-----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-----