Dances With Liberty

Here's the thing. The government does possess way too much information about our private lives. So refusing to answer some census questions for Stats Canada shouldn't be a big deal. In fact, if you refuse you're seen as unreasonable. So goes the thinking.

Here's the other thing. If I choose to not want to fill out such a questionnaire that's my business. Sure. They have my SIN but they ain't gonna get it off me. And quit throwing the "it's for the betterment of society" thing at me. Just because the dominion of Canada chose a certain social welfare path doesn't mean it necessarily transfers over to all its citizens.

But Canada is a democracy and in a democray tryanny of the majority rules and the minority who dissent are ridiculed, chastised, fined and imprisoned. Freedom is not just sometimes being free. Freedom is having the right to say no to the state.

In this way, the decision of the Tories to cut the long census form doesn't really bother me. I get what people in Stats Canada say, but really, the state is already way too involved in our private lives.

Personally, I'd fill the sucker out but if I feel there are questions they simply shouldn't be asking then so be it. I shouldn't be coerced with the threat of a punishment. I don't know these people from a hole in the wall and while I don't think they'd misuse sensitive information, we're still dealing with humans here and we know anything can happen.

Then again, you're talking to a guy (or rather reading) that considers the threat of imprisonment for tax evasion as immoral. The government can put you in jail for not giving your money to them. I don't advocate tax evasion. I agree to fork over some of my income for basic things I feel the government should provide; like security and infrastructire and even the odd social program. But when I earn, say, $5000 gross and $2200 of it goes to them for things I probably wouldn't ever agree to, I feel it's a little excessive.

Social programs should be voluntary. On tax returns or pay stubs, the state should offer which charities or social programs they deem necessary a person would want some of their income should go to. If a person doesn't want their money going to subsidize Bombardier, a political party they don't support or fertilization clinics, then the right thing to do is to leave the person that right and provide other options.

How is it remotely "democratic" to demand a person subsidize something their values are not in unison with?

Always ask yourself what would Han Solo do?