to continue being a nice guy and meet you half way. A census once every 50 years is probably acceptable just make sure the info is on track. All the information that will be gleaned from a census, the gov't already has. The know how many people there were at the time of the last census - they have birth, death, immigration and emmigration records since, so it's a simple matter of adding and subtraction. As far as the demographics go, there is a record of everyone over 65 because they receive a gov't cheque every month. Everyone in school, university, hospital or in prison is a matter of Gov't record. Everyone who pays property taxes is on gov't record. Everyone who receives welfare or E.I. is on Gov't record. So you tell me why we need these mindless census every 5 years at a cost of probably $20 a head when the Gov't is $1/2 trillion in debt? :smile::smile::smile: Oh yeah, I forgot there are people like D.B. Cooper and Jimmy Hoffa floating around the country.

 

[AnnaG]

I didn't say they (census) should be gotten rid of but that making them mandatory was an assault on freedom and could be dangerous. I think it follows that an assault on freedom is necessarily dangerous which is why authority needs to be justified (especially when handing out edicts). In the case of a mandatory census it isn't justified given their historic missuses.

oooo Yes, beware the dreaded mandatory questionnaire. Never mind gov't makes stupid decisions about healthcare and other things anyway. :roll:

When you said someone who doesn't vote hasn't the right to complain I thought you were presenting a priori, and that you could prove it. My mistake.

There ya go, quit thinking.
I don't have caucasian colored skin, so that means I have the right to complain about it, right? :roll:

I challenged you because I wanted to hear your argument but apparently you don't have one.

Because your premise wasn't worth arguing about. DUH!

Do you know how much of what you believe is just opinion? I'm not being an @$$ I'm just curious.

You want me to tally it up? :roll:

It's simple; if the gov't wants to send out long forms they can deposit a pile in each post office and tell people who want to fill them out to pick one up.It's a lot easier and cheaper than posting them individually out.

 

[Scott Free]

oooo Yes, beware the dreaded mandatory questionnaire. Never mind gov't makes stupid decisions about healthcare and other things anyway. :roll:

Exactly my point. The amount of data the government has isn't going to prevent them from making bad decisions but it may very well help them in making diabolical ones.

So the basic premise that good information is better than bad is false because it depends on how that information will be used. We know it won't be used well, it might be used in our interest but maybe not, but we also know it could be used for diabolical purposes.

It is therefore my opinion that the risk is too great since it is most probable good information won't make any difference and it is also probable that the information will be used against our best interests. There is only a small chance it will be used in a way that would benefit me or anyone else (except the elitist pigs at the trough that is).

 

[AnnaG]

Exactly my point. The amount of data the government has isn't going to prevent them from making bad decisions but it may very well help them in making diabolical ones.

.... and bad or no info would probably make things worse.

So the basic premise that good information is better than bad is false because it depends on how that information will be used. We know it won't be used well, it might be used in our interest but maybe not, but we also know it could be used for diabolical purposes.

Good info is still more likely to be of more benefit than bad info.

It is therefore my opinion that the risk is too great since it is most probable good information won't make any difference and it is also probable that the information will be used against our best interests. There is only a small chance it will be used in a way that would benefit me or anyone else (except the elitist pigs at the trough that is).

Fine. We disagree.

 

[JLM]

.... and bad or no info would probably make things worse.

Good info is still more likely to be of more benefit than bad info.

Fine. We disagree.

I think the intent is to probably put the information to GOOD use. However the point is moot because the information they are "gleaning", they already have...................just a sure means of p*ssing $millions down the toilet........:lol::lol::lol:

Anyone who thinks the gov't doesn't have all the info they, just omit $1 from your income tax payment, I'll guarantee you'll be hearing from them before next April.

 

[Tonington]

OK I'm going to continue being a nice guy and meet you half way. A census once every 50 years is probably acceptable just make sure the info is on track.

I disagree. Take the period from 1950-2000. If you're a researcher using 1950 census data in the 1990's, well you don't have any data after AIDS became known, so you can't do any kind of epidemiological work to identify trends in the most at risk groups. You can't even formulate a plan of action on how to best manage the disease.

All the information that will be gleaned from a census, the gov't already has.

No, they really don't. Which government database will have the percentage of homeowners and tenants in your area? The Census will. see, it's the Census which obtains the information that the government departments have. If you drop the census, then you don't have government departments with all of the detailed information contained in the census.

The know how many people there were at the time of the last census - they have birth, death, immigration and emmigration records since, so it's a simple matter of adding and subtraction.

The "government" includes municipal, provincial, and federal levels of bureaucracy. The census information is not easily stitched together from multiple levels of government.

As far as the demographics go, there is a record of everyone over 65 because they receive a gov't cheque every month.

And anyone who pays taxes. But the number of pensioners collecting a cheque doesn't tell the full story of the over 65 group. There are some which don't collect a cheque. Some maybe working still. If you want a more complete picture, you need a census. That is what a census is meant for. In fact, it would be more expensive to pay people to collect and collate this information than it is to collect the census.

Everyone in school, university, hospital or in prison is a matter of Gov't record.

Right, but again these aren't complete pictures. How far do the students in your district have to travel to get to school? Are university students using public transit, or driving?

And again, these are different levels of government.

Why do you want to make it more difficult? The census is easy.

And just so we're clear, what is your position on the actual topic of this thread? Do you favour poor quality data as Scott Free does? Because that's what is going to happen. So the merits of no census or a census are really ancillary, as the actual choice here is good quality data, or poor quality data.

 

[Scott Free]

.... and bad or no info would probably make things worse.

I don't think so. It seems to me a less thorough bad decision and a less thorough diabolical decision are both much more preferable than if they were thorough.

Good info is still more likely to be of more benefit than bad info.

Again I don't think so. Since we agree that government mostly make bad decisions, it seems better information would only increase their ability to make even worse decisions.

It seems therefore to me we are better off limiting their information.

Even if you dispute that government mostly make bad decisions or that they do because they have bad information you cannot dispute that they make their decisions in their own best interest not yours. It follows therefore that government will, with better information, only make better decisions in their best interest not yours.

So either way...

But perhaps you think your best interests are in common with the governments as Tonkahead seems to think?

The only way I can see someone believing that is if they are young and naive. I do not mean that as an ad hominem. Perhaps you work for the government or are in government? I could see you favoring more information then, but then, of coarse, we would be enemies and it is quite right that we disagree.

 

[Tonington]

But perhaps you think your best interests are in common with the governments as Tonkahead seems to think?

Straw man. Hack away at it all you want, but that's not at a;ll what I think, and certainly not what I said. I'll refresh your memory:

It's also used by the watch dogs, and by regulators. It's used by citizens to call bull $hit on the government as well.

But if the data doesn't allow us to call bull $hit, then that's shifting power towards the law makers...

So yeah, a straw man argument.

 

[Scott Free]

Straw man. Hack away at it all you want, but that's not at a;ll what I think, and certainly not what I said. I'll refresh your memory:



So yeah, a straw man argument.

Hmmm... well I don't think it's a straw man since I was arguing against someone who thought as I thought you did; I wasn't actually arguing against you or your argument.

Still, it's nice to see you're not quite so naive.

 

[AnnaG]

I think the intent is to probably put the information to GOOD use. However the point is moot because the information they are "gleaning", they already have...................just a sure means of p*ssing $millions down the toilet........:lol::lol::lol:

Anyone who thinks the gov't doesn't have all the info they, just omit $1 from your income tax payment, I'll guarantee you'll be hearing from them before next April.

Um, how do you think the gov't got that info? Don't you think that info changes any faster than 50 years? Lemme see, between 1980 and now, Detroit's population has dropped by almost a half million (roughly 1% per year). People just moved out and left buildings and houses without notification. Gov't assumes it'll be getting a larger taxbase than it actually gets. I can see loads of complications. For instance; without the knowledge of an accurate population count, perhaps it closed 8 hospitals rather than 5.......

 

[Tonington]

Hmmm... well I don't think it's a straw man since I was arguing against someone who thought as I thought you did; I wasn't actually arguing against you or your argument.

Still, it's nice to see you're not quite so naive.

I clearly don't think that way, how you could confuse what I said as seemingly believing that the governments interests and mine are the same, are beyond me.

It indicates a problem in your comprehension of what I have said, directly to you no less, or failed rhetoric.

 

[AnnaG]

I don't think so. It seems to me a less thorough bad decision and a less thorough diabolical decision are both much more preferable than if they were thorough.

So you prefer a chaotic mess rather than an ordered mess. Good for you.

Again I don't think so. Since we agree that government mostly make bad decisions, it seems better information would only increase their ability to make even worse decisions.

Wrong. You said that, I didn't. I said it makes bad decisions. I think gov't makes mostly good decisions based on the info that it does get and it's the time between decision and result that screws things up.

It seems therefore to me we are better off limiting their information.

Even if you dispute that government mostly make bad decisions or that they do because they have bad information you cannot dispute that they make their decisions in their own best interest not yours. It follows therefore that government will, with better information, only make better decisions in their best interest not yours.

So either way...

you based this on the assumption that I said gov't makes mostly bad decisions. IOW, your premise is gibberish.

But perhaps you think your best interests are in common with the governments as Tonkahead seems to think?

Nope. I think the gov't acts in what it thinks is the best interest of the total population. You're assuming again.

The only way I can see someone believing that is if they are young and naive. I do not mean that as an ad hominem. Perhaps you work for the government or are in government? I could see you favoring more information then, but then, of coarse, we would be enemies and it is quite right that we disagree.

We disagree because I think you are myopic and can't see the ramifications of a gov't acting upon bad info.

Suppose the gov't thought its population was becoming more and more conservative and in fact the people wanted better universal healthcare, more regulation over business, etc.?

 

[Scott Free]

I clearly don't think that way, how you could confuse what I said as seemingly believing that the governments interests and mine are the same, are beyond me.

It indicates a problem in your comprehension of what I have said, directly to you no less, or failed rhetoric.

No, that is what you said.

I am glad you've changed your mind though. ;-)