From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:12:32 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Redlining
Message-ID: <199612120212.SAA19019@mailmasher.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 3:14 PM 12/11/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote:
>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...
>
>...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.

You don't have time to explain your beliefs, but you do apparently
have the time to call me an idiot and, now, to tell me that I am
intellectually dishonest.  Since you don't know much about me, the
best you can claim is that I am inconsistent.  I am afraid I cannot
accept an apology which is prefaced by an insult.

When somebody doesn't have time to address my concerns, it does not
have much effect on my thinking.  I will continue to believe as I did
before.  This behaviour is not uncommon.

>>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.

I would not propose committing fraud.  I do not understand who would
be defrauded by giving an employer an incorrect social security
number.  The company pays the salary either way.

>>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.

Giving a false SS number is the fastest way for these people to get
employed and get something to eat.

>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".

No, this is exactly what I've been asking for.  In fact, I explicitly
suggested that anecdotal evidence based on your experience would have
value.

>I have said, repeatedly, that we disagree.  Apparently, now I have to
>*reiterate* why.

I don't believe I saw it the first time.

>Once again, we disagree.  You do not favor any form of government
>regulation.

I have not stated this.  You have concluded, erroneously, that because
I am opposed to certain regulations, I am opposed to all.

>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.

You are actually objecting to my beliefs, not my honesty.  And, I
don't get the impression that you really understand my beliefs.

In order for failure to get a loan to cause harm, there must be some
sort of expectation that one has a claim on the money being lent.

I do not subscribe to that belief.  I do not understand how my money
suddenly becomes controllable by somebody else because I decide to
lend it.

>>>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.

No, the point I am making is that it should be legal to be unpleasant
so long as you are minding your business.  So, employment
discrimination should be legal, but burning a cross in somebody's lawn
is a shooting offense.  (Preferably on the lawn in question soon after
the defense.)

>>>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.

I think a lot about what is right and wrong.  I am skeptical of
proposals which say "We want to do the right thing and help poor
people, but we want to do it with somebody else's money."

If somebody writes a detailed book arguing that a brutal slave regime
is efficient, I do not say "Maybe if the regime was a little less
brutal, we could still have some efficiency.  We must make tradeoffs."

Rather, I ask how much money we would have to pay somebody to live the
life of a slave.  Suddenly, it doesn't look so "efficient" as it did
before.

This example may appear contrived.  It is not.  A detailed statistical
study of slavery was done in the 1970s.  I believe it was called "Time
on the Cross".  Many people believed that the authors had demonstrated
that slavery was efficient.  The theory was that the slave owners
acted as professional management, seldom exercised brutal punishment,
and that in general everybody was better off, sort of.  (One of the
authors later won a Nobel prize.)

I was taught in school that Irish factory workers and laborers often
had it worse than the slaves because nobody valued their welfare.
(Slaves were quite expensive.)  The example that is given over and
over again, is a canal which was dug with Irish labor because of the
risk of disease from a nearby swamp.

The problem with this model is that there is no evidence of Irish
workers and laborers rushing southward to volunteer to be slaves.  You
would almost think there was something wrong with slavery!

The way I generally think about policy is to consider the preferences
that people have and consider whether they are respected.  I believe
the basis of legitimacy for a government is that it protects people's
rights.

>>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.

What I think is most likely is that, like so many others, you have
accepted terms like "market efficiency" without thinking through
precisely what they mean.

>>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.

Every employer is a creation of the state?  This certainly explains
why we draw different conclusions.  If I hire some homeless fellow to
dig some post holes and do other work on my property, it is difficult
to understand how the state has created me.

>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.

I don't really care how bad alcoholism is.  I certainly don't own
other people and, thus, cannot dictate how they take care of their
bodies, or fail to do so.  Often we see expressions of concern used as
a justification for any degree of control which can be imagined.
While you are opposed to Prohibition, in principle you believe that
your "care" is justification for rather extreme control over the
choices of others.

I generally favor governmental interference when somebody is not being
left alone and is being interfered with in some way by others.  What
causes me to doubt my wisdom is the fact that the government is the
primary instigator of these problems.  As it is today, half of what I
earn is taken away for no good reason and put to no good use.

>>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.

This is still too abstract.  What I would be interested in hearing is
specific examples.

>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.

What puzzles me is that when I mentioned the failure of poor people to
pursue these beneficial practices you said my comments were "idiotic".
Now you appear to be saying that I was right, but that poor people
lack the self-confidence to do these things.  Please explain.

I suspect you are right, by the way, that poor people lack
self-confidence and fail to really play the game.

>>>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 am sorry if I misinterpreted what you meant.  Given that you also
use the phrase "libertarian wet dream", I concluded that "libertarian
ideal society" was also derogatory.

Yes, I generally believe that people who disagree with me are wrong.
If I believed otherwise I would change my mind!  (And sometimes I do.)

>>>>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.

Saying "I am not a Libertarian" does not tell me much about your
underlying political philosophy.  I would expect to see something
along the lines of "We are a community.  We have obligations to each
other... etc. etc" Of course, I have no idea if that actually is your
theory.

>>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.

And I have explained, in glorious detail, why I disagree with you.  I
have not said that you are inconsistent because you do not subscribe
to the ideal libertarian society.  I am not sure what such a society
would be.

>>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.

No, please tell me about your political philosophy.  I am not asking
which political party you vote for - I am more interested in why you
vote for it.

>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.

Now this is real progress.  Glad to see it.

>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.

I am curious why people hire an African-American person in the first
place if they are just going to fire them later.  That doesn't make
sense to me.  (And, no, I am not being sarcastic, I would like to hear
an explanation.)

>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 ;-|.

I think the personal harm is in the minds of your clients.  If you are
fired and your manager says "it's because you're black", this does not
have to be depressing.  It says a lot about the manager and nothing
about the employee at all.  It must be worse to have your manager tell
you that you are a fuck-up and an incompetent and that you can't get
your act together and have to be fired.

The real problem is that a lot of people have accepted some bad ideas.
There is still an idea that there is something wrong with being an
African-American rather than recognizing that, maybe, some unsavory
characters live in the United States.

I also fail to understand why anybody would want to work for a racist,
even if you can force the relationship on the employer.

Red Rackham