Regarding number 2: - Great question. I can only answer with Milton Friedmann's criteria. Just a refresher in "Free to Choose" Friedmann, citing Adam Smith, argued that it was appropriate that government have at least three duties:
1) protecting society from violence and invasion
2) establising an exact administration of justice
3) erecting and maintaining certain public works, which are never in the interest of any one individual, because the profit could never repay the expense of any one individual although it may do much to repay a great society.
To Smith's third criteria Friedmann added a cost benefit criteria, which is that the third party effects of government action (e.g. taxation, unintended consequences) must be sufficient to justify planned action relative to a free market barometer.
In this case, the costs of doing government science are relatively low for human freedom - e.g. relatively speaking the census doesn't cost a lot, it also has a pretty limited impact on privacy - the views of people on this board not withstanding and it has a huge benefit in terms of its impact on social policy.
For example, census data has shown that welfare DOESNT work and that more police don't necessarily prevent crime - both of these are potentially important for liberty loving activists. Its also possible to use census data to estimate the number of illegal individuals living in the states - you can use birth rates and work backwards.
The point is that census data makes sense in its current framework - it can yield a huge public benefit and there really isn't a good private solution for it.
Just for the record, I not an advocate of bigger government. I am an advocate for good census data and I believe it makes sense in the current framework.
Best,
James
