On Fri, 24 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
Why, pray tell, _should_ someone be able to conceal that they declared bankrupcy - e.g., ran out on their debtors that they had freely contracted to repay - more than 7 years ago? Should prison terms to theft be limited to 7 years?
I think forgiveness, within reason, tends to have a positive economic effect. I'm not the same person I was seven years ago, or even seven months. (Is it 7 years, btw? Or was it 12? It's arbitrary, in any case.) I have no objection to allowing someone to become, and remain, a productive member of society years after fucking up badly. Note there are no statutes of limitations and no forgive-and-forget mandates for the more heinous violent crimes.
Moreover, there are significant negative economic impacts for criminalizing the possession of such information. The above is one instance; another, which is even more of interest to me due to my profession, is that of genetic information and insurance. Genetic screening for insurance purposes decreases the risk to an insurance company.
Someone once said something about giving up a little freedom in return for security. How far does this go? Do you want your insurance company controlling your life? "Managed care" is bad enough. I'm willing to pay a little more into the risk pool if it means I don't have to submit to a DNA test, and don't have to submit all of my grocery purchases for nutritional review, and don't have to be fingerprinted, and don't have to tell them the details of my sex life, and don't have to tell them every time I walk outside without wearing sunscreen. OK, that's a straw man. The last couple examples show why some laws aren't necessary. The market simply wouldn't accept a too-totalitarian insurance company; people would rather pay as they go, and accept the risk themselves. But why is it fair to discriminate against detectable risks, when undetectable risks may be more expensive? -rich