A terrible little truth

[Samson_Corwell]

@JayJay

@Samson_Corwell

@Zippy

@Samson_Corwell

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 basically you are advocating people not paying back money they were lent and using the excuse “ don’t blame me, you were stupid enough to lend to me”.

Talk about an entitlement mentality!

Yikes!

Lulz. This is what I mean. You can use “personal responsibility” to argue for either one. It’s indeterminate, so the CORRECT justification to use is honor.

“Oh, man. Listen this entitled guy asking to be protected from the poor consequences of his lending choices. Sorry, pal. I don’t have sympathy for people who want bailouts. Dumb mistakes should hurt and enforcing debt repayment would just mean you won’t learn your lesson to be more careful about whom you lend to.”

People should remember why they were upset when the big banks were bailed out over the credit collapse in 2007-8.

Your argument was the argument they were using, whether they consciously knew it or not “Why should the big banks be bailed out when they were giving out loans…nay PIMPING OUT LOANS… from people with no credit and no job? Just to keep the mortgage derivatives racket going?”

Until Peter Santelli reminded everyone of the horrible injustice the poor, no credit, no income bad seeds perpetrated on the helpless banks when he did his famous “tea party rant”…that was inspired by resistance to a relatively minor proposed homeowner bailout- a bailout that was positively DWARFED in size and scope by the bailouts big banks actually got.

Then everyone was properly reset to thinking of those poor people as irresponsible cretins who stole from the totally reputable and responsible banks because they were greedy and wanted everything now, now now.

I did not know that, but it’s not my argument. I’m flipping the script to show why personal responsibility arguments are stupid.

[peek-a-boo]

@Samson_Corwell

I did not know that, but it’s not my argument. I’m flipping the script to show why personal responsibility arguments are stupid.

Would you loan money to someone that you know would be very unlikely to pay you back?

[Liberty323]

Minimalism and not having college pushed as a rite of passage would be a start.

[DougBH]

Can you lend me a thousand dollars, please?

[DougBH]

@Samson_Corwell

@TheRedComet

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.

Do you realize the ownership of assets is just a pragmatic economic choice. Your house, your car, the food in “your” kitchen are no more attached to you than the trees you walk under. A government and societal convention says they are yours, but other than that, they belong to me as well as much as yourself. If I cancel your ownership, then how is that stealing?

[Samson_Corwell]

@peek-a-boo

@Samson_Corwell

I did not know that, but it’s not my argument. I’m flipping the script to show why personal responsibility arguments are stupid.

Would you loan money to someone that you know would be very unlikely to pay you back?

Doesn’t matter. The “personal responsibility” argument is stupid because anyone can use it to argue their case.

[DougBH]

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

if a debt is canceled, no one loses anything

That’s not true at all.

It’s a non-physical thing. The only thing lost is the potential repayment.

So it would be wrong to take your house that you built from you.
But if you chose to sell that house and buy savings bonds from the proceeds of the sale, it would not be wrong for the government to cancel that debt to you, because the only thing lost is the potential repayment?

[Samson_Corwell]

@DougBH

Can you lend me a thousand dollars, please?

I’m a responsible person who will not lend money to people I do not trust so I don’t need to crawl to Daddy government to save me.

[Samson_Corwell]

@DougBH

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

if a debt is canceled, no one loses anything

That’s not true at all.

It’s a non-physical thing. The only thing lost is the potential repayment.

So it would be wrong to take your house that you built from you.
But if you chose to sell that house and buy savings bonds from the proceeds of the sale, it would not be wrong for the government to cancel that debt to you, because the only thing lost is the potential repayment?

Malum prohibitum, not malum in se.

[Liberty323]

So you are fine with bank underwriters profiling certain names?

[Samson_Corwell]

@Liberty323

So you are fine with bank underwriters profiling certain names?

Nice try, bucko, but I’m not playing your game. Take your concern trolling elsewhere.

And, if you paid even the smallest bit of attention, you’ll see that I said debt obligation enforcement is fine as a pragmatic choice.

[JayJay]

@Samson_Corwell

@JayJay

@Samson_Corwell

@Zippy

@Samson_Corwell

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 basically you are advocating people not paying back money they were lent and using the excuse “ don’t blame me, you were stupid enough to lend to me”.

Talk about an entitlement mentality!

Yikes!

Lulz. This is what I mean. You can use “personal responsibility” to argue for either one. It’s indeterminate, so the CORRECT justification to use is honor.

“Oh, man. Listen this entitled guy asking to be protected from the poor consequences of his lending choices. Sorry, pal. I don’t have sympathy for people who want bailouts. Dumb mistakes should hurt and enforcing debt repayment would just mean you won’t learn your lesson to be more careful about whom you lend to.”

People should remember why they were upset when the big banks were bailed out over the credit collapse in 2007-8.

Your argument was the argument they were using, whether they consciously knew it or not “Why should the big banks be bailed out when they were giving out loans…nay PIMPING OUT LOANS… from people with no credit and no job? Just to keep the mortgage derivatives racket going?”

Until Peter Santelli reminded everyone of the horrible injustice the poor, no credit, no income bad seeds perpetrated on the helpless banks when he did his famous “tea party rant”…that was inspired by resistance to a relatively minor proposed homeowner bailout- a bailout that was positively DWARFED in size and scope by the bailouts big banks actually got.

Then everyone was properly reset to thinking of those poor people as irresponsible cretins who stole from the totally reputable and responsible banks because they were greedy and wanted everything now, now now.

I did not know that, but it’s not my argument. I’m flipping the script to show why personal responsibility arguments are stupid.

I get it…I should have been clearer…the credit crisis saw the personal responsibility arguments used both ways…the ones that blamed those that took out the mortgages were the personal responsibility arguments that eventually won the day.and still hold away today (most recently, see the MAGA ire over student loan forgiveness).

Banks got bailed out…the little guys got screwed…in fact, it became harder for the little guys to even declare bankruptcy.

[Liberty323]

Regarding the student loans, in addition to the borrowers I’d like to see all of the teachers and guidance counselors have to sell their property to help pay them back. After all they are the ones who lied to students for 13 years with nonsense like “chase your dreams and the money will follow” or “any degree is a good degree”.

[coolidge]

I have to agree with you on this. That is what i would call predatory lending. How a student can secure a loan with no asset and no co signor purely on the students word of repaying said loan, baffled me. So yeah youre right. When these students default those that pimped out this bad product should also get punished.

[Guvnah]

@coolidge

I have to agree with you on this. That is what i would call predatory lending. How a student can secure a loan with no asset and no co signor purely on the students word of repaying said word, always baffled me. So yeah youre right. When these students default those that pimped out this bad product ahould also get punished.

If the student loans were backed by the schools, we’d see far better judgment on the worthiness of those loans. Let the school stand behind the degrees they are selling. (And the cost to obtain those degrees.)

[DougBH]

@Samson_Corwell

Malum prohibitum, not malum in se.

Do you have a bank account? You do realize that represents a debt to you by the bank? So if you go to the bank to take out some money and they tell you they have decided to keep it you be like “oh well. Not malum in se”.

[coolidge]

Oh yeah thats an excellent idea. I never thought of that but that makes perfect sense.

[Toll_Collector]

@Samson_Corwell

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.

If I steal a car, that’s bad. Their loss is my gain.

If someone lends me a car, and I don’t return it, no one loses anything because it was lost the moment he gave it to me.

I do agree that you can blame the lender if you want. But I think we can all see where that would lead.

[SixFoot]

@Samson_Corwell

@SixFoot

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.

Interesting, but I’m not sure what tge rekevance is. The unnaturalness of debt obligations doesn’t mean rejecting hard work.

Debt certainly feels unnatural to me. That’s why I choose to live without it.

[WuWei]

Extremely. If I loan you $10, you owe me a physical $10 bill.