ellisante35 Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 What if William Wallace played a game of Jumanji? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanT Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 It seems the message of this place is a bit mixed based on what you are saying. What I keep hearing from Stef and others here is that the world is built on an illusion. A narrative. A fiction. We are told to see the farm is to leave it. But, you have made "positive obligations", so stay in the farm and pay them or else be immoral. So is leaving the farm just an idea to make me feel good about the state of my life like religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I think this is a question of, do I want to die slow or fast (economically speaking). I’m not sure I want to choose either of those options, but faster seems better. I could be wrong here, but if we starve the beast (by paying the principle on our loans and slowly deflating), it will still lead to a collapse, eventually. Am I right? Because banks/governments are still going to “print” and inflate until we get there eventually. And worse, if we drag it out, the infrastructure we have, will have degraded to the point of being worthless (and more war/state like), when we “do” reset the markets. And that infrastructure includes all the atrophied young workers who are currently clawing desperately to hold on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. The longer we wait, the more zombies we’ll have on our hands later. And that zombie hunger will work it’s way up from the bottom. First the hunger will devour the poor, and then the lower middle class, and then the upper middle class, and so on until eventfully the upper, upper, upper class will be left with all the power in the world. Currency wont matter at that point, we’ll all be willing to hand over our lives to the first dictator who offers us a meal. Or am I wrong? Do you think we can correct the market by paying our loans and just not creating new ones? And if you do, do you think that will stop them from printing and stealing? And if not, aren’t we still going to end up at the inevitable conclusion of hyperinflation, leading to that inevitable deflationary zero? Sorry, if my statement wasn’t clear. When I said “deflation”, I meant the eventual deflationary zero (or collapse to be more clear). Everyone is fucked either way you look at it. Please pardon my verbiage. The Fed won't allow the dollar to deflate like it desperately needs to do. You can look around and see articles starting to pop up about deflation fears. This is a prelude to QE4, which has to occur. By simply taking out a loan, you are printing money. There are only two options available for central banks. We have to deflate the dollar and swallow the bitter pill as the world economies melt down, or we have to keep inflating, which will eventually lead to currency collapse and default. It doesn't matter what any one does. It's not going to stop what has to happen. Here is a relevant Schiff video that I posted in another thread in this sub-forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaVinci Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Them who? You are assuming that the people he got the loan from are the people subjugating every person in a nation. How can you make such an assumption when we do not know the details of his loan? All we know about it is that he agreed to the terms (so there's no need to put positive obligation into quotes) and he is choosing not to make good on it. Theft. Making assumptions as to the details of the loan is, as I already pointed out, adding to the equation for the purpose of trying to make a prejudice fit. Since this is continuing after being pointed out, it's now not just prejudice, but bigotry. You mentioned "this place," so I should also point out that to try and make a prejudice/bigotry fit while not acknowledging that this is what you are doing is a profound lack of self-knowledge. Can you explain a situation to me where someone agreed to some terms where they do not make good on it and it is not considered theft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellisante35 Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 Can you explain a situation to me where someone agreed to some terms where they do not make good on it and it is not considered theft? No one has answered my question that is similar to this. Apparently it does not matter in nay effect who the creditor is. If the creditor defrauded me and is trying to kill me is not a. Matter of concern to many. Oh come on man, I stood up for you with this, don't do this to me now Are you telling me that future generations have a legitimate debt to pay? ThAt much of the debt created by governments is real???? Is debt created by fraud and legit? I cant think of a more peaceful way to rid evil than to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agalloch Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 How did the creditor defraud you? Are you expected to pay back more than originally stipulated? How are they trying to kill you? By making you pay back what you originally agreed? Future generations haven't yet taken out student loans, or been capable of making any agreements, so of course they have no legitimate debt. Your student loan isn't third party national debt, it is your personal agreement ans responsibility to pay, irrelevant of where the bank found the money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaVinci Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No one has answered my question that is similar to this. Apparently it does not matter in nay effect who the creditor is. If the creditor defrauded me and is trying to kill me is not a. Matter of concern to many. It actually reminds me of the "thirsty man in the desert" scenario where a man suffering from dehydration in the desert is offered a bottle of water in exchange for signing away everything he owns. He signs the contract and gets the water. Even Stefan has said that in a truly free society that this contract would not be honored. So I guess the question becomes can you be as thirsty for knowledge as you are for water? In a world built on splitting the family, disposing of dad, and cramming children into an outdated model of education that squashes any potential of being highly successful, I would say there is a good case to make that education is survival in this world. As I see it the only real reason to pay the loan would be the same reason you pay the mob. So you don't get fitted for cement shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agalloch Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 It actually reminds me of the "thirsty man in the desert" scenario where a man suffering from dehydration in the desert is offered a bottle of water in exchange for signing away everything he owns. He signs the contract and gets the water. Even Stefan has said that in a truly free society that this contract would not be honored. So I guess the question becomes can you be as thirsty for knowledge as you are for water? In a world built on splitting the family, disposing of dad, and cramming children into an outdated model of education that squashes any potential of being highly successful, I would say there is a good case to make that education is survival in this world. As I see it the only real reason to pay the loan would be the same reason you pay the mob. So you don't get fitted for cement shoes. Well then Stef is wrong, because that premise is wrong, and therefore your analogy is wrong. Why are you in the desert and so thirsty? What has the individual that sold you this water for all your possessions done wrong such that he should be robbed? I'm surprised Stef would give any answer to such a trolley problem, but at any rate,you should definitely honour the contract, there's absolutely nothing special about the situation. You will die without the water, obviously give the man everything you own. Also, even if this premise was reasonable, and it's not, it's bullshit... he didn't get a knowledge load, he got a financial loan. This wasn't his only option, he could have got a job and saved up for an education. The Bank provided money he intends to steal, not Knowledge he "needs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agalloch Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I've been thinking alot about this. Consider the stolen goods scenario. You buy some stolen Jeans off the back of a van. Once justice catches up with the thief, their are two possible courses for you and your jeans. 1) You keep the Jeans, they were stolen and therefore couldn't legitimately be sold to you, so now they're legitimately yours. 2) You give back the jeans, they were stolen and therefore couldn't legitimately be sold to you, so they're not legitimately yours. Obviously, it's the second case. While this isn't meant to be a direct analogy - hopefully you'll get your money back from the jeans sale - the point is that there is no rational scenario in which the illegitemacy of the money means you for some reason get to keep it. It wasn't stolen from ellesante35, and unless he's going to fairly distributed it among the whole of his country, he can't claim it was stolen through inflation either. Sure, it might not be the banks to loan, but then it's can't be yours now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellisante35 Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 does ANYONE think it would EVER be moral to disassociate from a contract if the other part was exuberantly immoral????? WTF!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFreeMarketIsAnarchy Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 If it was your choice to take on this debt from said exuberantly immoral group though, there are other ways of getting an education, not necessarily saying they are as convenient but you are responsible for paying back the debt because you didn't have to enter into it. This fact is separate from the moral status of your lenders because you were either aware of their immorality but willing to enter into the contract anyway, or somehow weren't aware of their immorality, in which case you can only alter future decisions but remain liable to meet the terms of a contract you entered into (naively) in the past. The principles behind why you should meet the terms of a contract that was entered into by choice still apply if the lenders are cronies because the contact itself was not forced on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agalloch Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 does ANYONE think it would EVER be moral to disassociate from a contract if the other part was exuberantly immoral????? WTF!! Possibly. 1. Are they being immoral about the contract? Aka, are they breaching contract? Has your bank broken any of the agreed terms? What does the contract state should happen in that case? 2. Was it possible to be aware that they were immoral prior to engaging in the Contract? Yes, the information on the banking system is out there. Though I still think this requires 3... 3. Does there immorality have any bearing on the Contract? Does your banks immorality in some way prevent you from paying back the money you agreed? No, where they get the money from has little bearing on your paying. Infact, inflation makes it easier... 4. By diassociate do you mean pay back the money? If I find out my car dealer is intentionally making cars dangerous, I don't disasocciate by keeping the car, I disassociate by giviing the car back and walking away. If your bank is being immoral or breaking contract terms with no stipulation as to what should happen in that case, then you should be able to walk away, after giving them back the money in full. Sure, leave the contract, after giving back what you took. If that money is immorally gained, then the rightful owner can make moves to regain it, but you are not the victim! You simply benefit from their actions. That last point is the one that most speaks to me... You are not the Victim here! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 does ANYONE think it would EVER be moral to disassociate from a contract if the other part was exuberantly immoral????? WTF!! There is a history here, that contracts which agree to, or compel someone to perform, illegal or immoral acts are invalid. In the case where someone sells you stolen goods, you give up the stolen goods, but you can sue the seller for your money back (you can imagine how successful this is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andkon Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 What about a debt, as a contact, becoming invalid. Is that possible? What are your thoughts on the elements of a valid contract? Did you ask for the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts