The Census is invasive, says Michigan

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Not only that but he probably had all that information and more on his TAX forms!

Or with tax/property records, DMV, hunting & fishing license, gun resgistration and so on. However some people don't pay taxes, for whatever reason, and I know in my area there are some definite people who are anti-government and live in a remote area for a reason.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Another example of how people get worked up over nothing. They won't answer these questions even though not answering them will lead to the government spending tons of money to send out census workers to get you to answer them. These are the same people who lament how much money the government spends on everything. Okay...then just fill out the damn form!! Nobody can steal your damn identity with the little bit of information you have to give!

There is a lot of information on how to identify census workers, and who to call to verify the person is a worker. the thing that struck me is that if you witness a crime, like say, a marijuana grow operation or prostitution, while doing census work; you cannot report it. I'm dealing with a personal conflict regarding that, and though I'm allegedly highly qualified and don't mind working in a rural area, I don't know if I can live with not reporting something. This is only for people's homes, so if I see someone do a hit and run on the way to knocking on doors I can, and should report that.

If offered employment I will have to make a tough decision.

[UofM-TKE]

I use the census records from Ancestry.com to research my family. The older forms are very invasive which means they also have lots of good information for genealogists. The current one will be useless in 72 years when it is released to the public.

To see just how invasive that they really were, here are the fields they used. Before 1850, they only listed head of households and how many were in the house. I didn't clean up the choice of words, it was what it was.

1840

• Name of head of house only
• Number of people in the house in each 5 year age bracket by male, female and free colored

All persons in the house are listed separately from here.
1850

• Age
• Sex
• Color
• Profession
• Value of Real Estate
• Place of birth
• Married this year
• Attended school this year
• Person over 20 who cannot read or write
• Whether deaf and dumb, blind, insane, idiotic, pauper or convict

1860

• Same as 1850 with the addition of Value of Personal Estate

1870 Same as 1860 with these addition additions

• Father of foreign birth
• Mother of foreign birth
• Born this year
• Male citizen of USA over 21
• Male citizen of USA over 21 denied the vote on grounds other than rebellion

1880 Similar to 1870 with these addition additions and subtractions

• Males over 21 are both gone
• Relationship to head of house
• Widowed
• Number of months unemployed this year
• Place of birth of father
• Place of birth of mother

1890 census was mostly lost in a fire.

1900 Similar to 1880 with these additions

• Number of years married
• Mother of how many children
• Number of living children
• Year of Immigration to US
• Number of years in US
• Naturalized?
• Can speak English
• Owned or rented
• Owned free of mortgage
• Farm or house
• Number of farm schedule

1910 Similar to 1900 with a bit more break down of education and work

1920 Same as 1910 with these additions

• Native tongue of person
• Native tongue of father of person
• Native tongue of mother of person

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Another example of what many people define as "socialism".

There are groups in the US who want to do away with:

From my classically liberal perspective, you do not comprehend the issues (some of which you fairly nail, but are completely off the mark)

- public schools (which teach only the government's agenda)

J.S. Mill, a classical liberal like myself, thought that public schools created a singular thought process which would be dangerous to the growth of the mind. That being said, of the few things that I think the government should do, education is one of them.

- the road and highway system (yes, every person is assigned a stretch of road to care for)

Assigned? That sounds like fascism, not a libertarian dream. Furthermore, the rather standard argument is that corporations would build the roads (not contracted out, but over sole design), however a Hayekian (and thus free-market perspective) is that there is a market gap which the government must provide.

- the FCC, FAA, FDA and and other "socialist" programs (sure, let's get rid of regulations regarding airplanes and flying!)

Regulations aren't necessary. They're heavy-handed and generally hurt, instead of help. Let the market decide. The only regulations necessary are those which ensure property rights. As long as property rights are in place, the economic system will remain in place.

- public libraries (because everyone has professional journal and historic works at home

You're confusing things rather badly, this was the point where I realized you did not understand what you were talking about. The argument is NOT against libraries, it is against the state funding libraries. Libraries are easily created through private means. Carnegie (that evil baron-capitalist) created a lot of libraries out of his own pockets. Shoot, he was the one who created the foundation which led to TIAA-CREF.

- Police (if we all had guns, we wouldn't need the police!!), fire departments (I got nothing on this one. Just let everything burn down)

There have been some very good arguments for a private police force. That being said, they still have to be paid. Police/Firefighters are an example of market gap (along with streets and street signs and a few other things). However, a libertarian would propose "user fees".

For example, why should you pay for taxes for a firefighter if you live in an apartment? Those taxes should only be paid for by the owner of the apartment. Why should you pay for streets when you're bound to your bed? Cars should have a high user fee for the roads that would have to be paid, rather than unspecific taxation for something someone doesn't use. It leads to problems, sure. But in my opinion, alot less problems than the current system.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

From my classically liberal perspective, you do not comprehend the issues (some of which you fairly nail, but are completely off the mark)

I was offering specific examples for PiKA2001, who suggested that I was being "overly dramatic". I am not an expert in anything, nor do I try to be. I don't have all of the information, but I wanted to provide examples to PiKA, of services that people are rallying against in the fight against "socialism".

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Regulations aren't necessary. They're heavy-handed and generally hurt, instead of help. Let the market decide. The only regulations necessary are those which ensure property rights. As long as property rights are in place, the economic system will remain in place.

I call mega-BS on that! Without the FDA, we would have pharmaceutical companies putting out any medication without properly testing them then withdrawing them from the market before the cost of litigation gets too high. That may be okay from a business perspective, but from a medical and an ethical perspective, it's not okay! We already don't like when drugs get past our strict testing with the FDA, and we end up with drugs like VIOXX, or Phen/Fen causing problems. Don't even get me started on the "health supplements" that don't even have to be regulated but have major health risks, are falsely advertised and routinely removed from the market. I for one thank our government for doing it's job with the FDA. We have the safest drug market in the world thanks to their work.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

No, I'm not. Google some of the terms and you will find a bunch of references from people and grass-roots organizations who honestly believe that these programs are socialist.

From what I have found, many of the people are ultra-conservative and frequently fundamentalist in their religion. For example, there is a movement to home school to protect children from "government-mandated curriculum".

Some examples of home-grown efforts:

• 1 Million Strong against our SOCIALIST Fire Departments

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=111256528714&topic=9024#!/group.php?gid=111256528714

• Teabagger Socialist-Free Purity Pledge (excerpt):
  "I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:
  • Social Security
  • Medicare/Medicaid
  • State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
  • Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
  • US Postal Service
  • Roads and Highways
  • Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
  • The US Railway System
  • Public Subways and Metro Systems
  • Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
  • Rest Areas on Highways
  • Sidewalks
  • All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009 federal senate appropriations)
  • Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
  • Public and State Universities and Colleges
  • Public Primary and Secondary Schools (click link for more!!)
    

http://www.b12partners.net/wp/2009/0...purity-pledge/

• Freerepublic.com - "Over 300,000 people have registered for posting privileges on Free Republic since inception in 1996 and our forum is read daily by over one hundred thousand freedom loving citizens and patriots from all around the country, and all around the world. We're currently delivering over thirty million pageviews per month to over one million visitors"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2295624/posts

Check this one out...LOLz

http://slrc.sitemirror.us/site/purpose.php


especially the 3rd statement

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Check this one out...LOLz

http://slrc.sitemirror.us/site/purpose.php


especially the 3rd statement

oh lawd...and what does Southern Heritage mean to them? It just means a good football game, some gumbo and hospitality to me. I don't think anyone has to go to court to protect that!

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Check this one out...LOLz

http://slrc.sitemirror.us/site/purpose.php

especially the 3rd statement

Now that's just some sour grapes.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I call mega-BS on that! Without the FDA, we would have pharmaceutical companies putting out any medication without properly testing them then withdrawing them from the market before the cost of litigation gets too high.

You just contradicted yourself.

Why the hell would they put out bad products especially in this climate of advance litigiousness? They would test it till it was necessary, so their reputations would not be further dragged through the mud. The FDA is unnecessary, it only impedes life-saving products. Furthermore, it prohibits things that are not necessarily needed to be prohibited.

That may be okay from a business perspective, but from a medical and an ethical perspective, it's not okay! We already don't like when drugs get past our strict testing with the FDA, and we end up with drugs like VIOXX, or Phen/Fen causing problems.

Wait, so is the FDA necessary or unnecessary? Do you think there would be more without it?

We have the safest drug market in the world thanks to their work.

We also have a drug market which impedes life-saving medication from saving lifes now. If you didn't know a drug's side effects, but it could possibly save your life...would you take it? I probably would, as long as I was assured one of the side effects wasn't death. (and, through the companies advanced testing to ensure less losses, that would probably not be one of the side effects. Another thing to consider is that these drug companies would no longer have the FDA to be like "look, they tested it so it's not so much our fault", so I would imagine a judge would be willing to take even more from the drug company thus making the possibility of risk larger, thus making it necessary for greater testing. (but that's just a side effect, it kind of just came to me)

The examples which you displayed have things a bit confused. Alot of those items are not socialist, though they are government funded. I can't tell if the b12 site was joking or not. Now a Rothbardian libertarian might agree that those parts of the government are unnecessary, but he's more of an anarcho-capitalist. A Hayekian libertarian would certainly say that many of them are necessary to fill the market gap. My conclusion is that he probably has no understanding of philosophical libertarianism or classical liberalism and just wrote a bunch of stuff the government does.

[christiangirl]

I JUST finished watching this, came here, and this is the first thread I see. Life's funny that way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9SHp77j8Ro

Originally Posted by UofM-TKE

I use the census records from Ancestry.com to research my family. The older forms are very invasive which means they also have lots of good information for genealogists. The current one will be useless in 72 years when it is released to the public.

My dad was dead convinced that all this (his parents and grandparents names, occupations, etc) was supposed to be on the census. I filled it out (after watching parts 1 and 2 that correspond with the above link) and he took it from me, convinced I'd done it wrong because there's no way I should've been done after 5 minutes. He kept it for 3 days while he called around asking for "the other parts of the census that were missing." Finally, he realized I was right, that's all there was to it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Assigned? That sounds like fascism, not a libertarian dream. Furthermore, the rather standard argument is that corporations would build the roads (not contracted out, but over sole design), however a Hayekian (and thus free-market perspective) is that there is a market gap which the government must provide.

She's not necessarily talking about libertarian perspectives though.

Regulations aren't necessary. They're heavy-handed and generally hurt, instead of help. Let the market decide. The only regulations necessary are those which ensure property rights. As long as property rights are in place, the economic system will remain in place.

You did notice the banking problems we've had the last few years?

And what AOIIAngel said about the FDA. Who would put out bad products in this age of litigiousness? Seriously? The same people/corporations who try to do it now.

You're confusing things rather badly, this was the point where I realized you did not understand what you were talking about. The argument is NOT against libraries, it is against the state funding libraries.

She's not confusing things rather badly, you didn't read. She said public libraries -- libraries funded with public funds.

Like I said, I don't think she was trying to reflect a classic libertarian position, but rather the extreme positions of patriot movement types -- the ones who refuse to put ZIP codes on their letters because that's an acknowledgment of government authority and intrusion. (Yep, I've dealt with them -- address the letter just right or they won't accept delivery.)

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

the thing that struck me is that if you witness a crime, like say, a marijuana grow operation or prostitution, while doing census work; you cannot report it. I'm dealing with a personal conflict regarding that, and though I'm allegedly highly qualified and don't mind working in a rural area, I don't know if I can live with not reporting something. This is only for people's homes, so if I see someone do a hit and run on the way to knocking on doors I can, and should report that.

If offered employment I will have to make a tough decision.

Yeah, you do have to make a tough decision. God only knows what situations you may be walking into and the guy operating the meth lab in his trailer probably doesn't know you can't turn him in. Remember that census worker that was found hanging from a tree? One of the rumors about his death was that he stumbled onto some illegal activities while performing his duties.

Is there a threshold in what you can't report? What if you walk into a house and witness child abuse, do you still turn the other cheek? I couldn't live with myself

[agzg]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Remember that census worker that was found hanging from a tree? One of the rumors about his death was that he stumbled onto some illegal activities while performing his duties.

Are you thinking of a different one than I am? I thought his death was ruled a suicide?

ETA: Found a link.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

You just contradicted yourself.

Why the hell would they put out bad products especially in this climate of advance litigiousness? They would test it till it was necessary, so their reputations would not be further dragged through the mud. The FDA is unnecessary, it only impedes life-saving products. Furthermore, it prohibits things that are not necessarily needed to be prohibited.

Wait, so is the FDA necessary or unnecessary? Do you think there would be more without it?

We also have a drug market which impedes life-saving medication from saving lifes now. If you didn't know a drug's side effects, but it could possibly save your life...would you take it? I probably would, as long as I was assured one of the side effects wasn't death. (and, through the companies advanced testing to ensure less losses, that would probably not be one of the side effects. Another thing to consider is that these drug companies would no longer have the FDA to be like "look, they tested it so it's not so much our fault", so I would imagine a judge would be willing to take even more from the drug company thus making the possibility of risk larger, thus making it necessary for greater testing. (but that's just a side effect, it kind of just came to me)

This displays your complete ignorance of what the FDA actually does. Since I actually know people who have worked for the FDA, know what the agenda of the FDA is, know what medications are actually coming out, what medications have been withdrawn from the market and why, which medications have not been approved here that are approved in other countries and why, I might have a little better understanding of the intricacies of this issue. The FDA has a very important role in our country that a "free market" would NOT replace. You ask, "Why the hell would they put out bad products especially in this climate of advance litigiousness?" They do it because in a lot of cases it is very hard to PROVE that their drug caused a problem when a lot of illness are multi-factorial. They also are willing to accept a certain amount of liability to profit ratio, ie. the Vioxx fiasco (the company had the information that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks and stroke but hid the data!)Safety in medications, effectiveness and benefits are important, and especially important if you are asking an insurance company to pay for a medication or advise a physician that a medication is indicated in a specific medical condition or more importantly, ask a patient to trust that a pill will help them more than it will hurt them! There are so many supplements on the market that claim to treat certain illnesses that don't have to prove it. Patients take these and never get any better. They have no recourse. At least with the FDA approved medications, there is science to back them up, and the FDA has made sure that the insurance company has lined all their ducks in a row to make sure that the drugs are as safe as possible without obstructing the flow of new medications. If you poll physicians, I think you'll find an overwhelming majority who support the FDA and its work.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by agzg

Are you thinking of a different one than I am? I thought his death was ruled a suicide?

ETA: Found a link.

That's the one. It ended up being ruled as a suicide but due to the very odd way of his physical condition authorities looked at it as a homicide at first.