ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 24, 2020

The answer to the "responsibility" objection

It's quite common for stupid and self-righteous conservatives to object to student loan debt cancellation on the basis of "personal irresponsibility", moral hazard, and the fact that the student signed the loan contract. But as Zippy Catholic points out, Thomas Aquinas conclusively answered that objection a long time ago.
Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another’s need. Thus too it is lawful for a man who has fallen among thieves to point out his property to them (which they sin in taking) in order to save his life, after the example of the ten men who said to Ismahel (Jeremiah 41:8): “Kill us not: for we have stores in the field.”
- Thomas AST II-II, Q78, A4):

Since borrowing at usury is inherently scandalous, it probably depends on the extent of the need. But you’ve got pretty wide moral discretion to hand over your property to thieves, so you’ve probably got similar prudential latitude here.  As a matter of intrinsic morality, usury – insisting on interest when making a mutuum loan – is a sin on the part of the lender, not the borrower.
The lender is the wrongdoer, not the borrower. Therefore, there is no moral hazard created by cancelling student loan debt, unless the government then proceeds to bails out the lender. It is bailouts, not debt cancellations, that are both immoral and morally hazardous by nature.

Labels: , ,

134 Comments:

Blogger Gettimothy March 24, 2020 4:49 PM  

The lender is the wrongdoer, not the borrower.

This. A thousand times this.

Blogger John Regan March 24, 2020 4:51 PM  

That is an excellent link, VD, thank you. I'm going to make a study of it.

I was getting at a similar idea to the "mutuum" loan distinction when I scaled back the jubilee proposal to a homestead amendment, exempting personal residences from execution upon any debt.

Obviously, I have more work and study to do.

Blogger Jay Will March 24, 2020 5:00 PM  

Consent is the devils way to rationalize destroying you. Life isn't fair, you've exploited your advantage, but your still evil when you lead a weak man to destitution through debt slavery. And the more weak men surround you you will eventually drown in your own manipulation and dishonesty.

Blogger Oswald March 24, 2020 5:01 PM  

I understand there is a correlation between student loan debt and the cost of education. Therefore, some of the blame for student loan debt must be placed on the schools. They out right lied and suckered teenagers into borrowing for degrees that they knew full well would never lead to livable incomes.

Blogger Darren March 24, 2020 5:08 PM  

"Consent is the devils way to rationalize destroying you."
But to be clear, INFORMED consent is rarely part of the devil's way (or the way of those who serve him).

Blogger Daniel March 24, 2020 5:12 PM  

People who borrows at usuary are in 99% of cases low IQ idiots with low temporal preference.
Thus, the sin is in the lender who takes advantage of this. It's the same case of a muscled man taking advantage of a weak one and stealing his property.

Blogger MattJ March 24, 2020 5:13 PM  

Since Obama, the lender is the government for the most part.

Blogger CM March 24, 2020 5:17 PM  

Thank you for this.

Blogger Ingemar March 24, 2020 5:26 PM  

Zippy was a treasure. I'm sure he'd have some cogent insights for today's crisis.

Blogger Bellomy March 24, 2020 5:28 PM  

I miss Zippy.

Blogger ar10308 March 24, 2020 5:29 PM  

The bow-tie Conservative will insist on consequences for the one who has fallen in to temptation. However, they demand and insist absolutely zero consequences to those who offered and peddled the temptation.

They forget entirely that it is more Satanic to offer the temptation than to fall in to it. It was Serpent in the Garden who offered the temptation and Mankind took the ticket, but the Conservative insists on the Serpent facing no consequences, even being rewarded for his trickery, and that Mankind not recieve any redemption.
Very Satanic. Not Christian at all.

Blogger FisherOfMen March 24, 2020 5:29 PM  

I'd like clarification on this, because I wrestle with this issue myself. Note that Aquinas says:

>such as the relief of his own or another’s need
>in order to save his life

But today's college students... they're more like someone who got a tip from another gambler on who is gonna win the races, so they take out a loan so they can have a big payday. The Feminism Studies student is in because they expect it to lead to a life of low effort and high accolades, not because they have a "need."

How prevalent is student loan debt in careers where something is actually produced?




Blogger Lyon March 24, 2020 5:29 PM  

Well said.

Blogger Nihil Dicit March 24, 2020 5:38 PM  

Since Obama, the lender is the government for the most part.

All those "gubmint gear-ron-tees" mean the actual "national debt" is many, many times greater than a mere $22 trillion.

Blogger Azimus March 24, 2020 5:40 PM  

It is hard to nod in assent to this. While several friends were working 10hrs/wk playing lifeguard and chasing tail, I was working 6 shifts a week in the plant on the nightshift. While friends took 3 week trips to Europe to discover themselves (chase tail), we did a camping trip in Chequamegon National Forest, $100 for a week including gas. I worked 2 jobs for 7 years, did my own car repairs and home improvements while friends were in softball leagues, volleyball leagues, road-tripling to Ann Arbor to cheer on the Badgers, etc.

I could go on and on. You get the idea. These kids weren't stupid - they had dozens of examples like me before, during, and after college to show them the way around the hole without falling in - but they didn't give two shits. Its not about being stupid its about going along with the lie - they knew it was a lie, they didn't care. On that basis alone, why should they get bailed out?

Well I'll tell you - its because there's the way things are, and the way you wish things could be. And the way I see it is simple - these locusts are going to take what they want regardless, so is it better to grant it to them as a public gift which costs me nothing and is an opportunity to give my way of life a new birth? Or is it better for them to go all Bernie-Bro and set us a legal system to take it from me on pain of death, and ensure that socialism and its inevitable rising tide of decay turns the lights off forever? Its gone either way boys.

As much as I can hardly stand the kids, give it to them.

Blogger OK March 24, 2020 5:42 PM  

Zippy's usury FAQ is a fantastic resource. NB: Zippy died in a plane crash around a year ago.

Blogger Weak March 24, 2020 5:43 PM  

I get the seduction of the personal irresponsibility objection. "I spent my time in the lab, not partying like the sociology majors, so now I have a good job and can payback my loans". "Instead of backpacking across Spain, I took a job in a hog rendering plant to payback my loans".

It's just sour grapes. Yes it sucks that the grasshoppers get forgiveness while the ants worked hard. But, to strain the analogy, that doesn't matter when the spiders move in and are eating everybody.

Blogger Shadow Banisher March 24, 2020 5:45 PM  

God instituted regular Jubilee years in the OT, and that was on top of not allowing usury in the first place.

Conservatives love usury and rail against even a one-time Jubilee.

Behold the grabble.

Blogger Jay Will March 24, 2020 5:56 PM  

"But to be clear, INFORMED consent is rarely part of the devil's way (or the way of those who serve him)."

They continually "inform" us its just usually lies or half truths. The rationalization is you agreed so bad luck. Its very noticeable that we are getting "advice" in the UK and not "laws". They aare intensely fearful of being outed as authoritarians because they are cowards. Bring back Genghis Khan and wipe this clean.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants March 24, 2020 5:58 PM  

It's not very Christian because most bow tie Conservatives and their "think tanks" slush fund orgs are Jewish.

Blogger Michael March 24, 2020 6:00 PM  

Question: Is usury the primary to inflict financialization on the economy? Or is it just one tool in the bag?

Blogger Silent Draco March 24, 2020 6:03 PM  

The boggling amount of student debt is driven by the institutions adding a 300-400% (or worse) administrative charge on top of education. All those staff offices don't pay for themselves, not even addressing the victim studies departments. Jubilee the debt, make the schools reimburse themselves out of their endowments. No bailouts.

My bills were low enough that family and grants, scholarships could pay them. I was lucky. Most of these kids aren't. Also had it up to about -- here -- with endless begging for endowments, and dealing with beetle-brained administrators with no ^&%%ing clue about reality. Put an end to it.

Blogger Jack Amok March 24, 2020 6:04 PM  

How prevalent is student loan debt in careers where something is actually produced?

Tuition skyrocketed for engineering and biology students too.

Blogger Out of Nod March 24, 2020 6:07 PM  

Going through the college system in the early 00s I remember financial aid being denied to me because my boomer parents made too much money - they could shoulder the cost in the minds of the powers that be. Thankfully, community college was cheaper. This left little option beyond taking out student loans. The other option would have been to pass on the whole mess and take my chances on corporate America without the "credentials."

Blogger Hieroglyph March 24, 2020 6:09 PM  

Instinctively, I was initially sceptical about debt jubilee. However, I wonder to what extent this 'instinct' was just grabble indoctrination. There was a time when I, unemployed through no fault of my own, and heavily in debt, could have done with such a write-off. I should be sympathetic to others, young men and women, who are in the same situation, or worse.

And of course, it's the economy stupid. It's being strangled by the grabble. In the great scheme of things, do I really care if individuals get to write off debt, where I didn't? Honestly, not really. Much better things to worry about. Like, why do they keep lying about the moon? That's a problem.

Blogger Phelps March 24, 2020 6:11 PM  

It's just like pornography. The porn consumer is weak willed and succumbs to temptation. The pornographer is wicked and drags others down in their sin.

Blogger Out of Nod March 24, 2020 6:11 PM  

God allowed interest on loans but it was on the foreigner. He set tight stipulations for those who were of His people.

Blogger Andrew March 24, 2020 6:23 PM  

NB: Zippy died in a plane crash around a year ago.

Zippy died 18 months ago while bicycling roadside in rural Virginia with his wife. Circumstances still not certain since he was far behind his wife when it happened. She didn't witness it and found him by the road when she circled back to find him. It is thought perhaps a trucker struck him, but not known.

Blogger Uncle John's Band March 24, 2020 6:23 PM  

St. Thomas nails it. Assign appropriate responsibility and the problem takes care of itself. If you know jubilees come every x years, you don't lend to locusts.

The "unfairness" that the myopic bleat about IS THE CONSEQUENCE of society-wide wallowing in sin. Clean up the sin and hold the sinners responsible, and there are no loans for b.s. majors or nonsense purchases.

There is only the fairness of loaning to those who can reasonably repay in a reasonable timeframe or else you eat the cost. Not a ban on usury outright, but a straightening-out of this current moral inversion that's dragging us all down.

Blogger The Masked Menace March 24, 2020 6:34 PM  

"It is bailouts, not debt cancellations, that are both immoral and morally hazardous by nature."

Bravo. A thousand times bravo!

Blogger Crush Limbraw March 24, 2020 6:37 PM  

As a recovering conservative, I now address them as knee jerkers.
They already know everything, will not challenge their long held presumptions and are still fighting DaLastWar.

Blogger Jose Miguel March 24, 2020 6:38 PM  

@Azimus

Though I worked two jobs through school and lived like a hobo to kill the debts, with no car for half a decade to boot, I'm not at all angry towards those who chased tail or traveled the world getting their loans forgiven. Fact is, I own myself, can survive for quite a time without income, survived a business failure, married a young cute debt-free virgin with no tattoos whose given me my first son, and wants to give me more. I don't know what are the blessings you got through working your ass off, but I recommend reflecting on those. Gratitude makes it easier to be merciful towards the foolish.

Blogger Dos Voltz March 24, 2020 6:42 PM  

"Academia" is a scam in America these days. Like everything else in this once-great country, the universities were once-great. They taught valuable lessons, imparted wisdom, provided gateways to a reasonable expectation for a better life.

But the hippies, the beatniks, the Bolsheviks, the Marxists, the Frankfurt school (to sum up, the totality of leftist scum) ruined things in the 50s and 60s. Animal House in the 70s. Colleges then focused on activism, affirmative action, social justice, and "group" rights.

In the 80s it was common to rank schools as "Party" schools. "Academia" became a culture of leftist wanton hedonism.

"Dead white guys are so yesterday, let's abandon everything they ever said or achieved."

Maybe 10% of schools now focused on STEM are worthwhile. The rest are garbage heaps of football teams, basketball teams, Spring Breaks and XXL jerseys in University colors.

The youth don't know the schools have become rotten to the core. Pity. The ones responsible for the rot (admin and tenured profs) should have all their assets seized and sent to work in salt mines.

I'm 55, paid my own way thru college in the 80s. Way harder for kids to do that these days. A raw deal. Give em a break.

Blogger John March 24, 2020 6:47 PM  

Azimus wrote:It is hard to nod in assent to this.

It will be much more difficult for irresponsible people to live beyond their means if lending at interest is criminalized.

Blogger rikjames.313 March 24, 2020 6:56 PM  

There are a lot of investigations against the servicing companies. I have heard both parties are trying to derail the CFPB because of who owns the servicing cos.

Blogger Crew March 24, 2020 7:07 PM  

This seems non controversial. To put it in terms that the "woke" will understand:

If you give child a handgun and that child manages to kill someone, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE!

Blogger tdcommenter March 24, 2020 7:13 PM  

The Feds also intervened in the market by guaranteeing the loans and flooding colleges with that money. This is undoing the damage of Federal intervention and feeding the young entrapped by the big bad govt.

Blogger grey March 24, 2020 7:13 PM  

It's the same story in the parable of the prodigal son, when the other responsible son complains to his father that he never did anything wrong and never got a party.

A soul that's saved is a much bigger deal than one that's never lost.

Blogger SirHamster March 24, 2020 7:15 PM  

ar10308 wrote:The bow-tie Conservative will insist on consequences for the one who has fallen in to temptation. However, they demand and insist absolutely zero consequences to those who offered and peddled the temptation.
The Cuckservative lauds the robbers for beating a man and leaving him on the road for dead, while castigating the victim for getting waylaid by evil men. Is it because robbers have money and the Cuckservative worships Mammon?

The anti-Good Samaritan.

Blogger Brett baker March 24, 2020 7:19 PM  

If the bowties would fight as hard against the University that encouraged the kids to borrow as they did debt forgiveness, we wouldn't have a cultural Marxism problem.

Blogger Kraemer March 24, 2020 7:21 PM  

Shout this from the rooftops. Here's another thought: if jubilees are a regular enough occurrence, nobody will lend money to these human failures anymore. That will reduce shit-tier party tourism and preserve places like Rome and Athens for those who genuinely care about history.

Blogger Servant March 24, 2020 7:23 PM  

If you are struggling with this think of it as punishing the lender, not rewarding the borrower, if you are that much a mental midget.

As for I worked so hard: bully for you dude. I did you one better and just didn't go. Hope your degree helps you sleep after laughing at all the suckers who got loans. Fuck those guys right? I hope during this time of economic unrest they just go and kill themselves for being so dumb and pathetic.

Have you read the parable of the vineyard owner who hired day laborers? You probably should. You probably shouldn't delight in other people's misery.

"But it's not fairrrrr!!!" That's what it sounds like every time I hear this.

Blogger Akulkis March 24, 2020 7:28 PM  

I have never had a dime of student loan debt, and I consider the OP to be an excellent analysis of the situation.

Blogger mike March 24, 2020 7:35 PM  

Well I see a moral hazard for those who didn't borrowed and worked hard for their tuition. Shouldn't they be compensated at all?

What say you?

Blogger MichaelJMaier March 24, 2020 7:36 PM  

I was stupidly naive, but I never dreamed banks would loan me money for a damned HOUSE which would be risky to pay back. I truly thought because I was approved, that I would be okay.

I was wrong. And they were evil.

Blogger God Emperor Memes March 24, 2020 7:39 PM  

I completely agree. I would also say that degrees like Feminist Interpretive Dance Theory or AA Studies or Unicorn Husbandry And Phoenix Hatching should be ineligible for loans.

Blogger eclecticme March 24, 2020 7:41 PM  

BTW There is a sort of student loan jubilee for govt and non-profit employees. Work 10 years, make payments, and you are done. This is because it is 'public service.'

If there is sudent loan forgiveness then student loans should be greatly reduced going forward. Libs often cite foreign countries where college tuition is free/paid for by the state. In those places often only 10% of students go to 4 year universities. I say OK, do it and shut down 3/4 of the four year universites in the US. If the current profs cannot teach welding they are SOL.

Blogger Kraemer March 24, 2020 7:42 PM  

I honestly think you haven't spoken to a college student recently. They're so propagandized, it's beyond scary. 99% of student loans weren't taken under any definition of "free will".

Blogger Glaivester March 24, 2020 7:44 PM  

Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury:

Of course it needs to be pointed out that most student debt today are loans given by the government. Therefore, in effect taxpayers are being induced to lend under a condition of usury.

@4: And that is the rub. Any student loan jubilee that does not hold the college responsible just encourages the colleges to raise tuition more, because the student will gladly pay as long as he knows that he can borrow as much as he wants and never pay it back.

Ah, you say, but we will ban lending money for college in the future after we pass the jubilee, so there won't be that incentive.

Sure. And we will enforce immigration laws as soon as we pass the next amnesty.

Unless the colleges are punished THIS TIME AROUND, they will rebuild the system again. Especially because if we forgive student loans without confiscating the endowments, the colleges will have the money to lobby to get the loans reinstated.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( The Surprised Pig hadn't had any idea he tasted this good ) March 24, 2020 8:16 PM  

the OT instruction in regards to Lending is that interest should *never* be charged when lending to a brother.

"You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest"

only when lending to a goyim, eh?

Luke says that not only are you not to charge interest, you are not even to expect the return of the lent capital:
"And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”



this, of course, is a YUGE problem for Ann Barnhardt.

Blogger Timmy3 March 24, 2020 8:23 PM  

I would agree the student loan interest rates should be lowered to 1% for federal and 3% for private. This should come hand in hand with cheaper tuition, board, and books costs. But parents should steer kids to cheaper state universities and colleges and forget about private and Ivy League schools.

Blogger Uncompliant March 24, 2020 8:26 PM  

Well, I need more information. I think -- very likely -- student loan forgiveness is just another BIG BANK BAILOUT dressed up as "helping" poor little ole students who were victimized. AND I predict this will end up helping BOOMERS !!

First question: how much of the student loan debt to be forgiven is FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED (FGG) student loans? They abolished the FGG loans in 2010, but a vast number of loans pre-2012-ish are FGG. See Infogalactic: "Prior to 2010, Federal loans included both direct loans—originated and funded directly by the U.S. Department of Education—and guaranteed loans—originated and funded by private investors, but guaranteed by the federal government. Guaranteed loans were eliminated in 2010..."

https://infogalactic.com/info/Student_loans_in_the_United_States

More -- start with the government-issued loans: currently, those are loans that are being paid to the government. So, forgiving them is less revenue to the government. That is bad. But I have my suspicions that those government-issued loans been sold to private parties. If so, what sort of guarantees were included in the sale?

WRT private-bank-issued FGG loans: If these are "forgiven," how much are the banks getting?

If the banks are able to demand payment from the government based on the guarantee, then we the taxpayers are paying for the "forgiveness."

Next question: what percentage of these loans are "bad debt"? I think the percentage is high. This is where the BANK BAILOUT idea comes from. Lots of student loans are not being paid and unlikely to get paid by the time the student dies ... yes, tons of people on social security are paying student loans!! BOOMERS !

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-debt-seniors-owe-billions-in-student-loan-debt-this-will-follow-me-to-the-grave/

The push for this is extreme which tells me that big money interests have a big money play in this. Let's say I am a billionaire and I spend $500 million buying up bundles of bad debt student loans. I bought them for -- say -- 5 cents on a dollar (probably much less). If I can get the government to "forgive" and then sue on the guarantees, and recoup 100 cents on my 5 cent investment .... well, you get the point.

So, I need more information. As with all things, the devil is in the details.

Blogger Doom March 24, 2020 8:28 PM  

Baby, bathwater. Stop the interest, not the principal. Make it nearly impossible to obtain a student loan from now on? Okay.

Blogger Uncompliant March 24, 2020 8:30 PM  

oh, sorry forgot to add: I am this billionaire. I spent $500 million buying up the bad student loan debt; I probably only have to spend $20 million in "campaign contributions" to buy enough votes in Congress to get the student loans "forgiven" which maybe lets me collect my 100 cents on my 5 cent investment. Well worth the $20 million.

Blogger maniacprovost March 24, 2020 8:32 PM  

I understand there is a correlation between student loan debt and the cost of education. Therefore, some of the blame for student loan debt must be placed on the schools.

The schools get most of the blame. The cost is about 33% of the problem; the other 2/3 are the interest and the way debt enables the cost that could otherwise not be inflicted. However, the schools are the ones that lie and brainwash teens into selling themselves into slavery.

they knew it was a lie, they didn't care. On that basis alone, why should they get bailed out?
Well I'll tell you - its because there's the way things are, and the way you wish things could be.


The way things are is, there is no debt forgiveness and those people are debt slaves. That is the way things are. Debt forgiveness is the way you want things to be.

And the way I see it is simple - these locusts are going to take what they want regardless

No they're not. They're proles.

so is it better to grant it to them as a public gift which costs me nothing and is an opportunity to give my way of life a new birth?

It costs you everything and will destroy your way of life. If we're just making assertions.

Or is it better for them to go all Bernie-Bro and set us a legal system to take it from me on pain of death, and ensure that socialism and its inevitable rising tide of decay turns the lights off forever?

That's the same thing.

Its gone either way boys.

So... it doesn't matter which we choose.


Absolutely, allow people to declare bankruptcy and eliminate their student debt. I don't want to wade into the debt jubilee topic but student loans need a permanent, ongoing modification to prevent them from immediately coming back.

Blogger crescent wrench March 24, 2020 8:43 PM  

When you subject limited-supply major assets like land/housing to usrous leverage, you compel otherwise responsible people into a prisoner's dilemma.

If they don't leverage to the hilt on the maximum term mortgage, others will, locking them out of housing.

They're given a stark choice: generational poverty to bankers or generational poverty to land barons.

Regular debt jubilees on the mortgage industry would push down housing costs and restore the floor of the "middle class" world-wide.

Blogger Zorlig March 24, 2020 8:43 PM  

Just deduct it from their boomer parent social security.

Blogger The Requital March 24, 2020 8:43 PM  

Alright I read a bit of the article, from what I can understand a house loan is not usury, because it can be separated from the individual and the lenders recompense is the property. While a Student loan is a personal loan that enslaves the individual to the lender and the lender must pursue the I dividual who is the borrower. in the case of a student loan the lender needs to lend charitably for the principal without usury? Or is it only charitably and even the principal is not required?

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( The Surprised Pig hadn't had any idea he tasted this good ) March 24, 2020 8:49 PM  

speaking of "responsible", you remember how all the big Social Media companies were going to start curating content for "accuracy" in order to combat "Russian interference"?

why is Youtube / Google constantly trying to serve me these retarded Congress Nation channel videos with absurd titles like:
"FINAL VERDICT TO OUST SCHIFF FROM CONGRESS FINALLY GETS APPROVED"

final "verdict"? that's not how Congress works and that's not how Schiff would be expelled from his seat.

so now you've got YT / Google / Alphabet trying to troll lowbrow right wingers into believing all kinds of Fake News that they would like to hear. i'm sure for the purpose of discrediting and embarrassing Godbothering gunhuggers in the run up to the presidential election, should they be so stupid as to pay attention to any of these releases.

Blogger Doktor Jeep March 24, 2020 9:18 PM  

My viewpoint is such, that it's way too noticeable how the banks got a bailout in 2008 before anybody knew what was going on, and a mere pittance to people out of work because of Corona chan suddenly requires endless debate and moderation, therefore money is going to be printed and given away no matter how much we complain about it, and that "voting harder" is not doing a damned thing to stop it.
So let's at least give it to young Americans. Heck how many states already cut breaks for children of illegals?

Some can say this is Bernie-bro stuff. Well sort of. Bernie didn't get much minority support because the minorities already get the free ride that the young white kids are begging for. The young white kids have yet to reaslize that they are the cash cow.

So I don't give a shit about "responsibility" any way. In the USA we ship jobs overseas and bring in cheap labor so when the young American has only the choice of work at Walmart and marry his obese cousin or join the military and at least get away if for a while, then you get the US policing the world and when some of these young soldiers get killed, the neocons line up on the talk shows and say "well, they volunteered and knew what they were getting into when they signed the dotted line".
You see this is the new slavery. The Talmudic approach open to interpretation. Sure there's no draft when you don't force young men to serve, but when you create a system were they have so few other options, what do you have? Something neocons can pretend is pure and OK and voluntary.

So as far as it goes for student loans, I remember when a semester at technical college costs 700 bucks back in the 80s and that was too expensive even for me. I have actually heard THE "Bootstrap Speech" that did include paying the way through school working at a restaurant or some crap - with money left over to make a down payment on a house. I heard this crap. That was already impossible for me. So, who is going to be complaining the loudest? The people who had it the easiest. The people who pulled the ladder up after them and will give us speeches about responsibility after a lifetime of voting like a complete imbecile.

For those who did pay their way, I'm one of them. I had to serve in the military to get my measly degrees. Still didn't save me from ending up working construction and driving a cab thanks to H1Bs and boomernomics. I too did the summer thing working my ass off while everybody else was working on getting laid. But let's be honest: we were lied to by the previous generation. Why do we take it out on the kids who got lied to even worse? Who raised the tuition THEN told them it was college or nothing? Even in the 80s, as I didn't have plans for college at 11th grade, I was getting looked at like a space alien because it was drilled in our heads College! College! College!
It was a full brainwashing media op and they made the victims pay for it. So regardless of how "we" feel on the matter, it's time to right the wrongs. It's time to end this train of abuse, and screw the bankers.

Besides, this will increase the white birth rate, and I want to see the day when the fat black soft-handed college student getting through all-expense paid is screaming about forgiving student loan debt because it might help whites. That's a red pill that a lot of people need.

Blogger Balam March 24, 2020 9:39 PM  

@Weak
''It's just sour grapes. Yes it sucks that the grasshoppers get forgiveness while the ants worked hard. But, to strain the analogy''

I liked when someone in the last thread said that financial prudence is a trait like strength or a keen eye. Should 'high iq' or whatever give divine right to enslave your fellow man? How about raw physical might, then? While I was in the gym they were reading so why shouldn't I get to snap them into iron chains? The naysayers will still have what they built: the business, the skills, the connections, the reputation, the properties. What do you lose on, really?

Blogger Quadko March 24, 2020 9:48 PM  

It should be possible with objectors to discuss forgiving the difference between what colleges cost now and what they "should" cost, back when the objector went to school.

Teach incrementally those who can't get there yet, if you care to spend the effort.

Blogger Azimus March 24, 2020 9:55 PM  

32. Jose Miguel March 24, 2020 6:38 PM

Jose Miguel all I can say is you're probably one hell of a good guy.

Blogger State Estimation March 24, 2020 9:56 PM  

@16, it was a bicycle accident.

I used to think usury was merely excessive interest. Zippy's blog was an eye opener, but it still seemed esoteric.

This discussion of usury and debt forgiveness as we enter an "event horizon" of debt deflation is exciting. This actually has a chance of happening. Talk about Social Justice!

Zippy says you had (Dominicans and Franciscans) arguing, not about interest rates, but about the justice of even forcing the borrower to repay the principle if the books had been balanced by an unrelated 3rd parties' generosity. Doesn't sound like a "Dark Age" to me.







Blogger Gastguma March 24, 2020 10:01 PM  

Who is the lender? My understanding is that when I deposit money in a bank, I am lending the bank money. The bank is the borrower, which is why I get paid interest (ignoring the weird scenario of negative interest rates). The bank then invests or lends the money it borrowed from me at interest to make more money. This is why everyone can't withdraw their money at the same time: it isn't all there. If debts are forgiven, this at face value means that the borrowers don't have to repay the lenders. So the bank doesn't get the money it loaned out back. This may not matter to the bank owners/directors because they were lending borrowed money anyway; but the bank could default on its own loans, which is to say that the depositors, i.e. lenders to the bank could not get their money back. This is presumably why bailouts are thought to be necessary, so the bank has the money to repay the depositors (lenders) or at least so the depositors think the bank is solvent so they don't demand their deposits (loans) back immediately. How does a widespread debt forgiveness program prevent this from happening? Or is it even relevant?

Blogger VD March 24, 2020 10:10 PM  

My understanding is that when I deposit money in a bank, I am lending the bank money.

Your understanding is incorrect. A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that once your money passes out of your PHYSICAL POSSESSION, and I mean PHYSICAL possession, it is no longer yours, and you have no legal claim or legal recourse to it when it is stolen by a bank or financial institution. You're not even a legal creditor.

Blogger Damelon Brinn March 24, 2020 10:15 PM  

Shouldn't they be compensated at all?

According to Matthew 20:1-16, they have been compensated by the terms they agreed to, and they should be satisfied with that and not be envious of others who ended up getting a better deal. I know it's a parable and has a spiritual meaning, but that doesn't invalidate the literal meaning.

99% of student loans weren't taken under any definition of "free will".

It's time we accepted that caveat emptor isn't enough. The average consumer is no match for the kind of marketing pressure that billion-dollar organizations can bring to bear, whether we're talking about colleges selling degrees or credit card companies selling debt. Bring back some truth in advertising and consumer protection requirements, and hold companies liable if they manage to sucker too many people.

Blogger Frank Lee March 24, 2020 10:18 PM  

I would be in favor of simply allowing student loans to be subject to normal laws that allow a person to declare bankruptcy. And for the government to get out of the business of making such loans in the future, unless it is for critical professions, like doctors and engineers.

To forgive these debts outside of real reform measures to solve the problem that created them, would be like paying off loan sharks when their targets get into trouble.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 24, 2020 10:22 PM  

"But to be clear, INFORMED consent is rarely part of the devil's way (or the way of those who serve him)."

Oh, it's part of their way, but those are the rabid-shark infested waters, where most people are only in the water with sparse baby piranhas. The person who can lie to you and you believe them is one thing, but you better live in mortal fear of the one who intentionally finds a way to tell you the truth so that you won't believe it. That's the one who is fitting out your soul for eternal torment, and crushing that one should raise no more moral quandary than crushing a parasitic insect.

Blogger John Regan March 24, 2020 10:31 PM  

Vox, do you have a name or citation for that case?

Blogger Mauldication Bear March 24, 2020 10:37 PM  

This is the kind of information I come to the blog for. Wow

Blogger cyrus83 March 24, 2020 10:48 PM  

Caveat creditor seems like a good motto.

At the very least, bankruptcy should be easy to obtain and encompass all forms of unsecured debt, including student loans.

If that encourages lenders to stop making idiotic loans to people they would never loan to if the government wasn't guaranteeing and bailing them out from their poor decisions, that's a good thing! Debt is a highly inefficient way to build an economy because so much more capital than the nominal principal has to go to the lender to pay off the debt rather than being used for something more productive. Lenders and banks aren't exactly known for their innovations to better society, they just keep making more and more loans to get more and more wealthy.

When the homeless guy on the street with a cardboard box and a shopping cart is materially worth more than millions of college students and has better prospects of having a higher net worth than those students 10 years from now, that should be a clue the system is a predatory monster.

Blogger Lazarus March 24, 2020 10:52 PM  

It is bailouts, not debt cancellations, that are both immoral and morally hazardous by nature.

Have the commoners accepted bailouts in the form of Social Security, .gov pensions, unemployment insurance , welfare payments and food stamps?

Blogger PH March 24, 2020 11:04 PM  

If you have a $100 would you rather a) spend it now or b) in a year's time? Most people would answer a).
Interest is the reward for foregoing time preference.

Blogger Ted March 24, 2020 11:05 PM  

Close the for profit colleges, claw back all of the profits where you can, then buy down the students debt and forgive the rest. Do this and your about 2/3rds of the way home.

Blogger ZhukovG March 24, 2020 11:29 PM  

If your nation, your people, are mired in a cesspool of debt; washing your own face still leaves you up to your neck in shit.

Jubilee cleanses the nation, and all, whether debtors or not, benefit.

Blogger Jack Amok March 24, 2020 11:50 PM  

If you have a $100 would you rather a) spend it now or b) in a year's time? Most people would answer a).
Interest is the reward for foregoing time preference.



You have $100. You can:

a) spend it drinking a bottle of scotch
b) spend it building a chicken coop so you can sell enough eggs to buy a better bottle of scotch next year
c) save it in a bank so the banker can loan it to someone who will spend it drinking a bottle of scotch today, then pay the banker back so you can spend it on a better bottle of scotch next year. If he pays it back and if he doesn't drink so much scotch in the meantime that the price goes up more than your interest.

b) is the only answer that actually creates something of value to justify you earning a better bottle of scotch by waiting a year.

There really is no such thing as time preference for spending money. It's a measurement, not a thing, it's got to be spent on current goods and services or it just dissipates*. The only time preference is if you spend it on something of immediate use or something of future use. Giving it to a banker is outsourcing that decision to a profession with a sketchy track record.

* creates deflation in the present and inflation in the future

Blogger Noah B. March 25, 2020 12:09 AM  

Your understanding is incorrect. A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that once your money passes out of your PHYSICAL POSSESSION, and I mean PHYSICAL possession, it is no longer yours, and you have no legal claim or legal recourse to it when it is stolen by a bank or financial institution. You're not even a legal creditor.

And if you do retain physical possession of your own money, that makes you a drug dealer whose assets can be confiscated by police at any time. Trying to get back your confiscated assets is an uphill battle to say the least. The legal system in this country is absurd and hopelessly broken.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( The Surprised Pig hadn't had any idea he tasted this good ) March 25, 2020 12:22 AM  

65. Gastguma March 24, 2020 10:01 PM
My understanding is that when I deposit money in a bank, I am lending the bank money.



even were this true, Fractional Reserve Lending renders this moot in all but a tiny percentage of lending transactions.

the bank does NOT lend $1 for every $1 deposited. the bank lends multiples of that original deposit, usually more than 10 to 1.

now realize that EVERY bank in the country is doing this.

now realize that this is how the vast majority of the "money" in the US ( actually almost every modern economy ) is "created".

now ask a question:
how is it possible for there to be a run on a bank
...
when the bank needs less than 1 in 10 of those to whom they have lent to repay them in order to make the depositor whole?

also realize, the Fractional Reserve thing is an exponential curve.

a Fractional Dollar which is lent spends exactly the same as a Whole Dollar which was deposited.

therefore, i take my Fractional Dollar and pay off my new auto purchase from the dealer, let's say ( it's the bank who carries the loan used to buy the auto ). the dealer takes those Fractional Dollars and
...
deposits them in a bank.

because Fractional Dollars also deposit the same as Whole Dollars.

and the bank of the auto dealer? they fractionate that deposit again ... ad nauseum.

Blogger Akulkis March 25, 2020 12:49 AM  

"ignoring the weird scenario of negative interest rates"

Nothing weird about it at all.

Originally, banks were storehouses of coins and other valuables. You paid a monthly fee for having your stuff guarded around the clock. You would deposit stuff, and get a receipt. Then people trading within the same city began trading receipts so as to avoid physically moving the stuff.

The storehouse owners eventually realized they could start making "extra" receipts, and pass those around as genuine receipts, and thus was born fractional reserve banking. Since these extra receipts were passed off as being backed by a deposit, they were fraudulent and counterfeit.

Therefore, regardless of what the law is, fractional reserve banking is counterfeiting.

Blogger Ska_Boss March 25, 2020 1:37 AM  

Not old enough to buy alcohol or tobacco? Check.

Old enough to sign up for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of loans that cannot ever be discharged through bankruptcy? Check

Blogger weka March 25, 2020 1:39 AM  

@MattJ, the government has been evil for as long as I can remember, and I can remember more than the SDL has been alive.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( The Surprised Pig hadn't had any idea he tasted this good ) March 25, 2020 3:05 AM  

80. Akulkis March 25, 2020 12:49 AM
Therefore, regardless of what the law is, fractional reserve banking is counterfeiting.



oh, goodness.

Akulkis is disavowing the modern interpretation of the Law and standing on principle and logic? regardless of the position of Society and the Courts and Custom and established Business Practice and even the Law itself?

careful now. someone might mistake you for me.

Blogger MM March 25, 2020 4:16 AM  

Seems to me that the usury is in attaching a loan to a body because they have a degree. How about being able to repudiate the degree and thus the debt incurred, much like walking away from a house that is underwater, or letting your car be re-po'd? You may no longer use it for professional purposes or in accessing other financial instruments.

Blogger SciVo March 25, 2020 5:23 AM  

I have come around to being down with student loan debt forgiveness, as long as there is also a student loan issuing hiatus, and no money to banks. No benefit to the panderers.

I still hate a lot of the smarmy, dumb, arrogant, well-connected sons of bitches that will benefit from that, and especially the grievance studies and business majors that only learn how to harm my society.

But that is not a good reason to hand over my country to the userers.

Blogger rikjames.313 March 25, 2020 6:07 AM  

A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that once your money passes out of your PHYSICAL POSSESSION, and I mean PHYSICAL possession, it is no longer yours, and you have no legal claim or legal recourse to it when it is stolen by a bank or financial institution.

Sort of. Under the state level Uniform Commercial Code you have (usually, depends on the state) one year to discover the issue from date of delivery of the monthly bank statement. 4-406. I know that seems short, but the UCC likes one year statutes--for example in most states sellers/short term lenders have one year to claim on an 'account stated' suit, so it goes both ways.

Blogger VD March 25, 2020 6:56 AM  

Sort of. Under the state level Uniform Commercial Code you have (usually, depends on the state) one year to discover the issue from date of delivery of the monthly bank statement. 4-406.

The Appeals Court decision trumps the UCC.

Blogger Akulkis March 25, 2020 6:59 AM  

"Akulkis is disavowing the modern interpretation of the Law and standing on principle and logic? regardless of the position of Society and the Courts and Custom and established Business Practice and even the Law itself?"

You are too short for this ride.

What part of "regardless of what the law says" did you not comprehend?

Blogger Akulkis March 25, 2020 7:01 AM  

"The Appeals Court decision trumps the UCC."

Sad, but true.

Blogger Rowan March 25, 2020 7:03 AM  

Do you even want to know how insanely easy it is to get into college in the 21st century? I’m not talking about your local small lib arts state school with an adequate program.

I have C- students with 950 SATs being accepted to West Virginia University and Michigan State. I’m dumbfounded by it. Schools have little incentive to be choosy when the money flows no matter what.

Party Schools are a top choice for lots of students for obvious reasons. I’m of the opinion that school is too lenient and lasts too long. I see the COLLEGE AT ANY COST propaganda and don’t like it. I invite trade schools, tech schools, and trade unions to come in and talk to juniors and seniors a few times a year, if for nothing else than a sense of perspective on the absolute necessity of college that they’re taught to believe.

I know I’m going to see many of them next fall or spring in the writing lab at the local community college, where I tutor. They will burn through their loans and wash out of their big name school.

No one is being realistic with them. I don’t have the clout to say anything official about it, so I work it into my lessons as much as possible.

It’s actually prohibited to tell a kid who can barely string two sentences together that maybe she shouldn’t consider taking accelerated composition over the summer. I was reprimanded for it, because I’m just an English teacher not a guidance counselor.

Blogger Akulkis March 25, 2020 7:17 AM  

"Seems to me that the usury is in attaching a loan to a body because they have a degree."

Not even that.

Most drop-outs have a pile of student-loan debt, too.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 25, 2020 9:56 AM  

"Interest is the reward for foregoing time preference."

No, it's the "reward" for doing nothing whatsoever but having a lot of non-necessary resources. Sure, some people hedonistically live beyond their means like idiots. However a lot of people are just doing what they have to do to scrape by, and they get eaten alive too.

Which do you think comprises the greater portion of debtors, which you yourself are even if only by virtue of being a citizen of a debtor government?

Because one, single decision to forgo time preference should be the gift that keeps on giving, while the other of course should be the onus that keeps on onusing, forever. Even if you didn't make that decision and it was made for you. Even if the person lending wasn't put out at all in reality. Forever.

Now for the bonus round. In our case, every last cent of the lent money is conjured out of thin air, you idiot. Forgoing what time preference, exactly?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 25, 2020 9:58 AM  

"What part of "regardless of what the law says" did you not comprehend?"

Better take a look in the mirror. Your lack of a sense of humor has left you nekkid.

Blogger John Regan March 25, 2020 10:07 AM  

@87

Vox, as far as I can tell, the US Supreme Court takes the position that a bank account is not the "property" of the depositor, but does constitute a "promise to pay" the depositor by the bank, making the depositor the creditor of the bank for the amount of the account. Citizens Bank of Md. v. Strumpf, 516 US 16 at 21 (1995). A federal appeals court cannot change that. In any event Nemariam v. Ethiopia 491 F.3d 470 at 476 (DC Cir., 2007) is to the same effect.

Can't find any federal appeals court decision citing either of those cases contradicting that idea.

Blogger Tars Tarkas March 25, 2020 11:14 AM  

The forgiving of student loans would almost certainly lead to the colleges becoming public. This is just another gibs program for people who hate us to propagandize our children against us.
Whatever standards are left will be completely abandoned. Free for all really means ALL. It is a clownworld fix to clownworld problem. Expect a lot more of this:
https://read.dukeupress.edu/glq/article-abstract/20/4/439/34905/Black-Anality?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Without IQ testing prospective students and other reforms that we cannot possibly expect in the current climate, debt forgiveness is just a band-aid on a symptom and the problem will not go away.
We must abandon the silly notion that every kid needs to graduate high school, let alone go to college. We need to shut down entire departments within the colleges. We need to tear down the bureaucracies which exist in the colleges and who make them so expensive and inefficient.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 25, 2020 11:41 AM  

The lender is the "wrongdoer?" What kind of moronic Marxist crap is that? In a voluntary transaction where both parties benefit, there is no "wrongdoer."

Blogger liberranter March 25, 2020 11:49 AM  

Conservatives love usury and rail against even a one-time Jubilee.

THat's a very important point to remember. True colors shining brightly.

Blogger Jack Amok March 25, 2020 11:56 AM  

As far as the debate over what the courts say about the ownership of money you've depositing in your bank - regardless of what you think the legal system says now, are you willing to bet your, ahem, life savings on the courts taking your side if things get bad enough banks start refusing to give you "your" money?

I'd say flip a coin, if you can get your hands on one.

Blogger JohnnyRay1975 March 25, 2020 12:20 PM  

Time for Trump to get a Suppression Act. The university replaced the monastery what will replace the university?

Blogger CM March 25, 2020 1:28 PM  

Thomas Cottone wrote:The lender is the "wrongdoer?" What kind of moronic Marxist crap is that? In a voluntary transaction where both parties benefit, there is no "wrongdoer."

Have you ever watched a 10 year old play a game with a 6 year old?

Its an incredibly lesson in avarice, predation, and manipulation.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 25, 2020 1:36 PM  

Thomas Cottone wrote:In a voluntary transaction where both parties benefit, there is no "wrongdoer."
This is what's wrong with Libertardianism.
Wrong is wrong, even if everybody wants to do wrong. Don't like Christianity? Go live in Somalia.

Libertards need a kick in the nuts every time they open their filthy yaps.

Blogger Up from the pond March 25, 2020 1:37 PM  

When the debts are canceled, the grabblers won't get ten cents on the dollar. They will get nothing.

That will make them think twice about catalyzing irresponsibility again.

They - not the ones whom they deceive - are the worst people in the world. Consider the entrapment schemes carried out in many domains. The FBI is reportedly massaging impressionable people to assent to terroristic plots, then arresting them: "Gotcha!" The grabblers in Poland and Czarist Russia pushed liquor persistently until society-ruining drunkenness was created: "Gotcha!" Ditto drug pushers: "Gotcha!" Pornographers: "Gotcha!" E-Z credit shills: "Gotcha!"

They all say about the deleterious results: "You deserve them. If you were smarter, you wouldn't have fallen for our lies." I hear the Devil's voice in this.

Note how easily Darwinism is dragooned into providing cover for destroying social trust and the morality behind it. Social Darwinism avers that "the suckers" deserve it, that only the strongest gangsters should live. But are the most dishonest, least trustworthy, and most parasitical people "the fittest" for survival?

Blogger CM March 25, 2020 1:38 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:If you have a $100 would you rather a) spend it now or b) in a year's time? Most people would answer a).

Interest is the reward for foregoing time preference.


You have $100. You can:

a) spend it drinking a bottle of scotch

b) spend it building a chicken coop so you can sell enough eggs to buy a better bottle of scotch next year

c) save it in a bank so the banker can loan it to someone who will spend it drinking a bottle of scotch today, then pay the banker back so you can spend it on a better bottle of scotch next year. If he pays it back and if he doesn't drink so much scotch in the meantime that the price goes up more than your interest.

b) is the only answer that actually creates something of value to justify you earning a better bottle of scotch by waiting a year.

There really is no such thing as time preference for spending money. It's a measurement, not a thing, it's got to be spent on current goods and services or it just dissipates*. The only time preference is if you spend it on something of immediate use or something of future use. Giving it to a banker is outsourcing that decision to a profession with a sketchy track record.

* creates deflation in the present and inflation in the future


This goes against all modern ideas of financial management - every single freakin' one.

Not even people who are demonstrably better at managing their finances compared to everyone around them would even come close to something like this.

How did we get to the point where having cash on hand was a huge no-no?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 25, 2020 1:45 PM  

Akulkis wrote:The storehouse owners eventually realized they could start making "extra" receipts, and pass those around as genuine receipts, and thus was born fractional reserve banking. Since these extra receipts were passed off as being backed by a deposit, they were fraudulent and counterfeit.

Therefore, regardless of what the law is, fractional reserve banking is counterfeiting.

Fractional reserve banking began as a fraud, and was a crime. It was a very profitable fraud, so the criminals were able to pay to have the law changed. It's no longer a crime, but it's still fraud.

One might say that technically Federal Reserve Notes are not counterfeit - they're 100% legit FRNs - but they absolutely counterfeit real value, absolutely counterfeit past production. They are a legal counterfeit, making your production less valuable, stealing your productivity.

Fractional reserve banking is the ultimate grabbler scheme. It's ``money'' from nothing, and everything's free to the grabblers.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 25, 2020 1:56 PM  

PH wrote:Interest is the reward for foregoing time preference.
For you, it is. You have it because you produced some good or service. That $100 is a token indicating past production.

For the bank, which conjures $100s out of thin air via ledger entries, there is no past production, there is no time preference.
The bank gives up exactly nothing when they make a loan.
The bank defers exactly nothing when they make a loan.
The bank risks exactly nothing when they make a loan.

You spending or loaning something you earned is fundamentally different than a bank loaning a counterfeit of your earnings.

Blogger Tars Tarkas March 25, 2020 2:54 PM  

Thomas Cottone wrote:The lender is the "wrongdoer?" What kind of moronic Marxist crap is that? In a voluntary transaction where both parties benefit, there is no "wrongdoer."

Of course the wrongdoer is the lender who, BTW, is lending nothing. They are literally lending a ledger entry.

What you are thinking of, assuming it ever existed at all, was facilitating a transaction between people who save money and people who need those saving to purchase plant and equipment. The saved money, which was earned in some way, was not used to buy products and services and thus resources were freed up for the borrower to buy plant and equipment.

What is happening today is banks are pushing credit cards on anyone with a pulse in order to buy consumer goods with money(credit) conjured out of thin air and repaid with exorbitant interest.

Blogger Jack Amok March 25, 2020 3:09 PM  

You're missing the point CM. I didn't say cash on hand was a no-no. I said it wasn't an investment.
It's fine - even responsible - to have cash on hand. It's just not anything that deserves earning interest. The only way to "earn" interest on my money is to spend it on increasing productivity.

Because "interest" means you're expecting more buying power in the future, but for that to be equitable, you need to have done something to make the future more productive.

And bankers have not proven to be reliable at using your money to make the future more productive. Mostly they're just loaning it to someone else for short-term consumption.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 25, 2020 3:50 PM  

Nice false comparison

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 25, 2020 3:53 PM  

Congrats on proving you are incapable of reason. First, the only thing actually wrong is you claiming you own my labor. "Wrong" is a subjective term. I get it, you get a thrill imposing your subjective value judgements on others at the point of a gun.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 25, 2020 4:52 PM  

Thomas Cottone wrote:Congrats on proving you are incapable of reason. First, the only thing actually wrong is you claiming you own my labor. "Wrong" is a subjective term. I get it, you get a thrill imposing your subjective value judgements on others at the point of a gun.
There's one person in this convo incapable of reason. One person who is shouting formulaic answers at people who disagree. It ain't him.

Consent is not the yardstick of morality. "Wrong" an objective term. You are on the wrong side of it. Libertarianism is wrong, both from a rational and logical perspective, and from a moral one.

We get it. You get a thrill from asserting your non-existent independence and pretending you're strong enough to make it in a cannibalistic world of might makes right. Problem is, you're not. If we ever took the chains off the power of money, you would be swallowed whole and turned out as a punk within a year.

And yes, Libertardians need to be kicked in the nuts every time they raise their filthy, illogical, irrational heads.

Blogger Joe Smith March 25, 2020 7:04 PM  

It was on this blog that someone (I'm sorry, I can't remember who to give proper credit) wrote that one irony of libertarians is that they don't understand liberty. It might have been Snidely. This was an excellent observation. The idea that consent makes any old agreement hunky dory is retarded, but oddly powerful in its allure. It caught me for a while too. But you gotta let it go -- it denies objective morality, and objective morality is logically necessary.

Blogger Chief_Tuscaloosa March 25, 2020 8:16 PM  

Woman across the street: "Your apartment building is on fire! Apartment 1-a!"

Boomer landlord living in the penthouse: "1-a? Screw that punk, he's 3 months late with the rent, he can put out his own damned fire!"

Woman across the street: "But...if HIS apartment burns down..."

Landlord: "It'll serve the little bastard right!"

Blogger nswhorse March 25, 2020 9:01 PM  

How could anyone not salivate at the prospect of (((bankers))) wailing and gnashing their teeth as they see their slaves freed and the wealth they envisioned grabbling slip through their fingers?

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 25, 2020 9:37 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:
"There's one person in this convo incapable of reason. One person who is shouting formulaic answers at people who disagree. It ain't him."

Lol, all he did was make juvenile insults, so yes, HE is the one incapable of reason.

"Consent is not the yardstick of morality."
Of course it is. Any act that is coercive and not in defense is inherently immoral.

"'Wrong' [is] an objective term."
Lol, false, by its very definition, "wrong" is a subjective term.

"Libertarianism is wrong, both from a rational and logical perspective, and from a moral one."
LOL!!!! Now that is patently false. But I can tell by your posts that you are completely ignorant of both Logic and Ethics.

"We get it. You get a thrill from asserting your non-existent independence and pretending you're strong enough to make it in a cannibalistic world of might makes right. Problem is, you're not. If we ever took the chains off the power of money, you would be swallowed whole and turned out as a punk within a year."
Wow! You are perhaps the most ignorant person on the Internet! Congrats, that's quite an accomplishment. Keep pretending that forcing your subjective value judgements on others at the point of a gun is moral. Himmler would be so proud of you. Sorry, but you don't have a right to my labor and I will always stand in the way of people like you making sex slaves of children.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 25, 2020 9:41 PM  

Joe Smith wrote:
"The idea that consent makes any old agreement hunky dory"
No one made this claim. In fact, that is a deliberate straw man of what Libertarianism says. However, consent IS a necessary component of any valid transaction. I love how dishonest people like Snidely Whiplash (typical Internet coward hiding behind a fake name) try to present that false argument.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 25, 2020 9:43 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:
"And yes, Libertardians need to be kicked in the nuts every time they raise their filthy, illogical, irrational heads."
Typical keyboard warrior, making meaningless threats because he can't actually debate an issue and IRL would piss himself if confronted.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 25, 2020 9:49 PM  

Joe Smith wrote:
"it (the idea of consent) denies objective morality, and objective morality is logically necessary."
Couple of problems with this statement. First, the idea that consent is necessary to make a transaction valid (or moral) in no way denies objective morality (in fact, it actual relies on the idea that there are objective morals). Second, there are objective wrongs, but most of what people call "wrong"are instead subjective value judgements. The few objective wrongs; murder, rape, theft (and putting pineapple on pizza) are easily determined by the fact that the person such acts are committed against would universally consider them wrong. But notice the foundational principle behind each of those wrongs; the violation of consent.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 25, 2020 11:46 PM  

"Incapable" does not mean "doesn't pretend it's worthwhile to debate a brain-dead "ibertard in a comments section."
See, now we lay your premises bare, and they are the typical Libertarian "MUH NAP" bullshit. You define NAP as the only objective morality, and then deny that any other possibility could exist. You define all non-NAP moral judgements as subjective and then cnclude all mrality is subjective.

I'm under no more obligation to accept your premises than you are to accept mine. Can you tell us WHY ":Any act that is coercive and not in defense is inherently immoral.", without resorting to your beloved NAP?
Can you offer a defnse of the NAP that doesn't boil down to "I said so?"

Can you even offer a concept of morality that isn't just a wholesale lifting Christian morality without anything to support it?

No of course you can't. You're a half-wit Libertardiand congratulating himself on his superior morality which consistently justifies slavery, extortion, homosexuality, paedophilia, and the destruction of Nations.

But you've got yours, eh? Or you hope to.

Blogger Jack Amok March 26, 2020 1:05 AM  

Side bet: what happens first, NYC tops 2k dead of Kung Flu or the Cottone guy get's banned?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 26, 2020 1:17 AM  

"Can you tell us WHY ":Any act that is coercive and not in defense is inherently immoral.""

I'll go one better and strictly disprove the postulate by three different means.

First: The postulate is chronologically retarded. Defense can only be held to be of present things. Defense of future things is based on arbitrary interpretation of what those things will or might be. Defense of past things cannot occur because past things no longer exist therefore there is nothing to defend, and past coercion cannot be answered with present coercion.

Therefore there is no such thing as a present defensive act of coercion or violence, therefore all affective actions are in this sense, according to the postulate, immoral. The postulate is therefore self-referentially meaningless. Morality can only depend from an achronological or omnichronological objectivity that must take more than "defense" into account

Second: The postulate is categorically retarded. Defense of what? Self defense? Defense of progeny? Defense of others? Defense of property? Defense of prospective property? Defense of everyone and everything?

Therefore if I were to punch Thomas in the face it would of course be in defense of the ground from the unjust burden of his feet. If I were to hang him it would be in defense of the air from the foul exhalation of his breath. All actions in this sense are therefore indeterminate according to the postulate, and the postulate again self-referentially meaningless. The physical world as observed by us is insufficient as a source of moral objectivity.

Third: The postulate is definitionally retarded. Any act by whom? A person? Kingdom Animalia? Any living thing? The processes of the universe? An act upon what? A person? The world?

Oh look, every single living thing that exists apart from people is immoral according to the postulate, because every single one of them does these things. The world? Also immoral according to the postulate, mercilessly raining on the just and unjust alike. All persons are of course also immoral by it. Good luck with proving that eating is a non-aggressive or otherwise defensive action. Therefore the postulate is actually meaningless.

Thomas, you're a few leagues out of your weight class.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 26, 2020 2:47 AM  

Freaking midwits. They always think they're smart.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 27, 2020 12:59 PM  

Stupid Whiplash wrote:
"See, now we lay your premises bare, and they are the typical Libertarian "MUH NAP" bullshit. You define NAP as the only objective morality, and then deny that any other possibility could exist. You define all non-NAP moral judgements as subjective and then cnclude all mrality is subjective."

LOL!! Thanks for again proving you're a moron. A more blatant straw man would be hard to create. Nowhere did I make any of the claims you dishonestly attribute to me. Perhaps you should come back when you have something greater than a third grade education as it is obvious you can't even come close to debating this issue.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 27, 2020 1:02 PM  

Wow, Azure Amaranthine, you are just as bad at Logic as Stupid Whiplash is.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 27, 2020 1:03 PM  

Hey Jack Amok, "Side bet: what happens first, NYC tops 2k dead of Kung Flu or the Cottone guy get's banned?"

I suggest you look at the order of posts, I"M not the one that started with the juvenile insults and name calling.

Blogger Thomas Cottone March 27, 2020 1:04 PM  

Stupid Whiplash wrote:
"Freaking midwits. They always think they're smart."

Wow!! Talk about the ultimate example of projection.

Blogger Akulkis March 27, 2020 2:48 PM  

There's nothing like a blind midget walking into the middle of a crowd of heavyweight wrestlers, getting pinned immediately, and then claiming victory because nobody has broken his neck yet.

I'm looking at you, Thomas Cottone.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 27, 2020 3:06 PM  

Thomas Cottone wrote:Thanks for again proving you're a moron. A more blatant straw man would be hard to create. Nowhere did I make any of the claims you dishonestly attribute to me. Perhaps you should come back when you have something greater than a third grade education as it is obvious you can't even come close to debating this issue.
You think this a debate club? This isn't a debate club, you pathetic moron. This is an armed camp. And you've got no rifle.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 27, 2020 3:12 PM  

More to the point:
No, you make no actual supporting arguments for your assertions you dishonest clown. You merely assert and pretend you have argued, like every half-wit maertialist. Nonetheless, the idiotic underpinnings of your arguments are laid bare in your cretinous assertions.
Now, my questions were specifically chosen to expose the basis of your brain-dead assertions, so answer my questions, your half-wit.
Can you tell us why"Any act that is coercive and not in defense is inherently immoral.", without resorting to the NAP?

If you do rely on the NAP, can you offer a defense of the NAP that doesn't boil down to "I said so?"

Can you even offer a concept of morality that isn't just a wholesale lifting Christian morality without anything to support it?


Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 28, 2020 3:04 AM  

"Wow, Azure Amaranthine, you are just as bad at Logic as Stupid Whiplash is."

Your statement was that consent is indeed the yardstick of morality, because "Any act that is coercive and not in defense is inherently immoral."

I disproved this, by pointing out that it is chronologically inapplicable, categorically stunted to retardation, and definitionally vague to the point of meaninglessness.

You didn't say A yardstick of morality, you said The yardstick of morality. As such it must specify all cases, or entirely contain intensed logic that does specify all cases. If it does not, it is not the ultimate yardstick of morality, being itself subject to exterior conditions which limit its extent.

Provide counter argument or hold your silence, yapping imbecile.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 28, 2020 1:12 PM  

Don't bother, Azure. He doesn't even know what morality is, let alone how to discuss it.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 28, 2020 9:41 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:You think this a debate club? This isn't a debate club, you pathetic moron. This is an armed camp. And you've got no rifle.
It's a battle of wits, and Cottone has no ammunition.
Snidely Whiplash wrote:He doesn't even know what morality is, let alone how to discuss it.
This is why the libertards need a swift kick in the nuts: not because they are stupid, but because their philosophy is an absolute refusal to acknowledge the existence of mortality and the God who decrees it.

Don't want to live in a Christian nation? Move to Somalia. You aren't welcome here.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 29, 2020 3:52 PM  

Oops, in @131, that was supposed to be morality, not mortality.

Blogger Lasserre deVillier March 31, 2020 9:15 PM  

Is there really any difference between Bolshevism/Marxism/Frankfurt School? They're all Jewish revolutionary movements. I say make them pay back some of the principal at least, over a fixed period.

Blogger Akulkis April 02, 2020 10:13 PM  

They're all heads of the same hydra.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts