George A. Stathis wrote:

I would never hire you. What I need is people with a VISION; NOT people with IMPAIRED VISION, distorting things so unreliably.

I need TRUE VISIONARIES able to work creatively in High Technology. People like Philip Kahn (Hurrah) and Richard Branson (Hurrah, Bravo); even Bill Gates himself, were SELF-MADE visionaries.

In contrast... people "threatening others with unemployability files", are CLAY MEDIOCRITIES.

You do not want "visionaries" who will steal your files and ruin your business. There are many persons who are very smart and creative, and yet one can expect to have a net loss from hiring them. Intelligence and any other factor cannot be the sole determinants of employments. Reputations are very important economically: since everyone knows that their reputations, and not only current contracts, are on the line, they avoid incurring losses to their employers for a short-term illicit gain. That prevents a lot of theft, for example, among other things. Also, employers have their own gain by discriminating between employees with an expected loss and employees with expected profit. Employees, likewise, can gain by having good references from previous employers. If you, in your "pro-freedom" rage, somehow manage to make employers to ignore reputations when they make hiring decisions, you will immediately create incentives for an economically damaging behavior. As a result, there would be a net loss in the economy. People will also trust others less because cheating will not be punished as seriously as it is now. Lack of trust would force them to waste more money on lawyers. George, if you calmed down a little bit, you would have thought about the following: just as people have the right to speak on, say, cypherpunks mailing list, people have exactly the same right to speak on "hiring-punks" discussion list. There is not a whole lot of difference. Limitations to one right (like rules by list owners) are exactly the same. It is illogical to defend one right and to deny another. Another issue is, whom should we trust in their "DON'T HIRE ..." recommendations? You could insist, for example, that a certain list made by a certain person should be ignored because that person was not fit to make hiring recommendations. I do not view such activity as economically damaging. If you, however, fought with the very notion of "unemployability lists", you would in fact create an economic loss. Of course you are still free to speak against these lists, but your position is not sound. Another issue: can employers base their decisions on the content of applicant's USENET posts and other public messages? Why not? Just as "DON'T HIRE" lists, this is an issue of freedom: employers should be free to seek whatever information they can find. I may be completely mistaken, but I think that some of the freedom-knights misunderstand what freedom of speech means. It is not a positive right that someone (John Gilmore or Dave Hayes or the government in form of free subsudized broadcast) should provide. There is no "right to broadcast". Rather, this is something that the government cannot regulate and take away. In the broadcast example, no one should be forbidden by law to broadcast anything. That's it. Of course, different people can disagree on whether kicking various persons out of mailing lists and not allowing certain persons to subscribe to certain mailing lists is a good idea, BUT this is not the issue of freedom of speech as a constitutional right. - Igor.

At 1:36 AM -0600 11/20/96, snow wrote:

...

At 01:02 =EC=EC 19/11/1996 -0500, Clay Olbon II wrote:

...

with _serious_ issues of 'unemployability'., FURTHERMORE people are NEVER guilty before PROVEN so. Guilt or Innocence is NOT a matter of 'opinion',

Huh? People are most certainly guilty before "proven" so, the government just isn't allowed to _assume_ their guilt, or to _act_ like they are guilty.

If you purchase LSD in America, you are guilty of a felony--Drug trafficing. Wether the court _finds_ you guilty or not is another story.

In this case, the putative crime is "drug trafficking" or "possession," depending. One is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. To wit, the state must prove its case. I rather suspect that any prosecutors or defense lawyers on this list will confirm that an LSD case is hardly a case of "guilty until proven innocent." --Tim May "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." [NYT, 1996-10-02] We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."