Re: Redlining

[nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)]

At 12:26 AM 12/11/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote:
>My original point, in fact, was taken out of context and so:
>
>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.
>
>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.  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.

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".)

And, you can go to the SSA to find out somebody's SS number or to have
one issued.  It will take awhile.

>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.

>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, 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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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?

>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.

>>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.

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".  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.

>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.

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.

>>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.

Red Rackham