[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
At 10:50 AM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote:
>(snip)
>>(Just for the record, what the hypothetical insurance companies and
>>employers are doing by using data they have obtained should not, in a free
>>society, be illegal in any way. All information contributes to
>>decision-making, about loans, credit, insurance, employment, etc. In a free
>>society, it is up to people to not disclose that which they do not wish
>>remembered.)
>
>While the libertarians on the list have affected my way of looking at
>regulation I, and others, do not subscribe (suscribe ;)) to Tim's absolute
>theory. Unless, of course, by free society Tim is refering to one where
>corporations hold themselves to a level of "personal" responsibility, which
>in many realms is part of any definition of "free".
>
>Take, for example, the practice of redlining. How are people who live in
>"bad" neighborhoods supposed to not reveal that information.
You may lend your own money to whomever you wish. If you do not wish
to lend money to somebody, that is your business.
It is difficult to understand why redlining should be illegal, to the
extent that it even occurs. When it does occur, we expect that eager
entrepreneurs such as yourself will rush in to grab new customers.
As for the privacy issue, you seem to be proposing that you have some
sort of right to borrow money on terms which are not acceptable to the
lender. You need not give your address just as you need not borrow
the money.
Of course, we hardly live in a free banking era. Most people would
prefer to bank with a company that respects their privacy. Yet, banks
are so tightly controlled in the United States that they most often
will not dare to protect the privacy of their customers for fear of
regulatory consequences. When the service is provided, it cannot be
advertised.
And, the banks are required to report all transactions over $10,000 or
give up all information if the attorney general tells them it involves
national security.
You are in the unpleasant position of appealing for protection from
the very people who have robbed you of your privacy.
Red Rackham