PDA

View Full Version : Just the facts: what are our legal options regarding the Census?




Maestro232
03-16-2010, 12:58 PM
Not that I don't appreciate all the anti-census sentament, but can we just get the facts here? Responses that say "I through mine in the trash" or "government sucks" doesn't really help. What are our legal options and ramafications regarding the Census? I don't want to answer any more than I have to, but it's not worth fine or imprisonment when they already have all this info anyway.

Rael
03-16-2010, 01:11 PM
http://people.howstuffworks.com/question345.htm

They wont do anything to you. They pretty much never pursue it. Just throw your census form in the round file

kylejack
03-16-2010, 01:15 PM
So basically we're on the hook for a max of $100 for ignoring it, and that fine has never been levied. Great.

But what's this number I hear being thrown around of $5000?

Erazmus
03-16-2010, 01:17 PM
So basically we're on the hook for a max of $100 for ignoring it, and that fine has never been levied. Great.

But what's this number I hear being thrown around of $5000?

It's a $100 fine per question to a maximum aggregate of $5000.

Scofield
03-16-2010, 01:26 PM
You have a Constitutional responsibility to partake in the Census. Though, the only question you have to answer is the "How many individuals live in this household?" question. You do not have to answer any of the other questions. Legally, if you do not answer every question, the government may be able to fine you; but they do not have a constitutional power to force you to answer questions not related to enumeration (the actual headcount), so you'd be theoretically able to fight such a fine in court.

You can't sit on these forums and clamor for a constitutional government and then go and ignore one of provisions of the constitution in place. It makes you no better than the government officials whom you bitch about for ignoring other parts of the contract.

TinCanToNA
03-16-2010, 01:31 PM
You have a Constitutional responsibility to partake in the Census. Though, the only question you have to answer is the "How many individuals live in this household?" question. You do not have to answer any of the other questions. Legally, if you do not answer every question, the government may be able to fine you; but they do not have a constitutional power to force you to answer questions not related to enumeration (the actual headcount), so you'd be theoretically able to fight such a fine in court.

You can't sit on these forums and clamor for a constitutional government and then go and ignore one of provisions of the constitution in place. It makes you no better than the government officials whom you bitch about for ignoring other parts of the contract.

+1776

From a Constitutional perspective, the Census is absolutely legal, minus the extraneous questions of course. I plan to give number of residents and also my name out of courtesy for accountability reasons.

driege
03-16-2010, 01:38 PM
+1776

From a Constitutional perspective, the Census is absolutely legal, minus the extraneous questions of course. I plan to give number of residents and also my name out of courtesy for accountability reasons.


This is very important. It makes me angry to hear about people throwing the entire census in the trash. If you wish to rely on the Constitution to support what you believe is the proper role of government, you should adhere to it yourself. This means answering the number of people at your address, but nothing more.

TCE
03-16-2010, 01:40 PM
Yeah, but then they send Census workers to your house, ironically paid for with our tax dollars, and get the rest of the answers anyway. If you answer the door, then they know what race you are and about how old you are, so that takes those questions down. Typically they head on over to a neighboring house and get the rest of the info.

kylejack
03-16-2010, 01:40 PM
You have a Constitutional responsibility to partake in the Census. Though, the only question you have to answer is the "How many individuals live in this household?" question. You do not have to answer any of the other questions. Legally, if you do not answer every question, the government may be able to fine you; but they do not have a constitutional power to force you to answer questions not related to enumeration (the actual headcount), so you'd be theoretically able to fight such a fine in court.

You can't sit on these forums and clamor for a constitutional government and then go and ignore one of provisions of the constitution in place. It makes you no better than the government officials whom you bitch about for ignoring other parts of the contract.
I didn't sign any Constitution. I have no responsibilities that I didn't agree to take on.

TinCanToNA
03-16-2010, 01:44 PM
I didn't sign any Constitution. I have no responsibilities that I didn't agree to take on.

Oh boy, social contract arguments...
You and everybody else, kylejack. You and everybody else... :rolleyes:

torchbearer
03-16-2010, 01:53 PM
I simply say-
"i have an attorney retained for this matter. He has asked that all questions regarding this matter be addressed to him from now on. here is his contact info. thank you. "

kylejack
03-16-2010, 02:35 PM
Oh boy, social contract arguments...
You and everybody else, kylejack. You and everybody else... :rolleyes:
Just another day living the dream. :cool:

BuddyRey
03-16-2010, 02:39 PM
I didn't sign any Constitution. I have no responsibilities that I didn't agree to take on.

+1!

Even if the Constitution applied to me (i.e. if they could show me where I signed up for it), I'd see precious little point in obeying it when the people who unjustly implement its power over me don't obey it themselves.

roho76
03-16-2010, 02:43 PM
This is very important. It makes me angry to hear about people throwing the entire census in the trash. If you wish to rely on the Constitution to support what you believe is the proper role of government, you should adhere to it yourself. This means answering the number of people at your address, but nothing more.

Why so they can increase the number of representatives? Oh that's right the constitution says they need that number to redistribute the wealth. So they are totally with in the confines of the constitution by collecting this information.

Don't get me wrong I'll be telling them the amount of people residing here and nothing else but arguing for the constitution under this situation is hilarious at best.

TCE
03-16-2010, 02:45 PM
Their entire argument for completing it isn't even for representative purposes, it's to make sure we get federal dollars. So, they're not even paying attention to what the Constitution says the Census is supposed to be used for.

torchbearer
03-16-2010, 02:49 PM
The Constitution mandates that a Census be conducted every ten years to determine the populations of the States, and this clause provided for a temporary apportionment of seats until the first Census could be conducted. The population of a state originally included (for congressional apportionment purposes) all "free persons", three-fifths of "other persons" (i.e., slaves) and excluded untaxed Native Americans. Presently, the Census counts illegal immigrants, and Census figures are used to determine congressional seats. The three-fifths arrangement was a compromise between the slave-holding states like South Carolina and Virginia, which wanted slaves to count as equal to free persons (including both the majority white population and thousands of free blacks living in both Northern and Southern states) in order to increase their voting strength in Congress and non-slave holding states like Massachusetts and New York which did not want slaves to count for congressional apportionment at all. This compromise had the effect of increasing the political power of slave-holding states by increasing their share of seats in the House of Representatives (see Three-fifths compromise), and consequently their share in the Electoral College (where a state's influence over the election of the President is tied to the size of its congressional delegation). Following the Civil War, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments changed this arrangement by (respectively) abolishing slavery, and superseding the three-fifths clause by requiring that a state's population for apportionment purposes was to be determined by "counting the whole number of Persons" in the state, "excluding Indians not taxed." Since there are at present no such untaxed Native Americans (Indians),[36] all persons inhabiting a state — whether citizens or not — count towards the population of that state in determining the state's congressional apportionment.

Originally, the amount of direct taxes that could be collected from any State was tied directly to its share of the national population. On the basis of this requirement, application of the income tax to income derived from real estate and specifically income in the form of dividends from personal property ownership such as stock shares was found to be unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states;[37] that is to say, there was no guarantee that a State with 10% of the country's population paid 10% of those income taxes collected, because Congress had not fixed an amount of money to be raised and apportioned it between the States according to their respective shares of the national population. To permit the levying of such an income tax, Congress proposed and the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

erowe1
03-16-2010, 02:53 PM
You have a Constitutional responsibility to partake in the Census. Though, the only question you have to answer is the "How many individuals live in this household?" question.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to answer that question. The Constitution authorizes the government to count you, it doesn't obligate you to help them by filling something out. In fact, the 13th Amendment prohibits them from making you do it without paying you for your time.

chudrockz
03-16-2010, 03:35 PM
Interesting stuff here.

I have a question. We got out census form in the mail maybe two months ago or so. I dutifully filled it out (the whole godforsaken thing) and mailed it back the same day.

Just now I got home from work to find that we got ANOTHER one in the mail! What, pray tell, do I "have" to do with THIS one?

UGH.

disorderlyvision
03-16-2010, 03:37 PM
http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc329/disorderlyvision/211224-4med.jpg



/thread

UtahApocalypse
03-16-2010, 03:39 PM
Interesting stuff here.

I have a question. We got out census form in the mail maybe two months ago or so. I dutifully filled it out (the whole godforsaken thing) and mailed it back the same day.

Just now I got home from work to find that we got ANOTHER one in the mail! What, pray tell, do I "have" to do with THIS one?

UGH.

Today IS Census Day. Any other form you filled out before was likely a well faked scam and your took the bait.

Juan McCain
03-16-2010, 03:45 PM
Count me as the U.S. Constitution says . . .

but, race or how many toilets in the house . . .

"I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment grounds that it might incriminate me . . . ?"

j6p
03-16-2010, 04:10 PM
Just throw it away and if they follow up just say ya never recived it.

chudrockz
03-16-2010, 04:44 PM
I am genuinely disturbed now. The "census form" that I received in the mail a couple of months ago, filled out and returned, is NOT THE SAME one that I just got in the mail today.

Sigh.

Identity theft??

:(

Erazmus
03-16-2010, 04:59 PM
I am genuinely disturbed now. The "census form" that I received in the mail a couple of months ago, filled out and returned, is NOT THE SAME one that I just got in the mail today.

Sigh.

Identity theft??

:(

Why would someone, other than government, want to know how many toilets are in your house? You didn't put, like your social security number, mother's maiden name, and your bank account info on there did you?

MelissaWV
03-16-2010, 05:02 PM
I am genuinely disturbed now. The "census form" that I received in the mail a couple of months ago, filled out and returned, is NOT THE SAME one that I just got in the mail today.

Sigh.

Identity theft??

:(

Is it the same form, or is it the ACS?

QueenB4Liberty
03-16-2010, 05:43 PM
This is very important. It makes me angry to hear about people throwing the entire census in the trash. If you wish to rely on the Constitution to support what you believe is the proper role of government, you should adhere to it yourself. This means answering the number of people at your address, but nothing more.

....But if the Census no longer serves its Constitutional purpose, why follow it? It's supposed to be used to appropriate House members, we had 98 million people when the 435 House members rule was chosen, we need quite a bit more now that we have over 300 million people. Am I wrong?

TCE
03-16-2010, 06:13 PM
we had 98 million people when the 435 House members rule was chosen, we need quite a bit more now that we have over 300 million people. Am I wrong?

Hopefully Melissa will see this. :p

Scofield
03-16-2010, 06:13 PM
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to answer that question. The Constitution authorizes the government to count you, it doesn't obligate you to help them by filling something out. In fact, the 13th Amendment prohibits them from making you do it without paying you for your time.


The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. -emphasis mine

O'rly?

Edit: For those of you who refuse to fill out the Census (just the headcount question), I do hope you get punished.

mczerone
03-16-2010, 07:00 PM
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to answer that question. The Constitution authorizes the government to count you, it doesn't obligate you to help them by filling something out. In fact, the 13th Amendment prohibits them from making you do it without paying you for your time.

Further, anyone with half a brain can "count" the population of any locale with statistical methods that will give a result that is identical to what they can get by having us "count ourselves".

And they could do it from a few offices in each state, with a total cost of maybe a couple of million dollars. BUT THEY ARE SPENDING OVER $10 BILLION ON THIS PROPAGANDA and offices of staff to do mailings and house visits.

The Census: the original jobs stimulus plan.

mczerone
03-16-2010, 07:04 PM
-emphasis mine

O'rly?

Edit: For those of you who refuse to fill out the Census (just the headcount question), I do hope you get punished.

You hope that people are punished how? Thrown into cages, capital punishment, or exportation? What if I don't want to let the govt know how many children they can steal from me?

You really would spend resources trying to punish people that refuse to answer a question that any idiot could answer for themselves if they could handle the mental tasks of observation and counting?

ghengis86
03-16-2010, 07:08 PM
I am genuinely disturbed now. The "census form" that I received in the mail a couple of months ago, filled out and returned, is NOT THE SAME one that I just got in the mail today.

Sigh.

Identity theft??

:(

google American Community Survey; was that what you filled out?

QueenB4Liberty
03-16-2010, 07:18 PM
Hopefully Melissa will see this. :p

Why am I wrong? I'm confused, everyone seems to be ignoring me. :(

Scofield
03-16-2010, 08:13 PM
You hope that people are punished how? Thrown into cages, capital punishment, or exportation? What if I don't want to let the govt know how many children they can steal from me?

You really would spend resources trying to punish people that refuse to answer a question that any idiot could answer for themselves if they could handle the mental tasks of observation and counting?

I'm in favor of you being fined for not filling out the Census.

The Census is used directly to apportion Representatives and federal taxation, and you not filling it out hinders the governments ability to do such. The government has a legal obligation to administer a Census, and you have a legal obligation to fill it out.

I really don't understand the vitriol towards the Census. I can understand not wanting to answer the additional questions, but to spit such hate at the enumeration question is unwarranted.

speciallyblend
03-16-2010, 08:26 PM
I'm in favor of you being fined for not filling out the Census.

The Census is used directly to apportion Representatives and federal taxation, and you not filling it out hinders the governments ability to do such. The government has a legal obligation to administer a Census, and you have a legal obligation to fill it out.

I really don't understand the vitriol towards the Census. I can understand not wanting to answer the additional questions, but to spit such hate at the enumeration question is unwarranted.

100% totally agree, i am battling over bending over and answering the dam thing or answering the first ? and then adding the copied response. In the end i will probably bendover since the last 2 yrs i have been screwed by the system. can't afford to get screwed!

axiomata
03-16-2010, 08:42 PM
"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."

What is the response of the number count only filers to this provision? The current law dictates that the entire census be completed.

I'd like to be able to just complete the count part, but in the unlikely event I'm called on it, I'm not sure what legal basis I can stand on unless I can overturn hundreds of years of precedents of courts allowing the federal government to do more than that which is explicitly enumerated.

Cowlesy
03-16-2010, 08:47 PM
Today IS Census Day. Any other form you filled out before was likely a well faked scam and your took the bait.

He probably got the American Community Survey, a blatantly unconstitutional survey by fedgov.

YouTube - Walter E Williams on the Census (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=matl8i9kc7w&feature=player_embedded)

driege
03-16-2010, 08:55 PM
I am genuinely disturbed now. The "census form" that I received in the mail a couple of months ago, filled out and returned, is NOT THE SAME one that I just got in the mail today.

Sigh.

Identity theft??

:(

Was it the American Community Survey? Did it look like this? That could have come earlier.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS-1%28info%29%282010%29%20Stateside%20English_web.pd f
(http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS-1%28info%29%282010%29%20Stateside%20English_web.pd f)

mczerone
03-16-2010, 08:57 PM
I'm in favor of you being fined for not filling out the Census.

The Census is used directly to apportion Representatives and federal taxation, and you not filling it out hinders the governments ability to do such. The government has a legal obligation to administer a Census, and you have a legal obligation to fill it out.

I really don't understand the vitriol towards the Census. I can understand not wanting to answer the additional questions, but to spit such hate at the enumeration question is unwarranted.

And if I refused to pay the fine? Simple fines are one of the leading reasons people are thrown into cages today, because they can't (or won't budget to) pay. So you are saying that you would be willing to spend your resources to throw me in a cage because I refuse to tell your agents how many people live in my house.

The issue is that the govt has no authority to spend our money on this waste of a "count" that could be accomplished by innumerable less intrusive means that retain an individual's privacy. The Federal government was formed by a couple dozen guys over 200 years ago, and nothing that they signed on to creates legal obligations that bind the current government or the individuals of America save blind obedience.

And for the record, I don't know how I'll treat the census form. I haven't gotten mine yet, and until I do, I'm just on an academic exercise to explore the justice in such a thing.

Scofield
03-16-2010, 09:04 PM
And if I refused to pay the fine? Simple fines are one of the leading reasons people are thrown into cages today, because they can't (or won't budget to) pay. So you are saying that you would be willing to spend your resources to throw me in a cage because I refuse to tell your agents how many people live in my house.

The issue is that the govt has no authority to spend our money on this waste of a "count" that could be accomplished by innumerable less intrusive means that retain an individual's privacy. The Federal government was formed by a couple dozen guys over 200 years ago, and nothing that they signed on to creates legal obligations that bind the current government or the individuals of America save blind obedience.

And for the record, I don't know how I'll treat the census form. I haven't gotten mine yet, and until I do, I'm just on an academic exercise to explore the justice in such a thing.

Your "social contract" argument goes down a bad road. Essentially, it ends in the idea that you are free to do whatever the hell you want, because you never signed a contract giving away your ability to do whatever the hell you want.

What is your deal with not filling out the enumeration question on the Census? Are you that prejudice against the government, so prejudice that you actually disagree with one of the FEW powers the Federal Government actually has?

"FUCK DEM GUVMENTS!"

tremendoustie
03-16-2010, 09:07 PM
What is your deal with not filling out the enumeration question on the Census? You that prejudice against the government, so prejudice that you actually disagree with one of the FEW powers the Federal Government actually has?


For my part, I believe that no one has a right to demand private information of others, or to obtain such information by threat of violence.

It's actually the opposite of prejudice. I hold the government to the same standards of decent behavior that apply to everyone.

TCE
03-16-2010, 09:09 PM
Why am I wrong? I'm confused, everyone seems to be ignoring me. :(

No, you're absolutely right. Melissa and I were have a debate in another forum over that and you just brought up an excellent point to support my theory. :)

mczerone
03-16-2010, 09:19 PM
Your "social contract" argument goes down a bad road. Essentially, it ends in the idea that you are free to do whatever the hell you want, because you never signed a contract giving your ability to do whatever the hell you want away.

What is your deal with not filling out the enumeration question on the Census? You that prejudice against the government, so prejudice that you actually disagree with one of the FEW powers the Federal Government actually has?

"FUCK DME GUVMENTS! DERKERDUR!!"

Since you avoided responding to the first part of my post, I take it that you agree that you are willing to use your own resources to lock me in a cage for not obeying the questioners.

My "social contract" argument is sound, and does indeed allow me to do "whatever the hell" I want - and I expect to live with the consequences of my actions, and will hold others to that same basic human ethic. Your "social contract" argument is the one that is unsound. Check out Lysander Spooner, for one example.

And I don't have "a deal" with not filling out the enumeration question, I have a problem with aggressive people stealing my resources and then pretending that they don't know me.

The last part of my response showed that this is academic for me: I'm trying to analyze on a fundamental level what the census actually is, and what justice requires. Of course I am prejudiced against the government in this analysis, they are taking my resources through an aggression and using it to enrich themselves and create a welfare feedback system supported by brainwashing enough people to just go along and follow their orders and beg for more theft. And how does the government "have [any] few powers", except by fiat or by consent of the governed?

You seemed to rush your last post, are you letting anger lead your thinking? Do you have such a bond with these criminals that you must defend their every action, even down to 'enumerating' their subjects?

I, for one, don't care if they count me. I know how many people I need to provide for, and I'm in the best position to know how to do that. Your Federal government can go count themselves.

Scofield
03-16-2010, 09:33 PM
Since you avoided responding to the first part of my post, I take it that you agree that you are willing to use your own resources to lock me in a cage for not obeying the questioners.

Personally, I wouldn't put you in jail. I would fine you, and if you refused to pay the fine, I would reposes something of yours that is equal in price to the fine.


My "social contract" argument is sound, and does indeed allow me to do "whatever the hell" I want - and I expect to live with the consequences of my actions, and will hold others to that same basic human ethic. Your "social contract" argument is the one that is unsound. Check out Lysander Spooner, for one example.

Your "social contract" argument nullifies any idea of government. It may be logically sound, but in essence, it means anarchy (not bombs and fire on every street anarchy, but rather "without government"). As it stands, we are a nation of laws, and the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Until the majority of people agree with you, like it or not, you are bound by these laws.


And I don't have "a deal" with not filling out the enumeration question, I have a problem with aggressive people stealing my resources and then pretending that they don't know me.

Who is stealing your resources? Who is pretending that they don't know you? I don't understand what you're trying to say.


The last part of my response showed that this is academic for me: I'm trying to analyze on a fundamental level what the census actually is, and what justice requires.

In order to accurately apportion representatives to the House of Representatives, the government must know how many people live in each State. The Census also allows the government to know the amount of people in the country to apportion taxation.


Of course I am prejudiced against the government in this analysis, they are taking my resources through an aggression and using it to enrich themselves and create a welfare feedback system supported by brainwashing enough people to just go along and follow their orders and beg for more theft. And how does the government "have [any] few powers", except by fiat or by consent of the governed?

How does the Census do any of what you just said?


You seemed to rush your last post, are you letting anger lead your thinking? Do you have such a bond with these criminals that you must defend their every action, even down to 'enumerating' their subjects?

I am defending the Constitution. If you do not like the Census clause, amend the Constitution to remove it. Until then, abide by the law or face the punishment.

tremendoustie
03-16-2010, 09:41 PM
Until the majority of people agree with you, like it or not, you are bound by these laws.

Quick question: Do you believe immoral acts magically become moral because the majority supports them? I mean, it's pretty clear that if I took a gun over to my neighbor's and demanded he tell me how many people live there, or I would steal his TV, that would be an immoral act ... right? Why does it become moral if I get a big gang together to do it -- say, 200 million worth? Isn't it still wrong?

Scofield
03-16-2010, 09:44 PM
Quick question: Do you believe immoral acts magically become moral because the majority supports them? I mean, it's pretty clear that if I took a gun over to my neighbor's and demanded he tell me how many people live there, or I would steal his TV, that would be an immoral act ... right? Why does it become moral if I get a bunch of people together to do it? Isn't it still wrong?

No. Moral is moral (and immoral is immoral) regardless of law.

However, there is no morality involved in letting the government know how many people live in your household in order to accurately get a representation of how many people live in your State, an issue which is beneficial to the State and The People. Without mentioning that such a power is Constitutionally acceptable, and was absolutely approved upon by the founders in order for the people to actually have proper representation (in order for the Republic to work).

mczerone
03-16-2010, 09:48 PM
Personally, I wouldn't put you in jail. I would fine you, and if you refused to pay the fine, I would reposes something of yours that is equal in price to the fine.


So you support theft, at minimum, when someone refuse to answer your questions.


Your "social contract" argument nullifies any idea of government. It may be logically sound, but in essence, it means anarchy (not bombs and fire on every street anarchy, but rather "without government"). As it stands, we are a nation of laws, and the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Until the majority of people agree with you, like it or not, you are bound by these laws.


So we live in a majority-rule tyranny? What about the simple solution of letting others alone, and not caring what proportion agrees with you?


Who is stealing your resources? Who is pretending that they don't know you? I don't understand what you're trying to say.


Taxes fund the waste of money that is the census. They have my name and address - I just sent them a form with that info contained therein. The census is superfluous in intent and inefficient in implementation.


In order to accurately apportion representatives to the House of Representatives, the government must know how many people live in each State. The Census also allows the government to know the amount of people in the country to apportion taxation.


The # of representatives is fixed to state population at such a rate that mere statistical sampling of 1000 willing people could give the population of each state. Taxes, income or otherwise, aren't based on the number of people, but on the amount of 'income' each earns. Again, there are already forms for this, and the census is rendered meaningless.



How does the Census do any of what you just said?


You haven't seen one TV ad, or billboard, or bus placard, or radio spot propagandizing the 'benefits' of "being counted", and pacifying the people by claiming that the "info is private and confidential"?



I am defending the Constitution. If you do not like the Census clause, amend the Constitution to remove it.

I am well aware that there are people who believe in the fiat law who will punish me for not obeying. I am also willing to work to hold the fed govt to their word, by trying to get them to at least live by what they take an oath to uphold. But I'm not interested in pretending that working to amend the document will be successful or that anything would even change if that attempt were at all successful.



Until then, abide by the law or face the punishment.

You are exactly correct, until people stop the aggression against their neighbors, I must obey, or face the wrath of angry criminals.

mczerone
03-16-2010, 09:52 PM
No. Moral is moral (and immoral is immoral) regardless of law.

However, there is no morality involved in letting the government know how many people live in your household in order to accurately get a representation of how many people live in your State, an issue which is beneficial to the State and The People. Without mentioning that such a power is Constitutionally acceptable, and was absolutely approved upon by the founders in order for the people to actually have proper representation (in order for the Republic to work).

You avoided his question, and if you did answer it is contained in the words "there is no morality."

tremendoustie
03-16-2010, 09:55 PM
No. Moral is moral (and immoral is immoral) regardless of law.

However, there is no morality involved in letting the government know how many people live in your household in order to accurately get a representation of how many people live in your State, an issue which is beneficial to the State and The People. Without mentioning that such a power is Constitutionally acceptable, and was absolutely approved upon by the founders in order for the people to actually have proper representation (in order for the Republic to work).

But ... it sounds like you support someone with a gun showing up to steal my stuff ... you basically support exactly what I described in the example ... right? So, if moral is moral, regardless of law, are you supporting immoral behavior, just because it's legal?

The constitution supported slavery too you know, and it was federal law that escaped slaves had to be returned. Just because something's in the constitution, or is law, doesn't make it moral.

Scofield
03-16-2010, 10:08 PM
You avoided his question, and if you did answer it is contained in the words "there is no morality."

No, I didn't.

An action that is morally righteous is moral regardless of any law. The same goes for immorality.

You are trying to argue the Census is immoral, I am arguing it is amoral (if not beneficial). This is our disconnect.


But ... it sounds like you support someone with a gun showing up to steal my stuff ... you basically support exactly what I described in the example ... right? So, if moral is moral, regardless of law, are you supporting immoral behavior, just because it's legal?

The constitution supported slavery too you know, and it was federal law that escaped slaves had to be returned. Just because something's in the constitution, or is law, doesn't make it moral.

So you are going to compare owning slaves to filling out a piece of PAPER that lets the government know how many people live in your State, so they can properly run the government in the most representative way possible? Proper allocation of representatives means nothing to you? Does the Constitution mean ANYTHING to you, whatsoever? I want to get this question clear, because if you don't, I can understand your argument. However, if you DO care about the Constitution, I have no idea what the fuck you are bitching about.

tremendoustie
03-16-2010, 10:13 PM
So you are going to compare owning slaves to filling out a piece of PAPER that lets the government know how many people live in your State, so they can properly run the government in the most representative way possible?


No, I used it as an example to show that constitutional, legally required things can still be immoral. Do you agree with that point?

Also, do you agree that if I were to send a letter to my neighbor, demanding he tell me how many people live in his home, or I would steal his stuff, that would be immoral behavior?



Proper allocation of representatives means nothing to you? Does the Constitution mean ANYTHING to you, whatsoever? I want to get this question clear, because if you don't, I can understand your argument. However, if you DO care about the Constitution, I have no idea what the fuck you are bitching about.

Yes and no. I recognize that a lot of people with a lot of power at least pretend to obey the constitution, and a lot more people believe that the first group of people should obey the constitution. So, I recognize that what the constitution says has a fairly significant effect on what a lot of people do and believe. In that sense, I care. If I could change the constitution to prohibit immoral behavior by government, I would. In that sense, I care.

If by "care", you mean that I will support things I know to be immoral, simply because they're in the constitution, then no, absolutely not.

Scofield
03-16-2010, 10:19 PM
No, I used it as an example to show that constitutional, legally required things can still be immoral. Do you agree with that point?

Yes.

Slavery was immoral.
the Income Tax is immoral.
Limiting the right to vote to men is immoral.

All of these have been constitutionally legal in the past. Does not make them moral, but no one ever argued as such.


Yes and no. I recognize that a lot of people with a lot of power at least pretend to obey the constitution, and a lot more people believe that the first group of people should obey the constitution. So, I recognize that what the constitution says has a fairly significant effect on what a lot of people do and believe. In that sense, I care. If I could change the constitution to prohibit immoral behavior by government, I would. In that sense, I care.

If by "care", you mean that I will support things I know to be immoral, simply because they're in the constitution, then no, absolutely not.

I never said you should follow something in the Constitution that is immoral. Again, this is where we have our disconnect.

I don't believe the Census to be immoral.

tremendoustie
03-16-2010, 10:30 PM
I never said you should follow something in the Constitution that is immoral. Again, this is where we have our disconnect.

I don't believe the Census to be immoral.

Great, I'm glad this has been clarified. I thought you were making an argument that the constitution, and majority opinion, made the behavior ethical.

I edited my earlier comment to add this question, obviously after you'd started your response. What's your view?:

Do you agree that if I were to send a letter to my neighbor, demanding he tell me how many people live in his home, or I would steal his stuff, that would be immoral behavior?

ARealConservative
03-16-2010, 10:43 PM
10 years ago I responded to question 1

It produced no IRS audits. No hassle with TSA, no agents in black at the door, no helicopters, etc. etc.

Today I responded to question 1, then gave race as "other - human", because I thought this suggestion was funny.

so if I stop posting shortly, you all know why. ~ The govt has no sense of humor.

Scofield
03-16-2010, 10:54 PM
Do you agree that if I were to send a letter to my neighbor, demanding he tell me how many people live in his home, or I would steal his stuff, that would be immoral behavior?

I see where you are going with this, and no the Census is not remotely like the situation you are trying to paint.

Intent, folks. Intent. The intent of the action determines the morality, not the action itself.

Murder: Immoral
Self-defense homicide: Moral

Farting in your friend's face: Immoral
Farting in the bathroom: Moral

If you want to live in our society, not paying your dues: Immoral
If you don't want to live in our society, and don't pay your dues: Moral

However, I assume you still plan on living within the United States and use our services. If not, and you seriously plan to live in the mountains by yourself with no contact with the States whatsoever, I would deem it immoral to punish you for not filling out the Census.

tremendoustie
03-16-2010, 11:25 PM
I see where you are going with this, and no the Census is not remotely like the situation you are trying to paint.


You didn't answer my question. Is the answer yes? You believe it would be immoral?


Intent, folks. Intent. The intent of the action determines the morality, not the action itself.

Murder: Immoral
Self-defense homicide: Moral


Yes, because one is defensive violence, and the other is aggressive violence.



Farting in your friend's face: Immoral
Farting in the bathroom: Moral


One is an act of harm against your friend, the other not.




If you want to live in our society, not paying your dues: Immoral
If you don't want to live in our society, and don't pay your dues: Moral


Ah, who is that "our" exactly?

I thought you said majority support does not make immoral things moral?



However, I assume you still plan on living within the United States


The government doesn't own my land, nor does the majority, nor do you. You have no right to extort information or property from me simply because I live here.



and use our services.


The federal government offers me no services which I desire.

Furthermore, they demand my money whether I want services or not. Here's the way it really works, in free exchange: You offer your services, I decide if I want them, and if I do, I then pay you. You don't get to extort huge amounts of money from me, prohibit competition, and then inform me that if I don't like it I can leave.

Suppose we both lived in a small village. I provide protection for people. I start extorting money from everyone, whether they want my protection or not. I threaten to send men with guns to steal their homes or throw them in cages if they don't pay me. I then offer the protection for "free". Naturally, all the others who supply protection go out of business, since everyone has already been forced to pay for mine. I also use violence directly against my competitors. I then start using money taken from people by force to purchase a great deal of property, and to finance a great deal of construction, including roads, schools, water supplies, sanitation, etc. I extend my monopoly into these areas, by again extorting money from people to pay for them, whether they want the services or not, offering them for "free", and allowing competitors, who have to charge their customers a second time, to largely disappear.

Finally, when people object to my behavior, I tell them that they have no right to object, because they use my "services". They drink water, do they not? They use the roads, do they not? They flush the toilet, do they not? If they don't like it, I say, they can up and leave their property (which they acquired by the fruit of their own labor), and go somewhere else.

Do you think this is a moral way to run a business?



If not, and you seriously plan to live in the mountains by yourself with no contact with the States whatsoever, I would deem it immoral to punish you for not filling out the Census.

Hey, for a second here, you kind of sound like the "businessman" I just described above!

ARealConservative
03-16-2010, 11:32 PM
You didn't answer my question. Is the answer yes? You believe it would be immoral?

he didn't need to.

he watched this B-movie before and gave away the ending to the rest of us before getting up and walking out of the theater.

tremendoustie
03-17-2010, 12:11 AM
he didn't need to.

he watched this B-movie before and gave away the ending to the rest of us before getting up and walking out of the theater.

Funny -- it's not a movie though. It's a dialog among two people, one of whom is apparently excusing behavior that all of us would recognize as immoral in any other context, because it's done by people carrying the magical banner "government".

If that's going to be our defense: "society" demands we pay our "dues", why not full blown socialism? After all if "society" "requires" it, it's all a-ok. Individual rights? What's that?

Why don't you answer the question? Do you think that if I were to send a letter to my neighbor, demanding he tell me how many people live in his home, or I would steal his stuff, that would be immoral behavior? If so, why would it be immoral behavior, exactly? Do you believe that if 51% of people agreed with me, it would magically become moral?

j6p
03-17-2010, 07:29 AM
Find it funny that some of you are bending and filling it out when we dont live in a moral society and did you know the cenus was used to round up Jap. Americans during world war 2. Also in the cenus history only two people were ever fined. only 78% participated in 2000 cenus.

Krugerrand
03-17-2010, 07:59 AM
-emphasis mine


The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.
O'rly?

Edit: For those of you who refuse to fill out the Census (just the headcount question), I do hope you get punished.

To openly accept that the law can be made to require any piece of information is absurd. So what happens when the "LAW DIRECTS" us to answer questions like
How many guns do you own?
Identify residents with any medical/mental handicaps?
List the vaccines received and dates of administration for each resident.
Has any resident every had an abortion?
Has any resident ever had plastic surgery?
Has any resident ever traveled to Pakistan?

You can't hide behind "the law directs." It fails when the law is unconstitutional.

Mahkato
03-17-2010, 08:13 AM
only 78% participated in 2000 cenus.

How do they know that only 78% participated without knowing how many people 100% would be? :p

Scofield
03-17-2010, 08:57 AM
You didn't answer my question. Is the answer yes? You believe it would be immoral?

Would sending a letter be considered immoral? No, it's just a bunch of words on paper.

If you physically went over to your neighbor and forced him to give you his information, that would be immoral.



Ah, who is that "our" exactly?

I thought you said majority support does not make immoral things moral?

"Our" refers to The People of the United States. You are voluntarily living here, you are not forced to do so. There is a "social contract" in place here, and by simply living here, you are agreeing to it. If you don't like the contract, either amend it or get the fuck out. Nothing more needs to be said.

If you plan on using our services, and then don't plan to help out (filling out the Census), you are free-riding. Free-riding is immoral.

So, who exactly is acting immoral? You, for not filling out the Census, or the government? My answer: You.



The government doesn't own my land, nor does the majority, nor do you.

No one has claimed as such. All you do is make straw-man after straw-man.


You have no right to extort information or property from me simply because I live here.

The government does have the right to get the amount of people in your household. In order for the government to run effectively it needs such information, and it has been agreed upon that such a power to gather the information is acceptable.


The federal government offers me no services which I desire.

You still use those services though, so until you stop and completely leave our society, you are under contract.


Furthermore, they demand my money whether I want services or not. Here's the way it really works, in free exchange: You offer your services, I decide if I want them, and if I do, I then pay you. You don't get to extort huge amounts of money from me, prohibit competition, and then inform me that if I don't like it I can leave.

Um, this is exactly what happens.

Do you drive on the public roads? You are using the government's services.
Do you drink public water? Using government's services.
Do you flush your toilet? Using services.

You use our services, then refuse to pay your dues? THAT is immoral.


Suppose we both lived in a small village. I provide protection for people. I start extorting money from everyone, whether they want my protection or not. I threaten to send men with guns to steal their homes or throw them in cages if they don't pay me. I then offer the protection for "free". Naturally, all the others who supply protection go out of business, since everyone has already been forced to pay for mine. I also use violence directly against my competitors. I then start using money taken from people by force to purchase a great deal of property, and to finance a great deal of construction, including roads, schools, water supplies, sanitation, etc. I extend my monopoly into these areas, by again extorting money from people to pay for them, whether they want the services or not, offering them for "free", and allowing competitors, who have to charge their customers a second time, to largely disappear.

Finally, when people object to my behavior, I tell them that they have no right to object, because they use my "services". They drink water, do they not? They use the roads, do they not? They flush the toilet, do they not? If they don't like it, I say, they can up and leave their property (which they acquired by the fruit of their own labor), and go somewhere else.

Do you think this is a moral way to run a business?


So, basically, all government is immoral. At least we got that clear.

We simply disagree on what is and what is not moral.

Danke
03-17-2010, 09:14 AM
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to answer that question. The Constitution authorizes the government to count you, it doesn't obligate you to help them by filling something out. In fact, the 13th Amendment prohibits them from making you do it without paying you for your time.

Because it can't. Glad to see at least someone on this thread understands the Federal Constitution.

tropicangela
03-17-2010, 09:20 AM
Edited: Oh nm. The population info is for seating reps. Doh.

Annihilia
03-17-2010, 09:28 AM
I have this damned thing sitting in front of me with only the first question answered. I'm thinking about just sealing it up and mailing it as is.

tremendoustie
03-19-2010, 01:28 AM
Would sending a letter be considered immoral? No, it's just a bunch of words on paper.


Of course sending threats is immoral. Pointing a gun at someone is just holding a piece of metal. If I send you a letter that says, "send me $1000 or I will shoot your kid. I know where he goes to school", that would be coercion, using the threat of aggressive violence. I think you recognize this.



If you physically went over to your neighbor and forced him to give you his information, that would be immoral.


So you'd be opposed to a government agent actually stealing someone's stuff?



"Our" refers to The People of the United States.


Which of those people? Many, including me, do not want to use aggressive violence.



You are voluntarily living here, you are not forced to do so.


So what? And where is "here"? Do you mean my land?



There is a "social contract" in place here, and by simply living here, you are agreeing to it.


That sounds like bullshit to me. How exactly does me living on my own land constitute an agreement to pay your organization money?

Are you sure this "social contract" is not a figment of your imagination you made up to excuse your aggressively violent behavior?

Here, I'll make one up: If you continue to live on your land, you agree to send me $1000 a month. If you don't pay up I'll show up with a gun. It's all moral, because if you choose to remain there, you choose to pay me.

Is my statement valid? Why or why not, precisely?



If you don't like the contract, either amend it or get the fuck out. Nothing more needs to be said.


If you don't want to pay me $1000 a month, negotiate with me or get the **** out.

Does that make sense to you? Of course not. It's bullcrap. You have a right to live on your land without me stealing your money, and I have a right to live on my land without you stealing mine.



If you plan on using our services, and then don't plan to help out (filling out the Census), you are free-riding. Free-riding is immoral.


You already stole my money to pay for your services. Tell you what, how about you stop stealing my money, you give back the property you obtained by theft, and then I'll decide which of your services I want to subscribe to.



So, who exactly is acting immoral? You, for not filling out the Census, or the government? My answer: You.


If I started an organization that behaved as the government does, you'd call me a mobster, and throw me in jail. Unfortunately the word "government" makes you weak in the knees, and prompts you to throw all moral standards out the window.



No one has claimed as such. All you do is make straw-man after straw-man.


Well, owning my property would be the only basis for you to charge me rent for living on it. Since you don't even claim to own my property, looks like you're just stealing.



The government does have the right to get the amount of people in your household. In order for the government to run effectively it needs such information, and it has been agreed upon that such a power to gather the information is acceptable.


Who agreed on it? Not me. Do the bunch of strangers who did agree own me or my property? No. Please explain how, since they do not own me or my property, they somehow magically have the right to make decisions for me and my property.



You still use those services though, so until you stop and completely leave our society, you are under contract.


Again, bullcrap. You can't mug a bunch of people for money, steal their property, buy up a ton of industries, provide "services", and then claim it's all consensual if anyone uses them. If I behaved this way you'd throw me in jail.



Um, this is exactly what happens.

Do you drive on the public roads? You are using the government's services.
Do you drink public water? Using government's services.
Do you flush your toilet? Using services.


Great, so lets make this simpler. We live in a remote village. There are a number of people with springs on their property, who sell water. I go around with a gun, and steal half of everyone's money. I then use this money to buy all of the people's property who have water. If they won't sell, I kick them off their land anyway, and call it "eminent domain". Suddenly, I now "own" all the water supply. If people want to drink, they have to come to me. I keep stealing half of people's money every year, but I let them have water for free. Or heck, say I take 90% of their money.

If a person objects, I tell them that since they drink the water (they really have no choice), they've consented to me taking 90% of their money.

Do you think this is moral behavior?

I dare you to say yes. That you'd even think along these lines is completely sickening.



Suppose we both lived in a small village. I provide protection for people. I start extorting money from everyone, whether they want my protection or not. I threaten to send men with guns to steal their homes or throw them in cages if they don't pay me. I then offer the protection for "free". Naturally, all the others who supply protection go out of business, since everyone has already been forced to pay for mine. I also use violence directly against my competitors. I then start using money taken from people by force to purchase a great deal of property, and to finance a great deal of construction, including roads, schools, water supplies, sanitation, etc. I extend my monopoly into these areas, by again extorting money from people to pay for them, whether they want the services or not, offering them for "free", and allowing competitors, who have to charge their customers a second time, to largely disappear.

Finally, when people object to my behavior, I tell them that they have no right to object, because they use my "services". They drink water, do they not? They use the roads, do they not? They flush the toilet, do they not? If they don't like it, I say, they can up and leave their property (which they acquired by the fruit of their own labor), and go somewhere else.

Do you think this is a moral way to run a business?




So, basically, all government is immoral. At least we got that clear.


Aggressive violence is immoral. Government starts by stealing people's money and property. Government did not start with a bunch of people working hard at a trade, and obtaining money from willing customers. It doesn't work that way now either. Again, if anyone else started behaving as the government does, you'd throw them in jail. The government would throw them in jail.



We simply disagree on what is and what is not moral.

Do you think the above behavior was moral then? You didn't answer the question.

Again, I dare you to say yes.

Step one to beginning a business in Scofield's wonderful world: Go around to your neighbors with a gun and steal their stuff. It's a great way to obtain startup capitol. Just steal enough land so that when anyone walks out their front door, they're on "your" land. Make sure to steal their water and food supply, and sanitation too. Then, if they ever leave their front door, take a crap, or eat something, you can claim they've "consented" and it was all a-ok.

axiomata
03-19-2010, 01:33 AM
You guys ruined what once was an interesting thread.

foofighter20x
03-19-2010, 02:03 AM
I only intend to report the names of the people in my home, and my own age and sex, and that I live at no other location (so that I am not doubly counted).

Why would I give the 2nd piece of information? Because I honestly feel Congress has a legitimate interest in the age of those in my home (which would be me only) who are eligible for military service under current federal statute.

Seeing as how I've already done my time in the military though, I couldn't care less.

The rest I'm just crossing out as N/A. They have no need to know my race, and furthermore I'm not aiding the government in perpetuating any sort of racism, whether invidious or benign.

Baptist
03-19-2010, 02:08 AM
I'm reading over the Constitution and all amendments before I decide what to do. I'm either going to a.) not return form and not answer door because we're never around anyway, or b.) tell them how many of us live there with all other information left blank.

The Constitution does say they that have to count me, but nowhere does it say that I have to help them with it. Also, it says they have to count all "free" persons. Am I free?

Free Moral Agent
03-19-2010, 02:34 AM
You have a Constitutional responsibility to partake in the Census. Though, the only question you have to answer is the "How many individuals live in this household?" question. You do not have to answer any of the other questions. Legally, if you do not answer every question, the government may be able to fine you; but they do not have a constitutional power to force you to answer questions not related to enumeration (the actual headcount), so you'd be theoretically able to fight such a fine in court.

+1776

I only answered question 1 and 2 and left everything else blank.

foofighter20x
03-19-2010, 02:48 AM
I don't know why anyone is answering anything yet...

You aren't supposed to conduct your self-count until April 1.

Promontorium
03-19-2010, 03:15 AM
How can a government represent, that which refuses to consent any information?

This would destroy American government.

Cap
03-19-2010, 05:57 AM
Filled mine out. I answered how many people reside at the address in question number one and responded with "4th ammendment" objection to the rest.

DAFTEK
03-19-2010, 06:24 AM
You guys ruined what once was an interesting thread.

+++++++++++:mad:

So now we know why Barack moved the census in the white house?..:rolleyes:

ivflight
03-19-2010, 10:39 AM
I wasn't able to read all the arguing, but before that someone asked what reason a person would have for not answering the headcount question. I can think of one:

Some people live in areas where the local governments have decided to put restrictions on the number of unrelated people that can live in a house. Since this is absurd some people have decided to ignore these laws and are living happily. If, however, the local government were to learn that they had too many people in their house, the results could be devastating to the living situations of some people.

This raises a moral facet that I'm not sure was explored. Doesn't the census put our information at risk? The data is supposed to be secure, but surely writing it down and sending it to the government makes it much less secure than it otherwise would be. I'm not sure any of us would like a gun pointed at us, despite even the strongest assurance that it wouldn't be discharged.

ARealConservative
03-19-2010, 10:58 AM
How do they know that only 78% participated without knowing how many people 100% would be? :p

78% of surveys sent were returned is what he means

disorderlyvision
03-19-2010, 01:05 PM
-emphasis mine

O'rly?

Edit: For those of you who refuse to fill out the Census (just the headcount question), I do hope you get punished.

and I hope you get poked in the eye with a sharp stick asshole!

And for your information people NOT filling it out are less likely to get punished than those only filling out one question and turning it in thus drawing attention to themselves. Much like the income tax. you are more likely to get audited if you submit a tax form than if you don't

torchbearer
03-19-2010, 01:11 PM
actually, it would be a grand experiment for everyone to send in distorted info.
they use this info for power, then feed them bad info.
i've got a really dark tan, so i may be african-american this week.

Krugerrand
03-19-2010, 01:13 PM
actually, it would be a grand experiment for everyone to send in distorted info.
they use this info for power, then feed them bad info.
i've got a really dark tan, so i may be african-american this week.

Aren't we all African American if we trace our root back far enough? At least by some theories anyway.

torchbearer
03-19-2010, 01:14 PM
Aren't we all African American if we trace our root back far enough? At least by some theories anyway.

that is true. and we all want to answer truthfully.
then its done. i am a proud african-american.

kylejack
03-19-2010, 01:23 PM
500 dollar fine for false info

torchbearer
03-19-2010, 01:27 PM
500 dollar fine for false info

then don't put down false info. as discussed before-
you are of african descent.

kylejack
03-19-2010, 01:28 PM
Why give them any information at all?

ARealConservative
03-19-2010, 01:30 PM
Why give them any information at all?

because some of us actually agree with constitutional representation.

kylejack
03-19-2010, 01:32 PM
And how has that representation been working out for ya? Seems to me like we have only one or two in Congress that are representing the people.

ARealConservative
03-19-2010, 01:34 PM
And how has that representation been working out for ya? Seems to me like we have only one or two in Congress that are representing the people.

slightly better then your pursuit for god knows what kind of social structure you wish for.

Financially, I'm pretty well off. God a great family, good neighbors, etc, etc.

My concern is more to do with what we are doing to the rest of the world while we live like fat cats.

tremendoustie
03-19-2010, 01:48 PM
because some of us actually agree with constitutional representation.

I respect your right to provide them with whatever information you'd like to provide them, and I hope you'll respect my right to not provide them that information. If you're concerned regarding the accuracy of proportional representation, I can understand why you'd want to respond to that question.

ARealConservative
03-19-2010, 02:02 PM
I respect your right to provide them with whatever information you'd like to provide them, and I hope you'll respect my right to not provide them that information. If you're concerned regarding the accuracy of proportional representation, I can understand why you'd want to respond to that question.

if they fine you, then later "steal your stuff" to pay for the fine, because you refuse to answer question 1, I will support them, not you.

kylejack
03-19-2010, 02:03 PM
if they fine you, then later "steal your stuff" to pay for the fine, because you refuse to answer question 1, I will support them, not you.
Hardly surprising considering how ambivalent you say you are about locking up innocent Americans as happened in the 40s.

ARealConservative
03-19-2010, 02:04 PM
Hardly surprising considering how ambivalent you say you are about locking up innocent Americans as happened in the 40s.

question 1 is a head count and had nothing to do with what happened in the 40's

tremendoustie
03-19-2010, 02:24 PM
if they fine you, then later "steal your stuff" to pay for the fine, because you refuse to answer question 1, I will support them, not you.

What is your moral justification for taking my property and demanding my personal information? Some other people voted?

You're a scumbag and a thief. You apparently don't believe in liberty, you just believe in your brand of tyranny, and have no problem using violence on your fellow man to enforce your will upon them -- you just personally prefer certain programs, and not others. Individual rights? What are those?

At least socialists are honest. They don't pay lip service to "liberty" while they beat their neighbors into submission.

foofighter20x
03-19-2010, 05:26 PM
If he doesn't want to fill out his form, fine.

More congressional representation for me...

TinCanToNA
03-19-2010, 05:45 PM
What is your moral justification for taking my property and demanding my personal information? Some other people voted?

You're a scumbag and a thief. You apparently don't believe in liberty, you just believe in your brand of tyranny, and have no problem using violence on your fellow man to enforce your will upon them -- you just personally prefer certain programs, and not others. Individual rights? What are those?

At least socialists are honest. They don't pay lip service to "liberty" while they beat their neighbors into submission.The curse of this movement is represented by you right here. Emotional non-sense and dribble. "Anarchy or bust" is no way to live, period.

When in doubt, consult Ron Paul. The good doctor is a Constitutionalist, after all. What did he have to say about this census?

phill4paul
03-19-2010, 05:53 PM
The curse of this movement is represented by you right here. Emotional non-sense and dribble. "Anarchy or bust" is no way to live, period.

When in doubt, consult Ron Paul. The good doctor is a Constitutionalist, after all. What did he have to say about this census?

Perhaps what you consider "Anarchy or bust" others consider liberty. Freedom from intrusion into personal privacy.

And since you foist the teachings of Dr. Paul like a disciple, instead of a freeman that disseminates, perhaps you would recall that Dr. Paul has said there a many pathways to obtaining liberty.

One of those being civil-disobedience.

disorderlyvision
03-21-2010, 05:24 PM
If he doesn't want to fill out his form, fine.

More congressional representation for me...

You say that like it's a good thing....

TCE
03-21-2010, 05:31 PM
If he doesn't want to fill out his form, fine.

More congressional representation for me...

Some of us know we're going to lose a seat anyway, such as me. Doesn't matter, though, the incumbent is entrenched.