A terrible little truth

You know that thing called “debt”? It’s not exactly, well, real. It’s not like your life, health, land, or possessions. It’s a creature of government and is only possible because the law obligates repayment.

Having these laws obliging debt repayment is pragmatic and derived from the idea of honor. But this isn’t fundamental. Outside of a government that abides by a basic social contract, there is no obligation to repay debts.

Unlike stealing, if a debt is canceled, no one loses anything. Some people will try to call this theft, but they must molest the English language to do so. The money that was lended? It was already lost that when it exchanged hands.

Some might retort that “personal responsibility” implies that debt must be repaid and the borrower shouldn’t be “protected from the consequences of their choices”. But why is that? Why is it not the other way around? Why don’t we view debt obligations as the lender being protected from the consequences of their own choices? You lent the money, so—absent debt repayment laws—it’s your fault if you aren’t getting it back.

So long as we are under our current economic system I think it has to be enforced. Otherwise no one would take any risk loaning anything.

Like I said, pragmatic choice. I’m cool with that, but it’s still malum prohibitum and not malum in se.

Perhaps the system is the problem.

I didn’t say that.

No but that’s kind of the feeling I’ve come around too. The current economic and political/social system only works by oppressing the vast majority of people.

Here is my problem with that.

If the debt was a one-time obligation, then I might agree with your argument. However, it is a good bet that one would require ongoing deficit spending in their lives.

If I want to make purchases and don’t have the money, a credit history would be crucial to my success over the course of my life. If I have a history of not repaying my debt, it is unlikely anyone would be willing to loan me any more money.

That’s not true at all.

2 Likes

I disagree completely.

Only if one tries to have before one earns?

That’s some of it.

But what we have now is a system where you literally can’t even pay rent on regular pay. That seems really flawed.

What is your solution?

When you say “regular”?

There is no solution under the current system.

Like you pretty much need to be making 40 bucks per hour in some areas just to pay for rent and groceries. Even a lot of jobs that require college degrees don’t pay anywhere near that much.

Is that really the problem?

The average salary in Mississippi is what? $48k? That’s $24 an hour. So even if your rent is $2k, you can still do it why you work on improving your situation.

That’s before roommates, etc

I think it can be done. I’m not saying it’s easy, but one has to crawl before you can walk.

Too many people want too much too soon and debt is way to easy to gey into.

2 Likes

I think the key is understanding where we are in life and having realistic expectations.

Sometimes I wonder what my political views would have been by now had I not gotten off my ass and stopped being broke all the time when I did.

Once upon a time, just having my own house seemed impossible, or even something as simple as a car. And ironically, things were a lot easier back then. :thinking:

5 Likes

What would that be?

As far back as I can remember, I’ve held conservative ideals on most issues. There are exceptions.

1 Like