My Soultion To This Census Mess

I believe there is some middle ground we can come to here.  All it involves is a re-write of Section 31 of the STATISTICS ACT:

31. Every person who, without lawful excuse,

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or

(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 29.

Here's my solution:

Delete the clause that states: "or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both." Nobody has gone to jail for refusing to fill out the census and nobody ever will. All this clause does is "angry up the blood" of those opposed to mandatory census taking. So let's omit it. Change the clause that states:

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.

to:

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, is required to submit a blank census form along with an 'opt out fee' of five hundred dollars.

The census has always been optional in the sense that you could choose to pay the fine rather than filling in the information. Now the act would be re-written in a way that makes this obvious.

Researchers get their complete data, since I suspect few would choose the opt-out route and those opposed to a mandatory census have a way of opting out. It's win-win!

Comments

[Mike Moffatt]

This is a tounge-in-cheek post, but in all seriousness I believe if the Feds got rid of the part about 'jail time', it'd go a long way. The idea that you could (in theory) be thrown in jail for the simple act of not filling out your census is absurd, and is probably the best anti-census argument I've heard. Eliminate that clause and that argument goes away.

[Determinant]

What about people who don't have 500 dollars? What about a clear non-monetary payment like 20 hours community service. AIUI this was originally the point of the "fine or jail" penalties but society has moved on.

Here's hoping for September and putting Tony Clement on the hot seat.

This isn't the first time he's conducted misguided policy either. When he was Health Minister in Ontario he tried to delist several services that a family member depends on for their health. He was widely seen as a bully for doing so.

[Mike Moffatt]

"What about people who don't have 500 dollars? What about a clear non-monetary payment like 20 hours community service."

That works. Or an equivalent amt. of community service, paid in minimum wage, of $500.

But I just realized something - even if Clement is successful in making this change, there's still the threat of jail time for not filling out the small census! So maybe I've giving too much credit to the 'jail time' argument.

[Determinant]

Part of it is that on the face of it wanting to know the number of rooms and bathrooms in your house sounds invasive, big brotherish, and silly all at the same time.

Until you remember that those questions were raised during the housing crunch after WWII, when a significant number of Canadian homes still didn't have adequate plumbing, building codes were widely ignored and families of four or more lived in very small houses that today would count as garages with two rooms at most.

I know of examples of this that my grandparents pointed out to me.

Those questions seem silly now because of things like CMHC loans and the National Building Code which raised the standards of residential construction.

[Adam]

And what happens if you don't pay the fine?

[Patrick]

Adam: tack it on their income tax and let CRA collect it.

[Hal Jam]

@ Patrick

Mix census enforcement with data provided to CRA for income tax collection purposes?

Genius.

Nothing could possibly undermine public confidence in StatsCan independence and confidentiality faster ...

Keep those ideas coming, brother. LOL

[Adam]

"tack it on their income tax and let CRA collect it."

And what happens if you don't pay income tax?

[Hal Jam]

@ Adam

If you don't pay the fine, then the full machinery of state coercion falls on you (court with the possibility of garnishment of wages or even jail, for failing to pay a sum due to the Crown) – just as you imply with your question.

One can put all the makeup one wants on the pig ...

[Jim Rootham]

That's OK, I like this pig, even without makeup.

[Patrick]

Adam,Hal, you seem to be implying that enforcement is a problem. I don't think it is. I'd think the law order Conservatives would be down with that. What you seem to be calling coercion can also be viewed as "holding-up your end of the bargain". You live in society, and benefit enormously from that, but it comes at price. In return, the state demands a very few things from you: 1) obey the law 2) pay your taxes 3) fill in your census. If you need it simpler terms try here.

[Adam]

Thanks, Patrick. I draw your attention to two of those items in particular:

1) Don't hit people.
2) Don't take things that aren't yours.

Incidentally, here's the definition of coercion from the Random House Dictionary:

co·er·cion
–noun
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Please explain on what possible grounds requiring a person to do as you say on penalty of being thrown in a cage or having the person's property forcibly seized is not coercive. Or consistent with the principles set forth in the link that you posted.

[Patrick]

Adam: Oh Gawd. If you want a treatise on the philosophical underpinnings of the legitimacy of representative democracy, I suggest you go to the library.

In any case. what would you do when people don't follow the first two rules at the link (Share everything, Play fair), or the two rules you cite? Living in society and enjoying it's benefits can't be free. So I have no problem with a democratically elected gov't enforcing the law through due process. If one doesn't like it, there's always Somalia.

Incidentally, if Harper et. al. where to put the proposed changes to the census before the House as legislation, I'd have much less problem with the process. As it is, the PMO is gutting one of the pillars that hold up the constitutional promise of good government without any consultation and against the advice of, well, just about everyone who knows anything at all about the issue.

Pretty radical stuff for a supposedly *conservative* government.

[Adam]

Patrick, for some reason, you (like most people, sadly) think that it's perfectly acceptable to force people to do things because you want them done. Not that anyone's ever explained to me why, say, a room full of people spontaneously voting to help themselves to the contents of your wallet is any different from "the electorate" doing so. Coercion is wrong (as you've dropped the point, I assume you acknowledge that using force is, indeed, coercive).

When people don't follow the rules "don't hit people" and "don't take things that aren't yours" I may be convinced that throwing them in a cage is necessary. Maybe. But only then. Certainly not for failing to do any of the other millions of things that the state compels us to do, such as answering a survey.

As for the Somalia canard, you could read this piece, if you're interested:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/09/090515-3.htm

When people don't follow the rules "share everything" and "play fair" I would avoid them, as they're not the sort of people I want to be around. But I utterly fail to see how on Earth "share everything" and "play fair" imply "do as I say, or else be locked in a cage or give me your property." I'd love to hear why that's not the case.

[Determinant]

Adam:

Governments have coerced behaviour from citizens since forever. It's what they do.

The fact that it's the government which does it, which we elected, and which spends our money is what makes it legitimate.

For example, Toronto gets 22 seats in the House of Commons. Riding demographics are highly variable, the ridings themselves are small and the population is very fluid. How exactly is the Boundary Commission supposed to revise the ridings without reliable Long Form data? If you can't match up ridings with lifestyles and communities of interest, democracy surely suffers.

[Patrick]

Adam, your analogy is silly and childish. In Canada in 2010 you get the full benefit of the protection of the state (defence, private property, courts, police), and the welfare system (EI, CPP, medical care, etc etc). In return you have obligations like pay your taxes, and fill in the census. Now we can debate and have machinery to adjust just how much the state does and what you owe in return (as I suggested in the case of the census changes) but the claim that you get nothing in return for the demands placed on you by the state is flat out wrong.

[Adam]

"Governments have coerced behaviour from citizens since forever. It's what they do."

I know. Longevity and acceptability are totally separate matters.

"The fact that it's the government which does it, which we elected, and which spends our money is what makes it legitimate."

Perhaps to you, not to me. I've never understood who the "we" in that sentiment is (yes, I know, it's "we" the people. Not a very helpful statement).

"the claim that you get nothing in return for the demands placed on you by the state is flat out wrong."

No one claims any such thing, and the question is besides the point in any case. I simply state that coercion is wrong. People teach that to their kids from day one. At what age "hitting people is OK" and "if you want something, go ahead and take it" become acceptable maxims by which to live, I'm not sure.

[Winston]

"Coercion is wrong (as you've dropped the point, I assume you acknowledge that using force is, indeed, coercive)." - Adam

Coercion is not wrong. It is the basis of our state, our government, our laws, and, more broadly, our civilization. It is what's required to maintain peace and order, never mind good government.

"I simply state that coercion is wrong. People teach that to their kids from day one." - Adam

Parents teach their children to obey their rules or else be punished. That's coercion. It's been a fundamental part of human social life since our inception, and it is manifested today in states, governments, laws, social conventions, and even families. I suppose you believe that all of these things are immoral.

[Adam]

"Coercion is not wrong."

Thanks for the honesty. You believe that it's OK to use violence if you think that you can get good results by doing so.

"It is the basis of our state, our government, our laws, and, more broadly, our civilization. It is what's required to maintain peace and order, never mind good government."

Not so long ago, the very same words would have been written - with no less conviction, if not more - about absolute monarchy, slavery, the preeminence of the Church, the primacy of men over women, racial segregation laws, and so on. In fact, this kind of sentiment is still quite popular when it comes to recognition of same-sex marriage. Many people see it as being the literal end of Western civilization.

All of these people were completely and utterly wrong, and the monstrously immoral thing that they defended on the basis that "it is the basis of our civilization and is required to maintain peace and order" passed into history.

"Parents teach their children to obey their rules or else be punished."

If you wish to be treated as a child, that's your choice. I prefer to be treated as an adult who is subject to no one's parental tutelage.

"That's coercion. It's been a fundamental part of human social life since our inception, and it is manifested today in states, governments, laws, social conventions, and even families. I suppose you believe that all of these things are immoral."

Yes, states and governments are immoral. Deeply so. Violence is at the heart of their existence (in fact, it's the very definition of the state in the classic political science formulation: an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate (whatever that means) use of force). And to the extent that the force used in families is by parents on children, it's another matter altogether (to a point). I doubt that you think that a man's fists are a legitimate means to keep his wife in line. And there are no social conventions enforced through coercion. They are enforced by shunning and avoidance. If you ever try and use coercion on someone who fails to offer his seat on the bus to a pregnant lady, you may not like the consequences.

Funny just how condescending and dismissive Serious, Sophisticated get when faced with the ridiculous claim that violence is wrong.

[Patrick]

Adam, you might as well rail against the fundamental unfairness of not being able to pick your parents.

"... and there are no social conventions enforced through coercion"

Really? Then I dare you to go come to Edmonton and hit on a rig hands girlfriend some time around last call. I have a feeling you'd get an education in the benefits of a) police empowered by the state to use coercion (i.e a taser to pull the guy off you), b) tax collection (through coercion) that'll pay for your stay in hospital.

[Adam]

"Adam, you might as well rail against the fundamental unfairness of not being able to pick your parents."

You're correct, it's not going to change (because of people like you who think that others should be forced to do what you like). That doesn't make it right.

[Patrick]

Adam, that doesn't make any sense. Assuming you are Canadian, you've benefitted enormously from the state and it's so-called use of coercion. If you were born in Canada, as a fetus you and your mother probably received pre-natal and delivery medical care thanks to state coercion. You receive medical coverage through your life thanks to state coercion, you receive EI coverage, and you'll get CPP when you get old. if you went to public school your elementary and secondary education was paid for by state coercion. The roads that bring you your food and that you drive on to go to work are maintained by state coercion, The machinery of state that protects your private property and ensures that your food and drugs are safe is backed by state coercion. The list goes on. What would your prospects have been in society that didn't use all this so-called coercion? Well, it'd probably look a lot like Dickensian England. If you weren't born into a wealthy family, chances are you and or your mother would have died at birth. If you survived past infancy, you probably would have died from simple ailment - unless your family had money for medicine. You probably wouldn't have received much of an education. You certainly wouldn't have had EI coverage or CPP. So, yeah you would have been subject to less 'coercion', but would you really have been any freer?

And BTW, the administration of all freedom enhancing/misery reducing programs rely on data from the long form census,

I'm not saying that we shouldn't debate the extent to which government should be involved in our lives, and what it ought and ought not to do, but your claim that state coercion always and everywhere diminished freedom just doesn't make any sense at all.

[Adam]

Patrick, I think that this exceeds the scope of an exchange of blog posts, but frankly every claim you make above is highly dubious at best. We're not better off than the Victorians because of state coercion, we're better off because we're wealthier. And your insistence that the bounty of modernity is due to violence has been examined critically by people far more knowledgeable than I.

You could start by reading The Voluntary City.
http://www.amazon.ca/Voluntary-City-Choice-Community-Society/dp/0472112406/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279476353&sr=8-2

Or From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State.
http://www.amazon.ca/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/080782531X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279476369&sr=1-5

In any case, I'm simply stating that violence is wrong. Apparently this is a highly controversial and laughable thing to say. Who knew.

[Patrick]

Adam, my point was not compare Victorian with present times, but rather to propose a couterfactual. The point was simply this: in the absence of the welfare state (and what you say is it's terrible violence and coersion) most of us - especially the poor - would be much much worse off, though we would be free of the coercion of the state necessary to make the welfare state work. Would we really be any freer? I say no. Perhaps looking at the plight of the working poor in the US is better example. I dunno.

Anyway, we clearly are way OT so we'll have to agree to disagree.

There. Isn't that terrible civilized and non-coercive of me?

:)

[Adam]

Patrick, I'm happy to leave at agreeing to disagree... but please, read more history. What you claim about the welfare state is very doubtful at best. On that civilized note...

[Jonathan]

Well, if you're gonna reference The Simpsons, then I guess you automatically win. It's like the anti-Godwin.

[Roland Jodoin]

When I became of age, my parents taught me this invaluable lesson: "Don't bother arguing with at drunk guy".

Maybe the lessons extends to Libertarians.

[Roland Jodoin]

And at the cost of being guilty of re-posting here something I posted elsewhere:

This reminds me of that great cartoon where the man walks out of his house, which is on fire, and tells the firemen: "No, thank you, I'm a Libertarian." Libertarians are the mirror image, from the other end of the spectrum, of the commune-dwelling hippies of the 60s. All theory. No practical sense whatsoever.