I've vowed to bang this drum as loud as I can for as long as I can, so here I go again. I even have some pointed advice for libertarians who still insist on regurgitating the government's party line.
To resume:
- Making the census long form voluntary is still an appallingly stupid idea. There is simply no way that any useful data will emerge from this exercise. This is so fundamental a point that the Chief Statistician resigned rather than let Tony Clement publicly suggest that he and the professionals at Statistics Canada believed otherwise.
- Those who claim otherwise either don't know what they're talking about, or have sacrificed their professional integrity. Yes, I'm looking straight at the Fraser Institute when I type these lines. As far as I'm concerned, all future FI reports should come with the following disclaimer for journalists: This material should not be cited without the express written approval of someone who knows how to do empirical work. Other pundits might be excused on the grounds of ignorance, in which case I question their editors' judgment in letting them use valuable media space to reduce public understanding of an important policy issue.
Let's now turn to the ostensible reason for making the long form voluntary: the well-rehearsed horror at the possibility that someone might be jailed for not revealing the number of bedrooms in their homes. (Can someone explain to me why this is such a big deal? We're a family of five, with four bedrooms. Have I somehow set myself up for blackmail?)
We should first dispense with the zombie meme of "Many countries have dropped the census, so we can too." This has been blown away any number of times, but it insists on lumbering across the political landscape in search of brains.
Yes, there are several examples of countries – especially in Scandinavia – that have abandoned the traditional census. These countries maintain databases that keep track of all interactions between the citizen and the State, so a census is simply redundant: the government already knows everything there is to know about you. For example, they know where you live, they know when you moved there (all movements must be registered with the police), and they know from the zoning registries just how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have. They even know your high school trigonometry marks – why bother with a census? If you're concerned about issues such as privacy and state coercion, these are not counter-examples that you should be citing.
So let's consider the state of things from a libertarian perspective:
- If our government was really serious about privacy and state coercion, they wouldn't be pointing to the Nordic registry model as an alternative to a mandatory census.
- If, in your mind's eye, you see yourself storming the Bastille in order to liberate the foes of tyranny, no-one has ever been jailed for not complying with the census. But, as has become crushingly clear over the past few weeks, the census is the irreplaceable cornerstone of evidence-based policy evaluation. Making the census voluntary offers the smallest possible gains in terms of civil liberties, at the greatest possible cost in terms of responsible governance.
- If you really believed that our government was motivated by libertarian principles, the news from the past couple of days should have disabused you of this notion. It turns out that our freedom-loving government's highest priority is to build prisons in order to incarcerate those who participate in activities associated with drug trafficking and prostitution. Yes, my libertarian friends, our government is intent on tracking down informed, consenting adults engaging in freely-arrived-at exchanges of goods and services at a mutually-agreed-upon price, and putting them in jail. And thanks to your unflinching support, it can do so in the name of civil rights and freedoms!
It should now be clear that the sweaty-palmed fanboy libertarians who jumped on the anti-census bandwagon are being played like a cheap vuvezela. It didn't have to be like this. I don't know what you think you were buying when you decided to support the government, but it seems to me as though you overpaid. If you want to retain whatever remains of your integrity, you should reconsider.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
Also how is this: “I think a kid being arrested for smoking marijuana is a far worse encroachment on liberty than Dalton McGuinty imposing a $600 “health premium” on me.” not an examination of greater vs. lesser encroachments of liberty?
Anyhow.. I think I’m just about done with this thread. I’ll let Mike Brock have the final word.
“I understand that. What happens in a situation where an action would remove a violation of rights on one hand but cause a new, different, violation of rights on the other hand. How would you reconcile that?”
It would be interesting, and you attempted to mount an argument where such was the case — that I would end up paying for less effectual census. I responded essentially saying that I’d trade the money for the improvement in privacy and not having a positive responsibility on that point. Thus, your point became moot at that point.
Since I’d rather lose the few dollars of taxes than be forced under threat of imprisonment to fill out a form of private information, what becomes of your point? I’ve given you my calculation. You then asked me to articulate a better argument against it. Which was, as I said, as you formed it both begging the question and moving the goalpost.
And of course we’re all arguing from first principles positions. That comes naturally. Those first principles inform our entire way of thinking. What I’m saying is we have different first principles. And thus, any resolution to this debate would be impossible without resolving those differences. I mean, tactically and politically compromise can be found, but philosophically… probably not.
And if you think that all politics and philosophy can be derived from a bunch of first principles, you should probably wake up and realize that life cannot be thought of like mathematics, and even math falls well short of such idealized formal thinking.
Simply put, you can define a bunch of first principles based on anything, but the assertion of a set of axioms doesn’t make that set complete or exhaustive or robust compared to other sets of first principles or, crucially, empirical observation and experimentation. Reading a variety of philosophical works is a nice past-time, but the kind of libertarian philosophy espoused here is adolescent at best. The real world has real problems that aren’t addressed by fantastical ideologies nourished by people leading comfortable lives in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
“This information is available through privately collected means. Companies like infoUSA, Dun & Bradstreet, Edith Roman, make millions and millions of dollars collecting this information and selling it to companies.”
The companies you mention compile statistics on businesses, not individuals. However, if you want to argue that the private market can do the same thing with individual information, then we are likely back to the stats argument. If they are doing it correctly, companies that collect additional information and sell it for profit will use censuses to correct for sample selection bias. Without the benchmark of the census, surveys become both increasingly expensive and less useful, and the market will be less likely (not more likely) to provide the information.
Josh,
You’re making the fallacious assumption that I am not pragmatic. That, I pursue an all or nothing agenda.
My whole purpose here was to take issue with the author’s assertion that that libertarians are towing the Conservative Party line. This has been demonstrated to not be the case.
Curious. How far does your pragmatism go? Is it infinite? If you were living in an authoritarian state, would your pragmatism bend so far as to criticizing those who demand freedom as not being “pragmatic”. I’m guessing not.
I love when “pragmatists” dismiss positions for being do “ideological”. I often wonder what political discourse would look like in such a world, where radical ideas like, I don’t know: women’s rights, gay rights, universal suffrage, etc. were dismissed as being far too “ideological”. And it’s not like people didn’t make those arguments at the time.
But I’m guessing you don’t really have the muster to debate these things on a substantive basis, which is why you reached straight for ad hominem argumentation.
“The companies you mention compile statistics on businesses, not individuals.”
This is not true. The companies do customer list matching. I know, I’ve been involved with it. A company comes along with a customer list, and they get their list matched against other lists. When you agree to “share you information” for whatever purpose, the company will often go to these companies to get additional details on you.
For instance, a company like Telus might come along and be interesting in figuring out if you buy lots of technology. They might buy this information from Air Miles, or from a list matching service.
I’ve seen some of these customer compendiums working int he direct marketing industry. And you’d be surprised how insanely detailed some of this information is. Far more detailed than the census data in many cases. The algorithms they use for list matching can deduce whether you’re living with your boyfriend or girlfriend. Around what time your started cohabitating, and how your spending habits changed.
The tentacles of private information collection are extensive and far beyond the scope of the census. Trust me.
So, your response against supposed ad hominem attacks is to intimate that I’d criticize people “demanding freedom” in an authoritarian state? I trust this doesn’t include people whining about the Great Coercion of the Invasive Census. Pragmatism, incidentally, requires balancing of sometimes conflicting principles to achieve desirable ends. The census is a negligible responsibility that affects my liberty in no significant way. Filling out a form! The horror! Yet its elimination will have demonstrably negative effects on the formation of just about any kind of public policy, be it health care, education, crime, policing, language services, immigration, and dozens of other applications. Are you saying that good public policy is a bad thing, or that – given the existence of public health care and education – it should be made worse and less efficient by the elimination of the census? What’s better, a government that does things you don’t like efficiently and effectively or one that does the exact same things only with less efficiency and effectiveness? Which one would be more prone to wasting your money? Hmm? Answer.
The fact that you grant even the government’s inconsistent arguments about privacy and “coercion” is the problem. I don’t buy this first principles nonsense anyhow – it typically sounds more like you’ve arbitrarily labelled something “coercive” while making exceptions for many other things, “minimum state” conceptions included. Complaining about the census isn’t pragmatic, but it is absolutely laughable. Sadly, we are currently governed by such laughing-stocks.
What exceptions have I made?
And you’re right, having government be more efficient is not really on my priority list. A less efficient government is one that’s probably not spending as much time regulating my life. You know, Nazi Germany was lauded for it’s efficiency. Their record-keeping was superb, and efficiency at accomplishing state goals renowned. However, I’m thinking that many who died in the Holocaust had wished the government wasn’t as efficient.
Just saying.
Mike – Nazi Germany? And you wonder why you’re not taken seriously.
Jane, what’s wrong with the point? It’s a salient point that demonstrates the downside of a highly efficient government. It’s a theme that been mirrored in literature, like Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale tale for instance; the inherent danger of having a well-informed and empowered government.
Libertarians sometimes have a saying: “we’d like the government to be so small that we can drown it in the bathtub if necessary”.
Whoops. There goes Godwin! Bye, Mike.
My whole purpose here was to take issue with the author’s assertion that that libertarians are towing the Conservative Party line. This has been demonstrated to not be the case.
Um, how? By working your way through the CPC list of census talking points?
Again, since we’re throwing around logical fallacies, Mike Brock should really look up the Theory of the Second Best. Mike B is making a first best argument: in the absence of other distortions, removing the census is freedom enhancing. Mike M and I are making the second best argument: In a world with a big government, removing the census is not freedom enhancing. Removing it makes things worse because it makes the first distortion (government) worse.
Please note that this isn’t an argument based on the premise that big government is right or good. It is an argument premised on the fact that we have big government.
When you go on to say that we just shouldn’t have a government that does health and education and other things, that’s a fine thing to say, but it has no relevance for the current policy debate, which is, should we remove the census or not, given that we have G/Y of 40%.
So, yes, I am patting you on the head and dismissing you for telling me about what policy option you would choose for the census in the absence of big government. That is simply a non-sequitur. Shall I tell you what we ought to do with the census if we had a marxist society? It is indeed a fun parlour game, but only that.
“Whoops. There goes Godwin! Bye, Mike.”
Do you know what Godwin’s Law is?
From Wikipedia: “Godwin’s law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.”
And…
“However, Godwin’s law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent’s argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.”
Kevin,
As an economist, can you point to quantifiable evidence that the census data improves the efficiency of government? Can you prove that the statistics are not misused in any way, to justify new and bigger government programs? Do you honestly believe that service delivery needs cannot be deduced by other means that don’t require people being forced to divulge private information under threat of imprisonment?
Also, only about 53% of people say they are willing to answer embarrassing personal details honestly, if it all. So does the mandatory nature, truly produce cleaner data than can be gleaned through other means?
If you can’t tell how many bedrooms a dwelling has, you can’t protect aginast future pandemics. @#$%-ing CPC/AB idiots.
Kevin,
Since you want me to research the Theory of Second Best, which you might already realize I’m probably familiar with. I’d also be interested in hearing your thoughts on the Economic Calculation Problem.
Mike B:
1) if you want examples of empirical research that shows government programs are not well designed and in many cases ought to be privatized go look at Marty Feldstein, who has spent a career doing so. With data. Failing that, I humbly offer my own CV, which has numerous papers that have been used to advocate for smaller/more efficient programs. No, I cannot prove that statistics are never used for bad things. That is a silly request to make.
2) You may be familiar with the theory of the second best, but I see no evidence you are. I went with the evidence.
3) Your suggested reading list leads me to believe you are mistaking me for some big government advocate. I think government does a lot of things poorly. I also think that it would be even worse if they had bad data, and if I didn’t have data to hold them to account for their poor choices.
Sorry, I’ll rephrase. Without household social distancing stats (and hospital stats, IDK if these are/will-be Census or some other unbiased survey), you can’t protect against future pandemics. #$%&-ing CPC/Prairie idiots.
I’m still waiting for oil sands and banks to manufacture face masks in lieu of starved health budget.
” if you want examples of empirical research that shows government programs are not well designed and in many cases ought to be privatized go look at Marty Feldstein, who has spent a career doing so.”
This data could only exclusively be obtained through a mandatory census?
No, I cannot prove that statistics are never used for bad things. That is a silly request to make.
It was a big of a negative proof fallacy on my part. But it’s a little hard to maintain full composure in the face you if you basically admitting to ad hominem. The more salient point on this issue was my introduction of the Economic Calculation Problem.
I repeat, what are your thoughts on it? I don’t want to put any words into your mouth on this, so I’m bringing up the argument that government cannot make efficient economic decisions due to an inability to collect information and interpret it in real-time. Considering the census data is a dated by the time it’s tallied, and becomes sufficiently more and more dated as time progressive, you might call into question the whole endeavour. Especially if the the subsequent census data reveals any surprising or counterintuitive indicators. Then you get into the problem of having to deal with the fact that acting on the statistical data alone may be more distortionary.
Forgive me for not being charitable on my part by assuming you’re a big government advocate. But you shouldn’t really expect charity from someone who you’re talking down to. Social morays and all that.
Actually, I should clarify, you weren’t just admitting to using ad hominem. You were admitting and re-affirming it.
Wilkinson is Canadian now, we should just ask him. But because he’s working on liberaltarianism, maybe he won’t represent the ‘fan-boy’ libertarians.
Just wanted to interject to say …
Stockwell Day … blargle… unreported crime … yargle … statistics… blargle
Why wouldn’t you want data to keep doofuses like this from making pointless and expensive public policy based on voices in their head?
And the image of social morays has me a bit freaked out.
“Wilkinson is Canadian now, we should just ask him.”
I have his phone number. I could call him up. =)
Mike Brock,
Regarding your 10:25 comment, Stephen wrote:
I think any discussion of the census decision should take into account the costs. Ignoring those costs seems, to me, facile. Saying there are greater benefits (like not having the government trample liberty) is fine. I’m not objecting to that.
To be clear, I’m not taking a swipe at your arguments. I find the type of fan-boy libertarianism of which Prof. Gordon speaks is found mostly from conservatives donning libertarian garb for this particular issue (which will then be shed when it comes to drug policy, torture, immigration, etc). I think it’s fair to say that Tony Clement has been dancing around as a facile fan-boy libertarian (I’ve never inspected his palms…).
I also think that you and Mike Moffat are arguing past each other a bit. I feel quite comfortable agreeing with both of you, for the most part.
Jonathan,
“To be clear, I’m not taking a swipe at your arguments. I find the type of fan-boy libertarianism of which Prof. Gordon speaks is found mostly from conservatives donning libertarian garb for this particular issue.”
Well, he just re-accused me of being a CPC talking head. Which is pretty funny considering how anti-Conservative Party I am at the Western Standard and in my radio and television interviews. In fact, I took the opportunity on CBC to slam the Conservatives for the Toronto G20 Summit. And anybody who’s watched that video could not honestly come away with the impression that I was speaking for the CPC.
Mike B’s fear of efficient government, should read Cowen’s pick for best blog post of the year.
Joseph’s Heath theory is that because the welfare governments became so large they had to become efficient. I feel that making government inefficient to justify their prior convictions is bad faith conservative governance.
Also I wanted to underscore the importance of Josh’s comment, about axiomatic systems being limited, this is huge.
Police could be more efficient at catching criminals if we could just put up CCTV everywhere, and monitor all our emails, SMS messages and if they didn’t have to follow due process. Think of all the time police waste having to uphold our due process rights; we could improve public safety by chopping off habeaus corpus, dropping the articulable cause requirement for searches.
It’s such a minor inconvenience to have a cop search your bag on the street for a few seconds every once in a while.
It’s also a minor inconvenience to have the government scan your emails and text messages for any indicators that you’re engaged in illicit activity, especially if you have nothing to hide. Government could spend less money on policing if only some individual rights could be curtailed and enforcement made a little more efficient.
Mike B,
Yeah, that was an unfair swipe by Prof. Gordon’s.
“There is simply no way that any useful data will emerge from this exercise. This is so fundamental a point that the Chief Statistician resigned rather than let Tony Clement publicly suggest that he and the professionals at Statistics Canada believed otherwise.”
“No way” is a too big for me. I think, with work and intelligence, the problem can be fixed (not perfectly though), using the amount of non-census information detained by governements.
Or maybe we should not do any census at all! You know what, even mandatory census produces flawed results because of flawed obligated respondents that answer anything in the census but the truth!
“Let’s now turn to the ostensible reason for making the long form voluntary: the well-rehearsed horror at the possibility that someone might be jailed for not revealing the number of bedrooms in their homes. (Can someone explain to me why this is such a big deal? We’re a family of five, with four bedrooms. Have I somehow set myself up for blackmail?)”
Why putting someone in jail to not answer a census?
“We should first dispense with the zombie meme of “Many countries have dropped the census, so we can too.” This has been blown away any number of times, but it insists on lumbering across the political landscape in search of brains.
Yes, there are several examples of countries – especially in Scandinavia – that have abandoned the traditional census. These countries maintain databases that keep track of all interactions between the citizen and the State, so a census is simply redundant: the government already knows everything there is to know about you. For example, they know where you live, they know when you moved there (all movements must be registered with the police), and they know from the zoning registries just how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have. They even know your high school trigonometry marks – why bother with a census? If you’re concerned about issues such as privacy and state coercion, these are not counter-examples that you should be citing.”
I agree with you on this. This in not an acceptable alternative to mandatory census. It’s worse and it illustrates the blatant hypocrisy of Big Governement Conservatives.
“If our government was really serious about privacy and state coercion, they wouldn’t be pointing to the Nordic registry model as an alternative to a mandatory census.”
I agree!
“If, in your mind’s eye, you see yourself storming the Bastille in order to liberate the foes of tyranny, no-one has ever been jailed for not complying with the census.”
I agree, but it’s inacceptable to have that kind of law.
“But, as has become crushingly clear over the past few weeks, the census is the irreplaceable cornerstone of evidence-based policy evaluation. Making the census voluntary offers the smallest possible gains in terms of civil liberties, at the greatest possible cost in terms of responsible governance.”
But, in itself, it’s a a gain for civil liberties. But I understand your critics about confused statist-libertarians.
“If you really believed that our government was motivated by libertarian principles, the news from the past couple of days should have disabused you of this notion. It turns out that our freedom-loving government’s highest priority is to build prisons in order to incarcerate those who participate in activities associated with drug trafficking and prostitution.”
I agree with you on this. In fact, adult drug trafficking and adult prostitution are victimless non-crimes! Again the hypocrisy of Big Government Conservatives…
“Yes, my libertarian friends, our government is intent on tracking down informed, consenting adults engaging in freely-arrived-at exchanges of goods and services at a mutually-agreed-upon price, and putting them in jail. And thanks to your unflinching support, it can do so in the name of civil rights and freedoms!”
100% agree with you on this! Maybe you’re more libertarian that what I thought…
You and Moffat are the first to argue in favor of a mandatory census with real arguments.
P.S.: I love your writing style! Love that type of vitriolic piece! 🙂
“You and Moffat are the first to argue in favor of a mandatory census with real arguments.”
I’m not even arguing for a mandatory census per se – I’m just stating that the old policy is preferable to the new policy.
Keep in mind, a couple weeks ago I argued to make the census voluntary by eliminating the jail time/fine and replacing it with an ‘opt out’ fee.
“a couple weeks ago I argued to make the census voluntary by eliminating the jail time/fine and replacing it with an ‘opt out’ fee.”
Oh sorry, I agree! You’re right on this. My bad.
“I’m not even arguing for a mandatory census per se – I’m just stating that the old policy is preferable to the new policy.”
Okay, I understand more your point.
…but I disagree with the fee.
“…but I disagree with the fee.”
Well, I disagree with the extra taxes you guys want me to pay to make the census voluntary. And unlike a fee, I don’t have a choice – I have to pay it.
“Well, I repeat my question: why would a libertarian, who fundamentally does not acknowledge the right of the government to compel me to do such a thing, look at the question as a matter of economic costs and benefits?”
I agree with Mike on this, It’s not just a question of costs and benefits.
And you know what, maybe you’re right with only the cost-benefits premise!
“Well, I disagree with the extra taxes you guys want me to pay to make the census voluntary. And unlike a fee, I don’t have a choice – I have to pay it.”
“You guys” is not me. “You guys” is Big Government Conservatives and confused vulgar libertarians. And you know what, your idea is not so bad if you compare to Big Brother-Style databases or the “jail-mandatory” option.
@Mike Brock
“Very few libertarians that I know support the Conservative party. And even those who do, in a nominal sense, do so on an argument — which I reject — that they’re the “best of the worst”. But not that they’re our political brethren. I imagine the three libertarians (myself included) who have shown up, won’t be the last to stick you with this sort of rebuttal.”
Maybe you point out THE big problem in this debate. It seems that you’re not a confused vulgar libertarian that sees Maximum Berné as the pinnacle of minarchist-libertarian government.
No way Conservatives are good for libertarian and anarchist principles!
“And you know what, your idea is not so bad if you compare to Big Brother-Style databases or the “jail-mandatory” option.”
In other words, because you’re uncomfortable telling the government how many bedrooms your house has, I am forced to pay more money.
Am I the only one wondering who the libertarian is here?
Sorry, but I repeat: your idea IS NOT SO BAD if you compare to Big Brother-Style databases or the “jail-mandatory” option.
I am not sarcastic.
“In other words, because you’re uncomfortable telling the government how many bedrooms your house has, I am forced to pay more money.”
And you know what, many people will not tell the truth on this if the census is mandatory.
@Mike Brock
What’s your real political position? Libertarian, anarchist or minarchist?
I think the point is that libertarians won’t be making any constructive contributions to this debate. I’m definitely sympathetic to libertarian views, but I get exasperated when it is rigidly applied (ie, cost/benefit is irrelevant in situations where there is any state intrusion whatsoever). That philosophy is so far removed from our reality that it’s hard to take it all that seriously.
And in Stephen’s defense, I think he was not really criticizing ‘true’ libertarians, but the facile libertarian argument against the census, replaced with a mandatory short form and optional long form.
@Mike Brock
“So, this is an interesting observation, Jane. And certainly, if I supported a stateless society, I’d be an anarchist. Not a libertarian. But I think you’ve missed the point a little”
Okay, I see, you’re a statist minarchist, and your confused position is one of the reasons why Gordon and Moffat can easily argue with you, using the Conservative-Libertarian association concept, in this issue.
Statist minarchim is a great delusion:
“ie, cost/benefit is irrelevant in situations where there is any state intrusion whatsoever”
Not exactly, cost-benefit is not the only relevant argument, but this argument is relevant.
“And in Stephen’s defense, I think he was not really criticizing ‘true’ libertarians, but the facile libertarian argument against the census, replaced with a mandatory short form and optional long form.”
His position on drugs and prostitution makes think you’re right on this, Andrew.
you’re a statist minarchist
Nope.
A few points for Mike B:
If you really wanted to convince me that you hadn’t gone into the CPC tank on the census file, then you shouldn’t have recited Tony Clement’s July talking points. Just saying.
And you should really have checked this site out before attempting to instruct us in the Miracle of Markets. There are several trained economists here, and we know all about the First Welfare Theorem. We also know about the Second Welfare Theorem, the problems posed by externalities/spillovers, missing markets, asymmetric information and many other things besides. Most of the time, markets work fine, but there are many important cases where markets fail. It is a common failing of libertarians that they do not drink deep enough from the Pierian spring of economic thought.
Pointing to the Calculation Problem simply means that you don’t understand the problem we’re pointing out. No one here is advocating central planning, and again, a little research on your part should have made that clear.
My point is that you have sold your approval too cheaply. The govt gave you the teensiest crumb it could imagine, and it’s using you as free labour to sell its dimwit policy. How many of the past 24 hours have you spent on this site? How many would have been more profitably spent decrying the tough-on-crime agenda?
“How many would have been more profitably spent decrying the tough-on-crime agenda?”
You seem to erroneously assume I haven’t. Example: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/08/stockwell-day-still-wrong-on-crime.html