philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (01/07/91)
Of course, this discussion of Lotus Marketplace and its use of census information (and the census itself) is all very much related to computers, because the US Census in 1890 was a major impetus to the development of technologies which were later used in computers. There is a fundamental question here: is inventing technology a good way of solving social problems? Although the computer industry has led to undoubted benefits to society, I don't believe that the ability to conduct a fuller census is necessarily such an advance. Couldn't the population be estimated with equal accuracy by statistical methods? Samples could be taken more often, and very extensive checks could be run for a fraction of the cost of counting the entire population (which in any case seems to be virtually impossible). In particular, the count for disadvantaged groups is likely to be prejudiced by attempting a full count. "Non-disadvantaged" people have permanent addresses, are literate, and don't have any specific reason to be suspicious of authority. So while I agree that there is a trade-off between collective and individual rights, I'm not sure if I buy the argument that a census is essential (maybe it is in terms of the US constitution, but that's a different issue). Philip Machanick
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (01/09/91)
Philip Machanick writes: > "Non-disadvantaged" people ... don't have any specific reason to > be suspicious of authority. Oh? How about the income tax, the property tax, censorship, the draft, sales taxes, mail openings, wiretaps, anti-competitive regulation, gun control, inter alia? But to return to your main thesis: because of the 14th Amendment, and subsequent "one person, one vote" rulings (which I support), a person count is Constitutionally essential. My objections to the Census as currently handled are: (1) there is a coercive element (the fine, no matter how rarely invoked); (2) questions beyond the person count itself. It's none of Uncle's business how many rooms are in my house, etc. Jeff Daiell
ward@tsnews.Convergent.COM (Ward Griffiths) (01/09/91)
The original purpose of the national census each decade, as established in the original U.S. Constitution, was nothing more than counting noses. The primary reasons for the nose-counting were to determine how many congress-critters each state would supply to the house of representatives, and how much taxes each state would pay to the federal government. Of course, the latter reason no longer applies, as the Constitution was later ammended to allow the federal government to tax individuals. I am not sure of the legal basis for the newer nosy versions of the census, but I must assume that with the current policy of treating regulations inflicted by government departments as having the power of law, that someone at the bureau simply decided "Hey! Why don't we insist they give us all these nifty personal details about their lives!". Can't say as I personally agree with these rules, but as Chairman Mao (a man I respected but did not admire) said: Power Comes from the Barrel of a Gun. And the government has more guns than I have. At present. Ward Griffiths
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (01/10/91)
Ward Griffiths writes: > Can't say as I personally agree with these rules, but as Chairman Mao (a > man I respected but did not admire) said: Power Comes from the Barrel > of a Gun... True, but there are still the courts - and I think the reason that census resisters haven't been tried is that Uncle knows the "legal" grounds for the invasive questions is shaky at best, and doesn't want a court case ... especially since the trial would be open. Can't have the general populace hearing arguments based on the Constitution now, can they? Jeff Daiell
cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) (01/15/91)
Ward Griffiths writes: > The original purpose of the national census each decade, as established > in the original U.S. Constitution, was nothing more than counting > noses. The primary reasons for the nose-counting were to determine how > many congress-critters each state would supply to the house of > representatives, and how much taxes each state would pay to the federal > government. I think you've got the details wrong here [but the overall point is correct]. The Constitution is quite clear, and the sense is exactly backwards from what you say: the "original purpose" is to establish the apportionment and the tax base. period. It is not the "primary reason", it is the *ONLY* reason. There is NO authority for a 'nose count', per se, or any other arbitrary statistics gathering. > I am not sure of the legal basis for the newer nosy versions of the > census, but I must assume that with the current policy of treating > regulations inflicted by government departments as having the power > of law, that someone at the bureau simply decided "Hey! Why don't we > insist they give us all these nifty personal details about their lives!". Again, simply going back to the constitution clarifies this some: it sames [Art I sec 2 #3] "The actual enumeration shall be made ... in such manner as they [Congress] shall by law direct". And the law now says that you are legally obligated to answer all of those @#$%@#$ questions. Is the law constitutional? That's a trickier question, but I suspect that the SC would rule that it IS. The actual legal tradition varies from court to court, but in general in matters of procedure the SC defers to the other branches to determine for themselves how to do their jobs. In this case, the argument would go that "We [Congress] are empowered to determine how the census ought to be conducted, and since it must be by law, that implies the consent of the Executive. And that's what we've done" Barring any really gross overstepping of their authority or other impropriety, I think that the SC, in general, buys this kind of reasoning. One problem is that the gov't has gotten involved in all sorts of things which while arguable beyond its intended purview are nonetheless fait accompli. Many of these [e.g., welfare programs, anti-discriminatory programs, other aid programs, projections for the costs of Social Security, etc, etc] all really require that for the gov't to be able to administer its programs in a rational way it really MUST have more of this intrusive information. [e.g., it is real hard to police discriminatory practices if you are denied any way of determining what is going on; or it is real hard to administer an 'aid' program of any sort if you're denied knowing which parts of the country are in need and which aren't]. I'll just point out that some would argue that this quandry is prima facie evidence that the gov't is involved in things it ought not be messing with, and so instead of further sullying the waters with its further intrusions, perhaps it ought to rethink the basic programs and find a way to better stay within its intended bounds. Bernie