-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
My point, Red, at the outset was that your tendency to address each point
in turn was not being fruitful to me (my time is a scarce resource).
Surely you do not make policy decisions based upon how much time someone
has to address your concerns.
>>My question was a real one. The basis of it comes from my work with
>>the homeless in which they have a difficult time getting a job
>>because they have no "home address" to put on the forms, some do not
>>have or remember their SSNs, etc. This causes a cyclic problem for
>>the homeless. My question to Tim was, in the real world, how is the
>>protection of this data feasible.
>
>The way you protect your home address is by using another address for
>work which is not your home. The way I would do this is to find a
>mail box service which offers addresses that look like a home.
>
>A homeless person might find somebody with a home (like you) who will
>receive their work related mail for them.
>
>A "phone" is easy to get, too. You can get a telephone number which
>is linked to a voicemail box. You can even get this number listed in
>the telephone book, if you like. The cost of this service should be
>less than twenty dollars a month. If you want to go wild, you can get
>a pager linked voicemail number. This means your pager goes off when
>you get a message. Handy.
>
>But, even this small expense may be out of reach of a homeless person
>or a homeless advocate.
This is a good attempt at intellectual honesty which was present in your
original reply but lacking thereafter. That aftermath explains my tone in
my later replies. I apologize.
>What you can do is get a second line for your
>home and keep it unlisted. Then, give it to your homeless friends for
>work related purposes. If the number is only used for work messages,
>you could probably handle over a hundred people on this one line.
This is actually a great idea. In my real world, I am criticized for
taking on the problems of others before myself. While I could work this
out, I border on the problem of ignoring (or bypassing) the concerns of my
family, which is my prime motivator. I am not saying this is not a great
idea.
>As for the social security number, it has been claimed many times on
>this list that nobody checks them anyway. There are programs which
>generate real-appearing numbers. (I think one was called "ssn.exe".)
While I understand the greater social good, I, personally, am not
interested in violating applicable fraud statutes. This is a borderline
case in which consideration to the idea, of course, should be given. I
would hesitate to expose these people to that risk.
>And, you can go to the SSA to find out somebody's SS number or to have
>one issued. It will take awhile.
This is the best way to address the problem. But, it leads to my original
quandry (not redlining) which was how some people can, realistically,
protect this data. You do give some good opportunities. For me they are
unacceptable and on balance, I would suggest that people go the latter
route and attempt to comply with the statist regulations. Maybe in a more
perfect society, they would have an interest in privacy. In the world
today, however, I think they would choose to eat.
>>I do have responses to each of your "points" in your last post, but have
>>found the process of responding point-by-point tedious and non-productive
>>(maybe less productive than the time I have to give to the exercise, I was
>>not intending on placing a value judgement on it).
>
>This gives the appearance that you are avoiding the points I raised.
>My conclusion is that your views are indefensible. Having described
>my views on the poor as "idiotic", I think it is in poor taste to
>withdraw from the field without justifying your claim.
I claimed that well after your posts became far more condescending than
fruitful. You stated your assumptions as fact and dismissed my points with
several fininely tuned snips. I really dont care if you find it in poor
taste here, because this list is as close to an anarchy as we will get. I
do not have to abide by your construct of good argument if i dont want to.
If I wanted to I could repeatedly issue heart-wrenching stories of poverty
in America (similar, of course, to politicians using "real world examples"
in speeches). You seem to assume that this would be "wrong".
I have said, repeatedly, that we disagree. Apparently, now I have to
*reiterate* why. I am not trying to convert you, Red. I have no reason
to. My response, on which you jumped, was a pointed question to Tim about
the reality of privacy protection.
Once again, we disagree. You do not favor any form of government
regulation. I do favor some forms of government regulation. It seems that
the turning point for you is your belief that racism causes no real harm.
I disagree. If you really want to have a list of the harms caused by
racism, I will list them in a seperate note to you. I wish you could be
intellectually honest enough to realize these harms. I fear, however, you
will not be.
>>As the topic quickly wandered from the original post on privacy
>>concerns to racial discrimination, I will address that. I apologize
>>to the list (for those that find it irrelevant), but I can not reply
>>directly to Red.
>
>Cryptoanarchy is not friendly to schemes to prohibit racial
>discrimination. Indeed, it is unfriendly to any scheme which attempts
>to control the relationships between people.
I do not know where you live, but I live in the US. Cryptoanarchy has not
taken hold here yet. As such, my discourse is regarding the political
system in which I live. As such I favor regulating behavior between the
small number of protected classes and the small number of covered
transactions (employment, housing, etc.). You, OTOH, do not.
>>I, personally, find racial discrimination to be a problem in the USA.
>
>It would be nice if everybody in the U.S. was not a racist. It would
>be nice if all the bad people just left.
Actually, it would be preferable if they would become enlightened. It is
difficult to do. I try every day. BTW, if the comment above was supposed
to be aimed at me, once again i *never* made any such assertion.
>>Not only do I find it a moral problem, but it has adverse effects on
>>markets and the efficiency of these same markets. It is costly not
>>only in personal measures, but in economical terms as well.
>But, of course, I don't subscribe to the notion that market efficiency
>is the best means of determining policy. For one thing, concepts such
>as efficiency and production are politically defined. If I grow food
>for myself, it does not affect GDP figures. If I trade the food for
>money and buy something, then the same production increases GDP. This
>is not sensible.
I subscribe to the notion that policy should be determined by the best
balance of several concerns. Among these are market efficiency, social
justice, budget constraint and liberty. I am unsure how you would
determine policy.
>More importantly, I don't believe that market efficiency, however
>measured, is sufficient justification for dictating other people's
>actions. "Market efficiency" is a gambit to conceal dictatorial
>powers in a scientific cloak.
Maybe for some, but if you have assumed that is how I act you are mistaken.
As I said, I would determine policy based upon a wide range of competing
interests. You seem to be violating your own "rule" about not utilizing
concepts such as the "libertarians wet dream". Many believe the same about
the "gambit to conceal dictatorial powers in a scientific cloak."
Apparently those "rules" only apply to others.
>Discussions of market efficiency typically overrule the preference
>that citizens have. One could imagine that a study that concluded
>alcohol consumption reduced national efficiency and should therefore
>be banned. Yet, this completely fails to take into account the strong
>preference many people have to drink. Some even consider it to be a
>religious sacrament. I don't believe such preferences should be
>ignored. They should be respected.
And neither do I. On balance, I would not have accepted prohibition then,
and I do not accept it now. People also have a preference not to hire
blacks. I feel that that should not be an acceptable means of interaction
between an employer and a prospective employee. You do. That is what I
meant by drawing lines. You feel that every employer (a creation of the
state) should have the ability to act in a discriminatory fashion. I
disagree. You and I do agree that when the personal excercise is for a
drink, the government should not respond. This is because, on balance, I
believe that the excercise of that freedom is more important than the
adverse effects of alcoholism. And vice versa for employment discrimination.
>Likewise, if somebody just cannot stand Albanians, we should respect
>their preference even though we may personally disagree with it and
>even though we may believe it makes the annual GDP number lower.
Once again, I would determine policy based on several competing interests.
Aparently you would determine it on a notion of absolute freedom. I am
trying not to assume anything. And for the record, I have only supported
governmental intervention in currently accepted transactions, which do not
cover individuals wanting to hold racist beliefs.
>I am not sure exactly what "costly ... in personal measures" means.
>If you mean that somebody who will not speak with Albanians is
>deprived of rewarding friendships they might otherwise have, that is
>probably true. On the other hand, the Albanian-hater will not see it
>that way. That is his or her tough luck.
Actually I was referencing the effects upon the discriminated against.
>>I do expect many on the list to disagree with me....They will
>>disagree that it affects markets in any way.
>
>Just for the record, I can imagine that racial prejudice could have a
>slight effect on mortgage prices (i.e, interest). But, since the CMO
>revolution, I am inclined to believe that effect will be quite small
>and is probably unnoticeable.
>
>>They will assert that legislative restrictions are far worse than
>>industry self-policing.
>
>Just for the record, I am not advocating "industry self-policing".
>Policing is what I disagree with.
>
>>More will disagree that the government has any business regulating
>>the area. As I had stated simply before, I disagree.
>
>All you have really said is "I believe X." Should we take your belief
>on faith or are there reasons which underly your beliefs?
>
I believe in regulating, in one instance, employment discrimination. I do
so because I have personally seen the economic impact on the Greater
Milwaukee Area of such discrimination - both past and present. I believe X
also because I have been witness to the personal impact that such
discrimination has upon people. To take advantage of practices effective
against poverty, several of which you have mentioned, it helps to have
self-confidence and a degree of self-worth. These are directly damaged by
employment discrimination. I believe that the elimination of redlining
would help to increase capital flows into some of these affected areas.
Even if, as you stated, the elimination would allow for a few token
investments in order for banks to appear to be in compliance, that is a
willing trade off for me. It is not for you.
>>Thru painful learning experiences and reality checks - long arguments
>>over several months and too much coffee - I decided that I would not
>>want to live in a libertarian's ideal society. This decision was
>>based on my perception that it just wouldnt work in reality.
^^^^^^^This was, of course, my explanation before. Apparently you didnt
see it.
I was not using libertarian's ideal society in any derogitive way. At one
time I believed in it. Through self-examination I decided that it couldnt
work. Is your point that you disagree with me or that Anyone who disagrees
with you must be wrong?
>>>I'm sure many readers of this list have had conversations which
>>>abruptly end with "Are you a Libertarian?", which is generally
>>>completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. What is
>>>happening is that the other person is more interested in knowing your
>>>tribal identification than what you believe. A pity.
>>
>>As strange as it may sound to you, most of my conversations go this
>>way. It is ironic to me that I have been placed on this side of an
>>argument.
>
>Yet, you are doing something very similar when you raise the issue of
>"a libertarian's ideal society". Likewise, you criticized Tim May for
>having (roughly) "too absolute a theory". In either case, you are
>avoiding substantive discussion, preferring to make prejudicial
>remarks.
Actually that is the substance of my dissention. I do not believe in those
theories which results in my favoring X. You disagree and favor an
absolute theory of freedom (I may be wrong, but you have never asserted
your underlying political theory). My policy decisions are based upon my
political philosophy. As are yours, I assume. I never said, Tim was "bad"
because of his theory. I was simply pointing out that I did not agree with
it.
>Here we are discussing some very specific policies and their ethical
>implications. There is no need to raise the specter of the
>"libertarian ideal society".
You have labeled it a specter, not me. I have the utmost respect for
libertarians. It was simply a way to reference the subject matter.
>One nice thing about Libertarian-style
>discussions is that most of the policies are separable; that is, we
>can discuss redlining without discussing highway privatization. This
>makes a nice contrast to other styles of discussion in which the
>proposed scheme only works if everybody participates. The most
>extreme example was Marxism where it was claimed that it would fail if
>the entire world was not Marxist.
You appear here to admit that it is possible to favor one libertarian
policy while disagreeing with another. That is what I am doing.
>>Do you tend to think of me now as "less of a Libertarian" much as
>>your forewarned "In the House" black reference?
>
>"In the house"? This appears to be an American idiom which I haven't
>learned yet.
Sorry. Mixing my replies. That was someone else. ;-)
>I used the word "forewarned" once. I said that it would be hard to
>believe that even wealthy African-Americans were racist in their
>lending practices. I still find it hard to believe.
>
>It may surprise you to know that I am not all the interested in
>whether you call yourself a Libertarian.
Doesnt suprise me at all. You are only interested in your political
philosophy. When it is relevant to my political philosophy and the way in
which I would make policy decisions apprently it is irrelevant. It is not
to me.
>>>Do we then believe that we should outlaw the actions they take based
>>>on these beliefs? So long as the people in question are doing no
>>>harm, I propose we leave them alone to live their lives.
>>
>>This is the essence of, at least, my disagreement with you Red. I
>>dont agree that redlining doesnt harm people. You see no harm. I
>>do.
>
>Your reluctance to discuss the nature of the harm you perceive does
>not give the impression that you have good reasons for your
>perception.
Much as the line of Don Wood argument, I have no interest in educating you.
If you are really interested I will roll out what I perceive as the many
harms caused by racism. Unlike you, I am in no rush to call your reasons
for your beliefs "good" or "bad". You believe as you do. You do so
because of personal reasons. I believe as I do, that racism harms people.
I do so because of my personal experiences. Among these are employees
explaining to me the nature of the discrimination that they have suffered,
their inability to pursue any such claims because of a lack of both
self-confidence as well as capital, the faces of their children that do not
yet understand the nature of the world they have been brought into and the
immense stress on familial relationships caused by the lack of a job caused
by employment discrimination. Ill even discard the borderline cases and
refer to the slam dunk cases out there. I live and work in Milwaukee, Red.
People are fired and told they are fired because they are black. I have
settled cases with no dispute of these facts. All of the personal harm and
more was suffered by my clients. This is part of the reason for my
perception. I wish I lived where you did where racism hurts nobody. Just
give me a general location and Ill start to move my clients there ;-|.
>
>Red Rackham
Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMq8kIrpijqL8wiT1AQHNlgP8CoLXjtvPukDuNKu0hi7JHp7ev8HoKVo9
1sMWS5ycOaUvHW/LK81TvmZ15ViCSlqz17TCgkXEw0uvFoaFXkjVcheyBF891blF
MuAiBWe+O+R/ZkZ9GcD0tiO9bdk+MBYxLiNTffcQJZnEvV8obxi9zG5l5s4rcd/J
Y1JYNtaYTkk=
=EqBg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
