"Besides, for most people access to jobs (and thus homes), loans and insurance would actually be reduced by loss of privacy."That doesn't fit with my understanding of signalling econ. The gatekeepers of jobs, homes, loans, insurance etc look for applicant signals to see who would be best. More information allows them to better discriminate, changing the distribution/prices of who gets those things. I certainly would not expect it to decrease the aggregate number of people receiving those things. In fact it should INCREASE it. Fewer people would bother dating under Hanson's Fair Dating Act, and some gatekeepers will not bother to provide certain things if they don't have enough confidence that they can find a good candidate. You can argue that there is an aggregate downside for the applicants, because now they have to pay signalling costs, but that is a separate issue from reduced access.
An obvious reason for the discrepancy between business and dating is the Law of Diminishing Returns. Allowing businesses to make decisions with certain information will primarily benefit a few people (managers, investors) who already have highly satisfied preferences due to their wealth, while harming many people whose preferences are much less satisfied. Allowing dating to make use of such information will allow a much larger amount of people, many with very unsatisfied preferences, to benefit, while harming people with about equally satisfied preferences.
There's also the fact that, while humans instinctively dislike being told what to do, such instincts are stronger in dating than in business. So dating regs violate a much stronger preference than business regs.
"And given how completely infeasible it would be to show you all internet info collected about you"
If it wasn't feasible to show me all the information collected about me, it couldn't be feasible to show anyone else all the information collected about me.
1. Therefore there couldn't be a person or committee looking at all the information -- they'd look at a subset that I could plausibly see.
2. Therefore couldn't be software engineers looking at all the information about me who designed an algorithm to process it -- there'd either be a) no ability to validate an algorithm that did look at all the information or b) the engineers looked at a subset I could plausibly see.
Robin repeatedly fails to see the distinction between personal and business conduct and rules. Businesses are under different requirements than people are.
Historic feudalism was a form of capitalism, but if there are some communist variants where individuals get loans and insurance then yes, you've proven they exist outside capitalism, but my point was that loans and insurance do not exist in a range of economic systems (hunting-gathering, communal bartering, energy accounting, Soviet-style communism) and that they therefore cannot be human rights, only rights that may come with having some economic systems. Even in capitalism insurance is not necessary when the government covers calamities with tax revenues. Insurance and loans are not inherent to human nature, the need for privacy is, even chimpanzees keep secrets from each other.
One is a personal relationship and the others are business relationships. If you are universalist, you want business to be neutral and objective. Crony capitalism is not conducive to growth or democracy.
Don't worry about all those unemployed people because libertarians have an airtight solution for that problem: massive numbers of charities will magically spring up from the ground and throw manna at the starving masses.
Loans and insurance are not human rights because they only have meaning in capitalism and in capitalism they can be provided just fine while preserving privacy, as history has shown (because you know, megacorp inc. will be fine when they make "only" $20 billion in profits instead of $21 billion). Besides, for most people access to jobs (and thus homes), loans and insurance would actually be reduced by loss of privacy.
There is a world outside the United States where people also value their privacy but American laws have no jurisdiction and minorities actually have access to a decent education...
"Besides, for most people access to jobs (and thus homes), loans and insurance would actually be reduced by loss of privacy."That doesn't fit with my understanding of signalling econ. The gatekeepers of jobs, homes, loans, insurance etc look for applicant signals to see who would be best. More information allows them to better discriminate, changing the distribution/prices of who gets those things. I certainly would not expect it to decrease the aggregate number of people receiving those things. In fact it should INCREASE it. Fewer people would bother dating under Hanson's Fair Dating Act, and some gatekeepers will not bother to provide certain things if they don't have enough confidence that they can find a good candidate. You can argue that there is an aggregate downside for the applicants, because now they have to pay signalling costs, but that is a separate issue from reduced access.
An obvious reason for the discrepancy between business and dating is the Law of Diminishing Returns. Allowing businesses to make decisions with certain information will primarily benefit a few people (managers, investors) who already have highly satisfied preferences due to their wealth, while harming many people whose preferences are much less satisfied. Allowing dating to make use of such information will allow a much larger amount of people, many with very unsatisfied preferences, to benefit, while harming people with about equally satisfied preferences.
There's also the fact that, while humans instinctively dislike being told what to do, such instincts are stronger in dating than in business. So dating regs violate a much stronger preference than business regs.
"And given how completely infeasible it would be to show you all internet info collected about you"
If it wasn't feasible to show me all the information collected about me, it couldn't be feasible to show anyone else all the information collected about me.
1. Therefore there couldn't be a person or committee looking at all the information -- they'd look at a subset that I could plausibly see.
2. Therefore couldn't be software engineers looking at all the information about me who designed an algorithm to process it -- there'd either be a) no ability to validate an algorithm that did look at all the information or b) the engineers looked at a subset I could plausibly see.
I think he knows the distinction fully well, it's just not not convenient to his visions of an ultra-capitalist future.
Robin repeatedly fails to see the distinction between personal and business conduct and rules. Businesses are under different requirements than people are.
> Historic feudalism was a form of capitalism
What about the warrior rulers who owned the all the land makes them capitalists?
Historic feudalism was a form of capitalism, but if there are some communist variants where individuals get loans and insurance then yes, you've proven they exist outside capitalism, but my point was that loans and insurance do not exist in a range of economic systems (hunting-gathering, communal bartering, energy accounting, Soviet-style communism) and that they therefore cannot be human rights, only rights that may come with having some economic systems. Even in capitalism insurance is not necessary when the government covers calamities with tax revenues. Insurance and loans are not inherent to human nature, the need for privacy is, even chimpanzees keep secrets from each other.
Loans and insurance ... only have meaning in capitalism
Do you honestly believe that loans have no meaning in feudalism or Titoist workers communism?
One is a personal relationship and the others are business relationships. If you are universalist, you want business to be neutral and objective. Crony capitalism is not conducive to growth or democracy.
Don't worry about all those unemployed people because libertarians have an airtight solution for that problem: massive numbers of charities will magically spring up from the ground and throw manna at the starving masses.
Any other questions?
people wanting dates can externalize undesirable people, but society can't
Loans and insurance are not human rights because they only have meaning in capitalism and in capitalism they can be provided just fine while preserving privacy, as history has shown (because you know, megacorp inc. will be fine when they make "only" $20 billion in profits instead of $21 billion). Besides, for most people access to jobs (and thus homes), loans and insurance would actually be reduced by loss of privacy.
Your reasons as usual ignore the obvious one: companies can externalize the people you'd like to think are unemployable, but society can't.
There is a world outside the United States where people also value their privacy but American laws have no jurisdiction and minorities actually have access to a decent education...
Then make applicants make a friggin’ test that will expose any faults that will affect actual work performance.
There is just one small problem with that. Disparate impact.
Shelter, a job, a loan, and insurance are all considered rights.