The purpose of the CENSUS and privacy - your opinions, please

[bravebulwark]

thanks for feedback so far

looking back I may have phrased my original post poorly

(BTW, i am no fan of the personal questions on the census)

my intent was to address the (IMO) false assertion many anti long form census people have

they take pride and caution about their personal details with the govt (rightfully so) but are very loose with the same information in the rest of their lives (stores, online shopping, etc)

if you are a person who keeps your data private from the govt as well as companies that means you do not:

- have a bank account
- buy anything online
- use store discount cards
- have any credit cards
- buy everything in cash
- etc, etc

every transaction you make has a history that is (possibly) logged and tracked by private companies unless you never identify yourself and always use cash

so unless you meet all the criteria above, you ARE agreeing to the release of some of your private data and history of actions by engaging with others

why do you protect nearly obvious data from the govt yet let that same data float around the world otherwise

(example: you have a satellite dish in your yard, you have a monthly bill online, and the land cable system has no open account with you yet you would not answer this question if it were on the census)

the only acceptable reason to me to resist these census questions is:

it's none of the govt's $^@%! business

which is good enough reason for me

but are there OTHER reasons you do not answer long form census questions?

 

[bravebulwark]

well...

No. They should be strictly prevented on pain of a life sentence in prison, hard time for any government official caught with any such data.

I'd put an end to that as well.

The same argument, backed by the force of a sufficiently motivated body of citizens.

A ridiculous assumption, given that the past 8 thousand years of documented human history has yet to produce a single example of this ever having occurred.

But granting this absurdity, the answer isn't "no", but rather "hell no" because "noble things" have resulted in more death and destruction of people than all the dark conspiracies of history put together. People are what they are and they are not likely to change any time before the sun goes <poof> and the galaxy collapses. With that in mind, it becomes clear that the ever changeable nature of people and their opinions of what constitutes "the greater good" (BLECH!) renders them unsuitable to wield great and centralized power. Keep the role of government proper. That means absolute minimal scope and authority.

Here, read this: http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2010/03/state.html

That should set you straight on the nature of "the state". If it does not, read it again and again until it sinks in. Read until you are on your deathbed, angels circling overhead like vultures in wait, if you must. Better that than to live a life of woeful ignorance on such matters.




Factor out corruption? Pure madness. That is like factoring out lungs or beating hearts. Corruption is part and parcel of what we are. The better among us fight that side of themselves daily because the temptations are ALWAYS there to dominate others. I'm the most extremely liberty minded person I know, believing in keeping my nose out of other peoples' business. Yet, if I see my neighbor mistreating his dog I am nonetheless sore tempted to interfere. I have to fight my impulse to do so when reason, and I mean REAL reason, tells me to butt out. These are the most difficult things we are ever called upon to do, save perhaps giving up television, which is the most evilly addictive drug ever contrived.

i want to apologize to the forum as i did not make a good first attempt at this thread.

i was (poorly) trying to make the "noble things" argument to remove the 'govt is evil' replies that i knew would come first.

my assumption was an attempt to move past the simple argument and toward additional debate

obviously, the "govt is evil" argument is all that is required but were there any other reasons?

as a thought experiment, if the govt was only 'pure' then would any one object to offering the data and for what reason?

some would say it doesn't have the legal authority and thats valid but is there any other reason?

thank you for your intent on this reply however i found your delivery a little unsettling

while poorly executed, my thought experiment was not founded on a ridiculous assumption but a necessary one to advance the discussion beyond a "GOVT BAD!" response

i do not require "setting straight" on my understanding of the proper relationship between the individual and the state

i would like to caution against "get it thru your skull" rebuttals in these forums that are far too frequent especially now as the dis-satisfaction with our current system is at an all time high.

we want to grow our ranks not drive new people away.

thanks for your feedback so far