Say no to the Census?

Libertarians: "Just say no"

===============================================
April 3, 2000
===============================================

"Just Say No To Nosy Census Questions"
campaign generates national media coverage

        WASHINGTON, DC -- Headline in the Washington Post: "Census Flap
Intensifies; Director Pleads for Compliance." (Page 1, March 31, 2000).

        Why is Census Director Kenneth Prewitt pleading? Because the
"Boycott the Census" movement is making headlines, burning up the phone
lines of radio talk shows, spreading like wildfire on the Internet, and
putting the Census Bureau's $7 billion campaign at risk.

        Who started it all? The Libertarian Party. Here is some of the
media coverage we've generated with our call to "Just Say No To Nosy
Census Questions."

        * Initially, it was the Libertarian Party that denounced the
53-question census form as being "too intrusive." Leaders of the party,
which has 200,000 registered voters, urged Americans to ignore all but
the first question on the form, which asks how many people live in
their household.        -- The Washington Times, March 31, 2000

        * Noting the real purpose of the long form's queries,
Libertarian Party National Director Steve Dasbach made headlines
recently when he stated, "Census information is used to forge the
chains that bind Americans to failed government programs, meddlesome
bureaucracies, and a sky-high tax rate."
             -- Lawrence Reed, The Detroit News, March 19, 2000

        * The Libertarian Party is urging citizens to fill out the
first question and leave the rest blank. Risk the [$100] fine, urged
George Getz, a Washington D.C.-based spokesman for the party. "A lot of
people wonder what they're going to do with the information. We don't
know," Getz said.        -- Associated Press, March 27, 2000

        * The Libertarian Party said in Washington on Monday that
Americans have a unique opportunity to say "yes" to the Constitution
and "no" to what the party calls "busybody bureaucrats in Washington
DC" by refusing to answer most Census 2000 questions. Officials of the
House Subcommittee on the Census had no comment on the Libertarian
Party statements when contacted by CNSNews.com.
             -- Conservative News Service, March 20, 2000

        * "This big, bossy, busybody government is trying to ask
questions they have no business asking," says George Getz, the
Libertarian Party's press secretary. According to Getz, Libertarians
oppose answering census questions beyond those that fulfill the basic
function mandated in the Constitution.
             -- The Utne Reader, March-April 2000

        * The fact is, innumerable residents across the country are
refusing to participate in the census, beyond a simple head-count.
Steve Dasbach, leader of the Libertarian Party, is actually encouraging
the practice. "The U.S. Constitution says the purpose of the Census is
to make an enumeration; that is, to take an accurate count of Americans
for the purpose of apportioning Congressional districts," he said. "But
the federal government has gone far beyond that Constitutional mandate,
and uses the Census to ask dozens of probing questions."
             -- WorldNetDaily.com, March 22, 2000

        * In January, Steve Dasbach, the Libertarian Party's national
director, called for Americans to answer only how many people live in
their houses. "For once, we find [the government] doing something that
is actually constitutional -- conducting a census -- and we think
people should participate and answer that one question that the
Constitution requires, which is how many people live in your home,"
said George Getz, the party's national press secretary.
             -- The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, March 16, 2000

        * The Libertarian Party and others object [to nosy Census
questions]. The national party is advising people to answer just one
question -- in order to apportion the House seats -- and return the
remainder blank. "It's a huge privacy invasion; some of these questions
the government simply has no business knowing," said press secretary
George Getz in Washington, D.C. "Do you have any difficulty bathing?
And do you get to work by ferry boat? We don't think government has any
business, and no constitutional authority, to be asking people about
their personal habits."        -- The Oregonian, March 12, 2000

        * The Libertarian Party put out a press release last week that
read: "Strike a blow for privacy: Refuse to answer nosy Census
questions!" They recommend just answering the one question that the
Census Department has Constitutional authority to ask: the one about
how many people live in your home.
             -- The Manchester Union Leader (NH), March 22, 2000

        * Convinced that the Census Bureau will not prosecute
boycotters, the National Libertarian Party is encouraging people to
skip everything but the first question on household population. "Count
the people to make sure that there are an equal number of people in
every congressional district -- we Libertarians support that," said
George Getz, the party's press secretary. "We would like to see 100
percent compliance if that's all the information is going to be used
for. The problem is that the government has corrupted [the Census] into
another big government program."    --APBnews.com, March 30, 2000

        * The Libertarian Party is encouraging people to answer just
one question on the census. The Constitution demands asking only the
question about the number of people living in a household, said George
Getz, a Libertarian spokesman. "What else does the government need to
know?" Mr. Getz said. "Why should we trust these government agencies?"
             -- The Dallas Morning News, March 13, 2000

        * Now, [the government's] appetite for details of our private
lives is insatiable. How old are you? What's your race? There are 15
choices here. George Getz, the Libertarian Party's spokesman,
sardonically notes that South Africa's apartheid government had only
four racial classifications.
             -- Don Feder, The Boston Herald, April 3, 2000


Sam - Liberal
April 12th - 8:45AM

Well, my position on the census is this (though I've never received a form):
There is no reason NOT to, and every reason to, fill out all information on 
the census forms which you are comfortable providing. While the constitutional
purpose of the census is a simple headcount, there is certainly no prohibition
against further recruitment of data. Data thus gathered is invaluable research
material for sociological exploration of our country. While I have neither seen
nor heard the questions asked on the long-form census, I can only assume that
they wouldn't be asking unless they felt that the info was valuable. Does that
answer your question?



Dan - Libertarian
The 2000 Census contains 52 questions -- 51 more than is required by
the Constitution. The only purpose that the Census was originally designed
for was a simple ennumeration. The purpose of this headcount was to make
sure everyone got equal representation in Congress. Today, the Census is
about, in the words of its own Director, "all about who gets how much of
what." In other words, it's all about figuring out how to dole out $180
billion in wasteful government spending, and violating your privacy in the
process. 

What today's government is all about is taking a whole bunch of your
money, keeping a large chunk of it for themselves, and redistributing the
rest in whatever way they see fit. That's exactly what the 2000 Census
helps them to do, and that's exactly what libertarians are fighting
against.

And if that's not convincing enough, then consider the pragmatic benefits
of a one-question Census: it takes remarkably little time to fill out,
thus prompting much higher response rates (at last check, the response
rate of the 2000 Census is only 61 percent). There would be much less cost
to the taxpayer because there would be no need to send out thousands of
ennumerators and print out millions upon millions of forms. And
politicians would have less ammunition for expanded government programs.


Sam - Liberal
   Ok, while I will grant you the pragmatic ease of a one-question census, I have
to take issue with the rest of Dan's argument. Whether you feel that the 
government spends wastefully or not, the census will not change how MUCH they
are spending. Rather, by knowing what sort of people live where, and what their
needs are, they are able to most effectively, reasonably, and FAIRLY 
distribute those funds. NOT getting that information will simply insure
that the decisions made by the government are uninformed. They are not
distributing it arbitrarily "as they see fit", as your friend put it, but
rather (as a general statement, anyway) to the programs and people that have
the greatest need.
   I also find great danger in trying to personify the government as a single,
malevolent being. The government is people- a mass of civil servants, most of
whom are doing their sincere best to provide the services necessary to the 
operation of a free and equitable State. While examples of massive 
inefficiency exist, these are the results of beaurocracy and red-tape,
not a desire to deprive tax-payers or fill government coffers.
   As to the Constitutional legitimacy of a long form census, it is not 
forbidden anywhere. It is simply stated that a census must be taken every 
ten years to enumerate the population. If further questions can be used to the
benefit of the country, then they should by all means  be taken. As to privacy,
I take the same position I take on drug tests- if you aren't doing anything 
wrong, there is no reason to conceal anything. And if you are, you don't have 
a right to hide it. Now I don't know what sort of questions are on the long 
form census, but they will be used only for informational purposes, and
not as a way for the government to profile and track you. News flash: they 
really don't CARE if you are a homosexual, beer-guzzling, porn-watching 
shut-in, as long as you aren't doing anything illegal. 
   So there you are. Hope I have fanned the flames of this ridiculous argument.



Dan - Libertarian
I'm sorry to hear
that he thinks the argument is ridiculous -- I think it's very relevant.

To start with, I never portrayed the government as a single, malevolent
entity. I grant that it has an incredible multiple complexity, and that
most of the Federal workers are reasonably well-intentioned. But it doesn't
matter whether you view the government as malevolent or benevolent, as a
single entity or a collective; the simple fact is that IT DOES NOT WORK. It
can't keep guns out of schools. It can't run Social Security. It can't even
deliver the mail on time. And yet as a whole, the government thinks it can
run your life better than you can.

I agree that the government will continue to spend billions upon billions
of dollars of your money on programs that don't work whether or not you
fill out the Census or not -- at least until a Libertarian is elected. Sad,
but true. But the fact remains that the Census is today one of the key
tools for deciding how to spend it. The reason why response rate to the
Census is so low -- well, one of the primary reasons, other than simple
taxpayer apathy -- is the growing movement of libertarian ideals in the
country. Many if not most political commentators will confirm this if you
bother to ask. The message we send by not filling out the Census may be
purely symbolic, but it is nonetheless powerful: Enough is enough.

Your friend says that by not filling out the Census, we simply ensure that
the decisions that the government makes are uninformed. I would respond
that it doesn't matter one whit whether decisions about programs that
simply do not work, and waste money to begin with, are informed about the
fine details or not. Like you, I think that many of not most of the things
that the government is trying to do (emphasis on "trying") are important.
But there is not a single working government program that depends on the
census information, that the private sector can perform much more
efficiently. 

For example, like you, I think that such programs as drug rehab centers are
important. Now, the census data might be able to figure out which
neighborhoods in Washington D.C. are more likely to need government-funded
drug rehab centers. But The Gospel Mission, a privately-funded drug rehab
center in Washington, already has THAT figured out. And TGM, which has
existed in Washington since 1906, has a success rate of nearly two-thirds
-- that is, two-thirds of all people who go through the center STAY
drug-free. A government-run drug rehab center down the street from TGM
operates at twenty times the cost per client, and has a success rate of
only 10 percent. 

Here's a thought exercise, take a few seconds and ask yourself this: 

What is your favorite government program?


On the off chance that you can actually answer that question within a
quarter of a minute, go on to ask yourself this: Is it a program that the
private sector cannot accomplish -- in fact, is not already accomplishing
-- more efficiently and less expensively?

And, of course, all of this is assuming that the census data is actually
used as indended; the opportunities for abuse or misuse of the census data
are staggering.

Long story short, the argument against the Census is derivative of a much
larger argument, the argument for libertarianism as a whole. If you're
against libertarian ideals, then I suppose the argument wouldn't make sense
to begin with. Libertarian ideas are not for the authoritarian-minded.

Oh yes, as for your friend's position on privacy -- your friend's attitude
is, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have no reason to conceal
anything, whereas if you are doing something wrong, you have no right to
conceal it. (I think that his choice of examples, a drug test, is a poor
one -- I think that the single best think that the government can do
against crime is to legalize drugs -- but let's look at his reasoning as a
whole.)

What's really scary is that Sam's reasoning can be applied universally.
The police can come into your home and search your property (and your
person) without probable cause, at any time and under any circumstances --
while you're sleeping, while you're eating dinner, while you're bathing,
while you're spending time with your children, while you're making love,
whatever -- all on the justification that you have nothing to conceal if
you're not doing anything wrong at any given time, and no right to conceal
it if you are.

Obviously, such reasoning is flawed.

Thing is, it's not about whether or not I'm doing anything wrong, it's
about what rights I have as a human being. Every human has a right to
privacy, and every human has a responsibility to respect another person's
privacy unless they willingly give it up, or unless there is probable cause
that they are doing something harmful to others. It's also about what
rights I have as an American. I am protected under the Fourth Amendment. If
an employer wants to drug test me randomly, this would be a part of my
labor contract, and this would not violate my rights -- labor contracts are
based on mutual consent, and I could boycott that employer if I so chose.
But if the government stops me while I'm driving my car and tests me for
intoxication -- randomly, and without probable cause -- then it doesn't
matter a damn whether or not I am actually intoxicated; my privacy is being
violated. Period. Neither the government as a whole nor any individual
government entity has the right to do that.


Sam - Liberal

   That is quite a letter. My I will first confess that my e-mail this 
afternoon came immediately after a class where I spent most of my time 
heatedly debating different issues. As such, some of my comments were ill 
aimed, and I apologize. Particularly the one about this argument being 
ridiculous.
   As for drugs, I'm all for legalization, but until they are...and I don't 
mean to propose random sampling of the population, but in such cases as 
school sports teams, random office testing, etc., I think there is nothing 
wrong with that.
  As to illegal search and seizure, not a fan. I am not, as Mr. Dan so 
propagandicly (is that a word?) put it, authoritarian-minded. I do not, 
however, find a direct corrolation between police breaking and entering, 
and we being asked to fill out a relatively simple (yes, 52 questions is 
still relatively simple) questionaire that is being used, not to label or 
track you individually, but to come up with accurate population demographics.
To the people entering that information into computers, you are, at most,
a name. Its the closest thing you can get to anonymous without an actual
secret polling. And that aside, you are simply being asked to supply accurate
information. There is no invasion occuring. No one is going to be checking 
those results, nor are there any questions (I assume) which would implicate 
a person in any wrongdoing. And frankly, if there WAS a way of monitering 
intoxication levels of drivers without having to stop and test them, I would
be all for it. Last comment on this particular tangent- the 4th amendment 
protects you from ILLEGAL search and seizure, which a census is not. It
is fully legally authorized.
   Now that my primary beefs are out of the way...from the top. My comment
about the government being a malevolent entity wasn't a good articulation 
of what I intended to convey. Rather, it was Dan's comment that "they" 
want to keep as much of it for themselves as "they" can that prompted my 
response. It implies that there is someone (or ones) somewhere who is
contriving to give people the least services and highest taxes possible. 
Despite my relatively limited experience with the inner working of 
government, I think I can safely say there isn't.
   Again,I have to cite ignorance, but I have heard not a single political 
commentator attributing low census counts to the increase in the Libertarian 
movement. I think the fact that we have elected (twice) the first Democrat 
President in 20 odd years should indicate rather a general shift to the left,
over here with us democratic socialists, not to the reactionary right 
(sorry, low blow).
  As to private control of the programs that Dan feels have been botched by
the government, I can't speak more strongly against it. While in many cases,
private sector organizations may be able to work more effectively or 
efficiently than their government counterparts, having strictly privatized
programs puts the recipients of these benefits at the mercy of the whims of
the private sector. While government services are guarenteed until such time
as they are voted out by the population as a whole (or voted out by the people
we choose to represent us), private sector programs are viable only as
long as the given providers are willing and/or able to give such services. 
If a given cause falls out of the public eye, or out of favor, the safety net
suddenly disappears. If private analogs are doing more efficient work than 
their gov't counterparts, I invite any and all to use the private service...
as long as it is available.
   As for gov't botching on the whole, the examples are certainly there (and 
usually spectacular), but most of what the government does, it does well. For
every letter that arrives late, hundred are delivered on time. As complex a 
system as it is, wee're fortunate it comes at all. The government also builds
roads, runs schools, gives scholarships, supplies police and military 
protection, and attempts to secure minimum life needs for all citizens in the 
country. Most of the things done by this gov't wouldn't ever get noticed 
unless they disappeared.
   Anyhow, that's all I have to say for now. Hope we can continue this debate
in an amiable and non-catchphrase tainted manner.


Davee - Libertarian
Okay, let's start with the easiest issue: privacy. My use of the police
example -- breaking and entering without probable cause -- was used to
illustrate the absurdity of Dillon's stated attitude toward privacy. It
wasn't meant to illustrate a point about the census, except perhaps
indirectly. The emphasis is probable cause; Dillon's attitude -- which was
that you have nothing to conceal if you've done nothing wrong, and no
right to conceal it if you have -- did not take probable cause into
account, and thus was flawed. He seems to have since backed off of this
stance, and generally agrees with me about the minor issues (such as,
private employers have the right to drug test you since you don't have to
work for them), so that seems to be resolved.

Now on to the larger issues.

First, let me once again re-iterate the fact that it doesn't matter
whether you view the government as a single or multiple entity, as
benevolent or malevolent; whatever the reasons, the fact is that it does
not work. Once again, I am willing to grant that many if not most federal
workers are reasonably well-intentioned; the fact remains, however, that
in spite of these good graces -- or perhaps because of them -- our
government is incompetent. Taxes are skyrocketing, and efficiency of
government programs is plummetting.

Dillon maintains that most of what the government does, it does well. I
couldn't disagree more strongly. For example, he maintains that for every
letter that the postal service does not deliver on time, there are
hundreds more that do arrive on time. When was the last time he received a
letter on time? I can't remember the last time I did. Where are all these
hundreds of letters that arrive on schedule? This is not to say that there
AREN'T any letters that the USPS manages to deliver on time . . . just
that there are far fewer of them that Dillon would have you believe. And
even if it were the case, should the same standard be held to all
government programs? For example, should we excuse the killing of an
innocent person by our taxpayer-supported police by saying that for every
innocent person that is killed, there are hundreds of innocent people that
aren't killed? I can't accept that. I'm not trying to say that letters are
people, just that if we held all government programs to the standard to
which Dillon holds the USPS, we would have chaos.

As for all the other things that government does -- builds roads, runs
schools, etc. -- there are some programs in which the private sector
simply has not had a chance to compete; the delivery of first-class mail,
for instance. No attempt is made, for fear of being stopped by guys with
guns. Same with road construction and maintenance. As for government
programs in which competition from the private sector IS allowed, however,
is there a single instance in which the private sector cannot --
demonstrably -- perform better than its government counterpart? Can the
very best public school, for instance, hold a candle to an average private
school?

(By the way, if you think that I'm being too extreme about the "guys with
guns" bit, simply follow a continued effort to resist the government to
its logical conclusion. First, you would get a letter in the mail, asking
you to comply. Then, you would get a letter TELLING you to comply. Then,
men in suits come to your door, telling you to comply. Finally, if you
continue to resist, guys with guns.)

So what does this all have to do with the Census? Quite simply, the Census
is a tool which helps the government allocate money to its over-expensive,
under-efficient programs. That is what the extra 51 questions on the
Census are there for.

Dillon argues that these extra questions only exist to "come up with
accurate population demographics." But that's hogwash. There are already
private organizations that do that -- more efficiently than the Census,
less expensively than the Census, and more often than every ten years. I'm
not sure if any demographic-gathering organization is as comprehensive as
the Census, but it would not be difficult for the private sector to create
such a program. Gallup, for instance, already has most (if not all) of the
superstructure for such a program in place -- and the government relies on
Gallup information regularly.

Dillon says that he can't find attributions of the declining Census rate
(62% at last check) to the libertarian party. I would remind him that a
post with about a dozen attributions was the post that started this whole
debate. You may want to direct him to the page on which you're keeping
this debate, Steve -- good idea, that, by the way. :o)

Finally, Dillon expresses concern that privitization of government
programs would put us at the mercy of the whims of the private sector. My
initial reaction is, we're already at the mercy of the whims of the
government, so what's he complaining about? 

Dillon says that government officials and programs only exist until such
time as the government decide to vote them out. This may be true of
individual government officials, but it doesn't change a thing about
government programs as a whole. Social security taxes, for example, WILL
-- repeat, WILL -- increase regardless of whether we elect the Republicans
or the Democrats into the White House in November. To favor lowering SS
benefits would make a candidate unpopular with the older crowd -- who has
the highest voter turnout percentage -- and to favor getting rid of Social
Security altogether, as the Libertarian Party does, would be political
suicide for the major candidates. These ideas are simply not accepted in
the mainstream yet, and it would be akin to the government reneging on the
promises it has made since the 1930s -- a promise that, by the year 2012,
it will not be able to keep anyway. Anyone under the age of 52 will never
see Social Security benefits in their lifetime. (For more information on
why Social Security doesn't work, look up "Pontzi Scheme.") 

Same goes for all other inefficient government programs -- welfare, health
care, public education, national defense, crime prevention, etc. Do you
really think, Steve, that electing candidate X rather than candidate X
serves as a check on such faulty programs?

In any event, it is unclear what Dillon means by Americans being at the
mercy of the whim of the private sector. He could mean one of two things:

1) The private sector could form a monopoly over a certain area, leaving
out room for any competition, and we would then be at the mercy of this
one company.
2) The private sector may or may not choose to provide goods or services
in certain areas, and without the "safety net" of the government, we would
be at their mercy.

Let's take the latter first, 2. It is demonstrably not the case that the
lack of services in a necessary area would be a problem. The only reason
one might think that that is the case is because many if not most areas in
which services can be provided is under the stranglehold of a single
entity: the government. They have not allowed any room for competition
from the private sector. But history, economics and common sense all tell
us that if this stranglehold is release, scores of enterprising
individuals and organizations will step in, ready to provide. If one
becomes unwilling or unable at a later date, there will be many others
ready to take their place. Lack of willingness or ability on the part of
the private sectors to take over these functions is simply not a problem.
It would, in fact, be part of the ultimate realization of the American
Dream.

What about 1? What's there to stop a latter-day Microsoft from keeping
their own stranglehold over a certain area, say software design? Well, if
a company does achieve a monopoly in a certain area, then they either
achieved it through legal means or through illegal means. If through
illegal means, as the government alleges Microsoft has done, then the
government -- even a minimal libertarian government -- would serve as a
check on that. Libertarians stand against coersion as a means to personal,
economic or political ends, and the government would remedy the situation.
If, on the other hand, the company achieved its monopoly on its own,
legally, through entirely its own blood, sweat and tears, in the face of
the remainder of the entire private sector . . . they must be doing
something right! We should be happy, and proud, to have such an
organization providing these services to us. And if some part of it does
become faulty -- particularly purposely faulty -- another company would be
quick to step in, and their service design is indeed superior, then the
monopolizing company would eventually lose its monopoly. In other words,
this whole Microsoft problem simply would not exist in a libertarian
society.

Let me conclude by reiterating something I said earlier: the argument
against the Census -- which, in this letter, was only addressed directly
in less than a quarter of my total content -- is a derivative of the
argument for libertarianism as a whole. If you stand for the ideals of
personal and economic freedom, without fear of coersion or harm, then you
should stand against the privacy-invading 2000 Census. If you stand
against those ideals, then, again, I'm afraid the argument against the
Census won't make much sense.

And by the way, I am not a conservative. Far from it, as Steve can tell
you. Libertarianism is not conservatism, nor is it liberalism. Here's the
easiest way to put it: Leftists stand for personal freedoms. Rightists
stand for economic freedoms. But there is more to the political arena than
the left-right political spectrum. There are those who stand against
freedom of expression and free enterprise; these people are Marxists,
facists. And there are those who stand in favor of both, of both free
enterprise and personal freedom. Those people are libertarians.

A good place to see the political chart, and where you stand on it, is the
World's Smallest Political Quiz -- http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

My regards to your friend, Steve, and I hope you and he both have a
fantabulous weekend.




. . .