Debt: dun-dun-dunnnnnn! - But I refuse to pay?

[dsayers]

What a demoralizing thread! The idea of a free society working is based in part on the belief that people with moral clarity will ostracize those who engage in immoral acts. I'm seeing very little of that here. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of glad-handing and acceptance

 

How does government immorality suddenly make voluntarily chosen obligations optional? One has no bearing on the other!

[villagewisdom]

What a demoralizing thread! The idea of a free society working is based in part on the belief that people with moral clarity will ostracize those who engage in immoral acts. I'm seeing very little of that here. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of glad-handing and acceptance

 

How does government immorality suddenly make voluntarily chosen obligations optional? One has no bearing on the other!

 

Thank you for saying this. Your clarity on the issue with this thread is really helpful. To me it felt like rampant rhetoric in support of immorality and it was bugging me more than I like to admit. Now I see that it was rubbing up against my own morals and I was not acting on that feeling.

 

It brings to light the need I have to overcome my own fear of ostracism. That fear held me back. And that in turn tells me I'm not strong enough in awareness of my own morals. Without that strength of self-knowledge, I can still be overrun in a free society by immorality. Not a pleasant thought.

 

So thanks for the example of truly living a moral life and acting on it appropriately. 

[Befree]

You're essentially saying that every transaction everybody engages in is theft. This is absurd.

 

Whomever he got the loan from had a legitimate claim to the currency they gave to him with the stipulation that he pay it back within X time frame at Y rate of interest, which he agreed to. The fact that the government controlling that fiat currency stole from everybody to make it and likely devalued it in the interim is irrelevant.

 

This is not a hypothetical. You transact with others using fiat currency. You do not take things that belong to other people pretending that you're liberating items they've stolen since they acquired it with fiat currency. You demonstrate in your daily life that you do not accept the very claims you continue to pour copious amounts of effort into asserting. What isn't clear to me is why?

Absurd because it’s not what I said.  I do not print money to spend at the supermarket.   I don’t loan out counterfeit money.  I don’t use the government to protect my money from competition.  These are the guilty parities we are talking about here, not “everybody”.

 

I’ll use the car analogy, once again, to explain this.  If X steals a car and sells it to Y, who buys it, both X and Y are liable for damages because both committed theft of the car.  However, no rational person would say that Y is more liable for damages than X, seeing how X stole the car in the first place and then packaged it up as legit.  And it would be insane to reward X and punish Y, and that is what you are saying.  Reward the banks, reward future abuse.  Punish Y, who got sold a stolen car, with indentured servitude.  SLAVERY!

 

YOU SAID:

“The fact that the government controlling that fiat currency stole from everybody to make it and likely devalued it in the interim is irrelevant.”

 

Tell me again how theft in a debate about ethics is “irrelevant”?  And, when you say “government”, I’m assuming that you mean bank.  The bank controls the currency in a monopoly and the government is the gun that the bank uses to scare off competition, in this case in the form of competing currencies.  If someone wants to take out a loan in gold, but can’t because using competing currencies is illegal.  It’s not a voluntary choice to use that particular banks currency.  It is the bank pointing a gun at that person and saying: “use our currency or we’ll have you thrown in jail or worse”.  And as pretty as people package up words like force/theft in “voluntary loan” word wrapping paper, unknowing people won’t know the difference.

 

YOU SAID:

“This is not a hypothetical. You transact with others using fiat currency. You do not take things that belong to other people pretending that you're liberating items they've stolen since they acquired it with fiat currency. You demonstrate in your daily life that you do not accept the very claims you continue to pour copious amounts of effort into asserting. What isn't clear to me is why?"

 

This statement doesn’t make sense.  Sorry, I don’t understand the point your trying to get across.

[Befree]

What a demoralizing thread! The idea of a free society working is based in part on the belief that people with moral clarity will ostracize those who engage in immoral acts. I'm seeing very little of that here. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of glad-handing and acceptance

 

How does government immorality suddenly make voluntarily chosen obligations optional? One has no bearing on the other!

I responded to this in more depth earlier, but my post got moderated.  So, you’re going to have to wait for them to review it and immoderate it.

 

However, to answer your question as simply as I can,  I would say: It isn't a "voluntary chosen obligation" if a gun is being pointed at you.

[ellisante35]

What a demoralizing thread! The idea of a free society working is based in part on the belief that people with moral clarity will ostracize those who engage in immoral acts. I'm seeing very little of that here. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of glad-handing and acceptance

 

How does government immorality suddenly make voluntarily chosen obligations optional? One has no bearing on the other!

To stand up against immorality is demoralizing?  A free society will not fllourish around compliance with evil, of evil of the past, and held bound to the old systems of exploitation and manipulation.  I'll ask again, is it immoral to not pay your debts?  If I am guilty of theft then I take that with pride and stride.  If you have caught me stealing from the ideas that imprison people, that harm their health from decades of indoctrination, that consime their thoughts and actions and hinder a productive future that may lead to a free society, then yes, a theif I am.

Thank you for saying this. Your clarity on the issue with this thread is really helpful. To me it felt like rampant rhetoric in support of immorality and it was bugging me more than I like to admit. Now I see that it was rubbing up against my own morals and I was not acting on that feeling.

 

It brings to light the need I have to overcome my own fear of ostracism. That fear held me back. And that in turn tells me I'm not strong enough in awareness of my own morals. Without that strength of self-knowledge, I can still be overrun in a free society by immorality. Not a pleasant thought.

 

So thanks for the example of truly living a moral life and acting on it appropriatel

UPB or any other secular view on ethics says that it is alwasy immoral to not pay your debts? We can start there and work forward if you like.  That is the starting point I'm interested in.  I appreciate your posts.

[tritonx]

Ellisante35, You should call tonight, I'll grab the  popcorn.

[ellisante35]

Ellisante35, You should call tonight, I'll grab the  popcorn.

I would love to call in.  I am in firm disagreement with Stef's comments from the first caller in the last show.   

[tritonx]

I would love to call in.  I am in firm disagreement with Stef's comments from the first caller in the last show. 

 

 

Do it !!!

 

It's an order

[J. D. Stembal]

In a free market society, someone who doesn't pay their debts will likely be economically ostracized if they don't voluntarily work off that debt. It's a voluntary choice, to be sure, but you have to face the consequences of your actions. To argue that paying off a debt is immoral, you have to make a whole set of assumptions about the bank that originated the loan, which may or may not be true. Were you coerced into taking out the loans for school?

[powder]

What a demoralizing thread! The idea of a free society working is based in part on the belief that people with moral clarity will ostracize those who engage in immoral acts. I'm seeing very little of that here. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of glad-handing and acceptance

 

How does government immorality suddenly make voluntarily chosen obligations optional? One has no bearing on the other!

 

 

Thank you for saying this. Your clarity on the issue with this thread is really helpful. To me it felt like rampant rhetoric in support of immorality and it was bugging me more than I like to admit. Now I see that it was rubbing up against my own morals and I was not acting on that feeling.

 

It brings to light the need I have to overcome my own fear of ostracism. That fear held me back. And that in turn tells me I'm not strong enough in awareness of my own morals. Without that strength of self-knowledge, I can still be overrun in a free society by immorality. Not a pleasant thought.

 

So thanks for the example of truly living a moral life and acting on it appropriately. 

these are great posts.  thanks again dsayers for your brilliant capacity for cutting to the heart of the matter when it comes to ethics, I find it so helpful.  Thanks also Melanie for your insightful comment on how these matters relate to personal integrity and living your values.     

 

@ ellisante35:  dsayers did not say that standing up against immorality is demoralizing, I know you know that so it is interesting that you would frame it this way.  Ironic too, because he is actually standing up against immorality. 

[Befree]

In a free market society, someone who doesn't pay their debts will likely be economically ostracized if they don't voluntarily work off that debt. It's a voluntary choice, to be sure, but you have to face the consequences of your actions. To argue that paying off a debt is immoral, you have to make a whole set of assumptions about the bank that originated the loan, which may or may not be true. Were you coerced into taking out the loans for school?

Good point, EndTheUsurpation.

 

You’re right, in a free market these problems would sort themselves out.  The problem is that we do not and have never lived under a free market.  So to argue from the point of free market isn’t helpful.  And neither is voluntarism, if you’re dealing with someone who is holding a gun to your ribs.  And the gun that the bank is the holding is the government, in the form of thousands of banking regulations, which makes it illegal to use anything but that banks contract.  And seeing how it’s illegal to use a competing currency or bank to obtain an education who isn’t under that evil umbrella of those regulations, he didn’t actually have a choice when he signed the loan, because he didn’t have an alternative choice to make.  You either use the king’s currency or get thrown in jail for pouching deer in the king’s forest.  Hunger is not a choice.

 

So, the “set of assumptions”, I would argue, that paying off the debt is immoral is that if he does pay off his loan, it will incentivize the bank to loan out more stolen money in the future, and continue the criminal enterprise of counterfeiting and inflation via fractional reserve, hurting everyone “BUT” the bank.  If he chooses to not pay back the loan, it will hurt the bank, and disincentivize future bad behavior from both the bank and loaned individual, who were the guilty parties to begin with.

 

Accepting responsibility for our crimes is the first step to self-knowledge and enlightenment.  And the crime here, isn’t choosing to not repay the loan to the bank, it’s that he took out the loan to begin with.  (He accepted stolen money, which can’t be repaid in restitution because it was stolen through inflation.  He could burn the money, in restitution, but that would also be illegal)

 

Either way, he’s still paying for that loan even if he chooses not to pay it back.  And that’s all written into the contract that he signed.  But what isn’t written into the contract is indentured servitude.  And indentured servitude is still illegal under the 13^th amendment of the United States and makes the contract void, to the extent that they can’t force him to work.  They can’t kick down his door in the middle of the night and steal what isn’t being offered freely without voiding the contract.  The contract is only a contract if he is operating freely and not under duress of guns, poverty, or hunger.  The bank knew that risk when they issued the loan and the only leverage/penalty the bank has on him is reduced credit and garnished wages.  And even that can be fought.

 

Good job Ellisante35, keep up the virtuous fight.

[J. D. Stembal]

Good point, EndTheUsurpation.

 

You’re right, in a free market these problems would sort themselves out.  The problem is that we do not and have never lived under a free market.  So to argue from the point of free market isn’t helpful.  And neither is voluntarism, if you’re dealing with someone who is holding a gun to your ribs.  And the gun that the bank is the holding is the government, in the form of thousands of banking regulations, which makes it illegal to use anything but that banks contract.  And seeing how it’s illegal to use a competing currency or bank to obtain an education who isn’t under that evil umbrella of those regulations, he didn’t actually have a choice when he signed the loan, because he didn’t have an alternative choice to make.  You either use the king’s currency or get thrown in jail for pouching deer in the king’s forest.  Hunger is not a choice.

 

So, the “set of assumptions”, I would argue, that paying off the debt is immoral is that if he does pay off his loan, it will incentivize the bank to loan out more stolen money in the future, and continue the criminal enterprise of counterfeiting and inflation via fractional reserve, hurting everyone “BUT” the bank.  If he chooses to not pay back the loan, it will hurt the bank, and disincentivize future bad behavior from both the bank and loaned individual, who were the guilty parties to begin with.

 

Accepting responsibility for our crimes is the first step to self-knowledge and enlightenment.  And the crime here, isn’t choosing to not repay the loan to the bank, it’s that he took out the loan to begin with.  (He accepted stolen money, which can’t be repaid in restitution because it was stolen through inflation.  He could burn the money, in restitution, but that would also be illegal)

 

Either way, he’s still paying for that loan even if he chooses not to pay it back.  And that’s all written into the contract that he signed.  But what isn’t written into the contract is indentured servitude.  And indentured servitude is still illegal under the 13^th amendment of the United States and makes the contract void, to the extent that they can’t force him to work.  They can’t kick down his door in the middle of the night and steal what isn’t being offered freely without voiding the contract.  The contract is only a contract if he is operating freely and not under duress of guns, poverty, or hunger.  The bank knew that risk when they issued the loan and the only leverage/penalty the bank has on him is reduced credit and garnished wages.  And even that can be fought.

 

Good job Ellisante35, keep up the virtuous fight.

 

I'm not going to presume to know what is right for Ellisante to do. That is up to him to decide.

 

I know we that we don't have an entirely free market, either, but it is far from restrictive. We should still strive to live live there is a free market. That's why I asked if he was forced against his will to take out the loan. I don't think he was forced by any stretch of the imagination. He did have an alternative choice to not take out a loan. He also could have pursued personal financing like asking family and friends for help, or running a Kickstarter, kiva.org, or GoFundMe campaign to secure the money.

 

You are misinformed about banks, in general. Banks don't want debtors to pay off loans. They want to keep collecting interest and be able to use that theoretical money for their balance sheets. If he pays off the loan, that money disappears. Debt creates money. How do you think the Federal Reserve works?

 

School debt is the perfect vehicle for a financial bubble because it resists popping. You can't declare bankruptcy to shed the debt, although you can get it deferred if you plead extreme poverty. The debtors typically have little or nothing that can be repossessed to pay off the loan. You are forced to slowly pay it off until you die. This is the perfect scenario for bankers because they keep collecting interest on imaginary money and are able to loan out more based on the money that is created from nothing. Imagine the financial chaos if everyone decided to pay off their debts tomorrow. It will never happen because that money doesn't exist without borrowing more, but it's thought provoking exercise.

 

I wonder where all the interest generated from student loans goes.

 

I saw this article. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20039/

 

Could the President be offering amnesty to get an army of undocumented Americans into debt by convincing them to go to college? Hmmm, I wonder. This would be a pretty ingenious tactic to get the student loan debt to balloon more in the immediate future.

 

I recommend reading a book called the Creature from Jeckyll Island for a detailed history on banking. Disclaimer: the last few chapters are about the New World Order. The Ascent of Money is also a great book for understanding how the financial industry started and evolved.

[powder]

there are lots of alternatives to taking out a student loan like endtheuserpation says, it was a voluntary choice, therefore subject to moral edicts.  I even saw a story where young students auctioned off their virginity online to pay for their education.  He could have borrowed the money from a mob loan shark who got the money from innocent business owners by shaking them down, clearly immoral - is he still obliged to pay back that loan?  would not paying it back help to curtail the mob's immoral practices? 

 

was he unaware of the unethical source of the money the bank lent him when he signed up for the loan?  If so, did he agree anyway knowing it did not match up with his values?  If not, then who's responsibility is it to be informed about the relevant information of a contract that you enter into?  

[Befree]

I'm not going to presume to know what is right for Ellisante to do. That is up to him to decide.

 

I know we that we don't have an entirely free market, either, but it is far from restrictive. We should still strive to live live there is a free market. That's why I asked if he was forced against his will to take out the loan. I don't think he was forced by any stretch of the imagination. He did have an alternative choice to not take out a loan. He also could have pursued personal financing like asking family and friends for help, or running a Kickstarter, kiva.org, or GoFundMe campaign to secure the money.

 

You are misinformed about banks, in general. Banks don't want debtors to pay off loans. They want to keep collecting interest and be able to use that theoretical money for their balance sheets. If he pays off the loan, that money disappears. Debt creates money. How do you think the Federal Reserve works?

 

School debt is the perfect vehicle for a financial bubble because it resists popping. You can't declare bankruptcy to shed the debt, although you can get it deferred if you plead extreme poverty. The debtors typically have little or nothing that can be repossessed to pay off the loan. You are forced to slowly pay it off until you die. This is the perfect scenario for bankers because they keep collecting interest on imaginary money and are able to loan out more based on the money that is created from nothing. Imagine the financial chaos if everyone decided to pay off their debts tomorrow. It will never happen because that money doesn't exist without borrowing more, but it's thought provoking exercise.

 

I wonder where all the interest generated from student loans goes.

 

I saw this article. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20039/

 

Could the President be offering amnesty to get an army of undocumented Americans into debt by convincing them to go to college? Hmmm, I wonder. This would be a pretty ingenious tactic to get the student loan debt to balloon more in the immediate future.

 

I recommend reading a book called the Creature from Jeckyll Island for a detailed history on banking. Disclaimer: the last few chapters are about the New World Order. The Ascent of Money is also a great book for understanding how the financial industry started and evolved.

Sorry, I disagree.  There is nothing free about a market that is this regulated.  Did you really just say that our market is “far from restrictive”?  Are you saying that the US dollar, which currently has around 3% of its original value, is far from being restricted?  As far as I’m concerned, we only have 3% free market left.  And the illusion of free market, you speak of, is probably just the technology that is propping up the 97% statism.  With exception of that 3%, the only free market is the black market.  Because all the other markets have perverse incentives behind them.  Taxes, subsidies and decadent mob minded building projects of statist proportions, etc, etc.  And those perverse incentives are designed to corner the market and enslave us with false choices.  You can’t escape statism and achieve free market by paying your taxes/loans.  But you can end it by not paying with your labor.  That’s what I’m arguing here.  Letting the system fail and reset is the only moral thing to do.

 

People shouldn’t strive to be free marketers in a statist system, by playing by the rules of that system.  They will just end up as slaves.  For the same reason you don’t show empathy toward evil people.  They will just use it against you.   That’s why the banks set up the regulation the way they are to begin with.  To entrap poor “virtuous” fools into thinking that if they work hard they will be rewarded after a lifetime of hard work.  But in actuality, all choices the banks set up are false choices (not to say no good can come of them).  I argue It’s only the illusion of choice.  Choice is only a choice when people have an actual “free” alternative to that choice.  And yes, I agree that kickstarter is a better choice then Wells Fargo.  But, I’ll be honest; I didn’t know kickstarter gave out student loans.  And if they do, I would say that as long as there’s not stolen money involved, it would be an ethical and consensual transaction.  Assuming that the money that is being loaned out doesn’t have a perverse incentive behind it.  Maybe he should have gone to payday loans for his education loan.

 

EndTheUsurpation YouSaid:

“You are misinformed about banks, in general. Banks don't want debtors to pay off loans.”

 

Are you arguing that the interest banks charge on unpaid loans, but not actually collected from the debtor, is loaned out as future money and not the opposite?  Because what I’m arguing is that the money you “do” pay in student loans is what is loaned out to future debtors (creating more inflation and theft).  Because without the cash down, brought in as payment on loans, they can’t use that 10% down to print 90% fake currency into existence for the next uniformed debtor.  Now, if you’re arguing that they don’t need that money down to loan out more currency and expand the money supply, I would be curious to hear more.   But that aside, the real question I’ve been arguing, is that the current financial system is theft.  Loaning out stolen money is theft and shouldn’t be rewarded by paying back a stolen loan with real labor.  And yes, I’m aware that if everybody did that, it would create a deflationary scenario that would destroy the current monetary system.  That’s the point.  End the theft.  End the fed and regulation and the abuse will end. 

 

Fun topic.  Thanks for your response and the linked resources.  I agree, the creature from Jekyll Island is a good book.  However, I recommend this link: it is a much easier resource to understanding fractional reserve banking and money in general.  It’s got a lot of visuals.  Disclaimer: it is a little corny, but still good.

 

[Leevan]

I find your character questionable if you are capable of fulfilling your contract but refuse to do so.

[Befree]

You can’t write up a contract for a stolen item, and then say it is a legitimate contract.

[dsayers]

You can’t write up a contract for a stolen item, and then say it is a legitimate contract.

 

You have yet to provide any evidence that whomever he received the loan from did not have a legitimate claim to that which they loaned him.

[Befree]

You have yet to provide any evidence that whomever he received the loan from did not have a legitimate claim to that which they loaned him.

If you’d like to “provide any evidence that” the bank “did” have “legitimate claim to that which they loaned him” I would be glad to hear it.  Beyond that, I’m getting a little tired of the one-liners you constantly dish out dsayers.  It’s like your trying to be a fortune cookie or something.

[Leevan]

I don't think it's relevant. The funds were loaned because he agreed to the contract. How the lender obtained the funds is of no consequence to the transaction. The lender could have done anything with the funds, but they chose to lend to him. Does theft justify theft? Perhaps. But the means of his theft is actualized and concrete. The means of his lender's alleged theft are questionable. We do not know how the funds were derived. We do not know to what extent they were inappropriately gained. No, I don't see how the funds' origin is of any relevance.

[dsayers]

If you’d like to “provide any evidence that” the bank “did” have “legitimate claim to that which they loaned him” I would be glad to hear it.

 

YOU made the claim that the money he received had been stolen. The onus is on you.

 

Also, you would not be glad to hear information that contradicts your prejudice. There has been no mention of who he got the loan from. Yet you're so certain that it was stolen money that you've patted him on the back, described his theft as noble, virtuous, courageous, etc. Then, when you're challenged as to the validity of your claim, you deflect and double down by adding in a personal attack. It's clear that your contributions in this thread aren't actually about this thread.

 

Do you really think that calling me a wannabe fortune cookie will have any bearing on the truth value of the objective claim that not satisfying a voluntarily chosen obligation is theft?

[shukie]

You initiated force by asking for the money to be created for you to go to school. You feed the machine whether you pay it back or not. A complex is created to consume your borrowed funds(books,teachers,financial aid officers). If you refuse to pay you become part of a different complex created by the debt that is just as happy to have you participate. (IRS agents and debt collectors). Either way you go here the state wins. You feed the machine no matter what. If you want to be courageous, opt out without taking the bits and parts you like. Get ahead by circumventing the present system and you will stop feeding it.

[jpahmad]

The OP should keep his word and repay the loan.  I can't believe this is being debated.  Whether or not the money comes from the mob, if you break your word you are assassinating your own character.  Don't do it man.  It will be the worst decision you ever made in your lfe. 

[dsayers]

You initiated force by asking for the money to be created for you to go to school.

 

He didn't ask for the money to be created. By this line of thinking EVERYBODY that does ANY transaction with fiat currency is a criminal. That is still absurd.

[powder]

That’s the point.  End the theft.  End the fed and regulation and the abuse will end. 

 

 

I don't think you will find many people here that agree with this idea.  besides the fact that it is not practical or effective to take on the grizzly bear in hand to hand combat, the Fed is a symptom of abuse, not the source.  

[tritonx]

We should clarify, OP haven't skipped any payment yet.

 

So it's all speaking in the wind until he is consequent and really stops paying.

 

His "moral stand" will hold more weight when the recovery letters starts pilling up.

[dsayers]

We should clarify, OP haven't skipped any payment yet.

 

So it's all speaking in the wind until he is consequent and really stops paying.

 

His "moral stand" will hold more weight when the recovery letters starts pilling up.

 

The first two words in this thread are "I refuse." That the agreed upon time frames have yet to pass isn't relevant. If you read the posts of the thread's author, he's not curious or exploring. He's made up his mind and worse, he's categorized his decision to steal as noble, pre-empting reasoning. Why are you making an excuse for him?

[tritonx]

The first two words in this thread are "I refuse." That the agreed upon time frames have yet to pass isn't relevant. If you read the posts of the thread's author, he's not curious or exploring. He's made up his mind and worse, he's categorized his decision to steal as noble, pre-empting reasoning. Why are you making an excuse for him?

 

Not making excuses for him, I have a feeling he will change his mind once the letters and bailiff comes after him.

 

So all his rhetoric is just horseshit because he is far from understanding the consequences of what he claim he will (not) do in the future.

[tasmlab]

Curious:  What's the balance amount?  There might  be easier ways of getting rid of it than destroying your economic life.

[jpahmad]

Curious:  What's the balance amount?  There might  be easier ways of getting rid of it than destroying your economic life.

 

Watch it be like $250 or something. lol

[Leevan]

I should note that by not making due payments to (most of your) debts, your credit history and scores will be damaged. This might sound trivial, but I assure you, it's not. People with bad credit will only be able to borrow money on bad terms. Your interest will be higher, which means you will likely pay the cost your education--it will just be via another bill down the road. It balances out. Nothing is free.

[shukie]

Would the lender have made the loan if the law didn't mandate eligibility? It's a participation in a destructive program. Not making some remedy to repay stolen money is a perpetuation of that force. Whether the money is Fiat or not, the loan is backed by taxpayers.

[Befree]

YOU made the claim that the money he received had been stolen. The onus is on you.

 

Also, you would not be glad to hear information that contradicts your prejudice. There has been no mention of who he got the loan from. Yet you're so certain that it was stolen money that you've patted him on the back, described his theft as noble, virtuous, courageous, etc. Then, when you're challenged as to the validity of your claim, you deflect and double down by adding in a personal attack. It's clear that your contributions in this thread aren't actually about this thread.

 

Do you really think that calling me a wannabe fortune cookie will have any bearing on the truth value of the objective claim that not satisfying a voluntarily chosen obligation is theft?

Your right, I did pat him on the back, but I didn’t describe his theft as noble.  I described his theft as theft.  The same way I described the bank’s theft as theft.  However, I did refer to his decision to punish the bank and not incentivize future theft (for both his and the banks crimes of theft) “as noble”.  

 

Is that what you meant to say when you shoveled that word salad onto my lap, accusing me and my sovereign belief system (that theft is immoral, even if it’s perpetrated by a bank), as a “prejudice”.  Because you didn’t actually answer the question I asked.  You just said words like “onus,” “prejudice,” and “deflect” without actually stating why that is true.  Maybe you’d like try again, by actually answering my question, instead of doing what you accused me of.  “deflecting”.

 

Here is the question I Asked in case you forgot?

(If you’d like to “provide any evidence that” the bank “did” have “legitimate claim to that which they loaned him” I would be glad to hear it?)

 

And “yes”, ellisante35 “did” allude to the possibility that the “bank” and “government” where the originators of the loan, in his initial statement, when he called them criminals.  However, your right, it’s possible that when he referred to “banks” and “government” as criminal, he could have been referring to a loan from “kickstarter”, but I doubt that. 

 

And your right, I shouldn’t have called you a “wannabe fortune cookie”.  That wasn’t very thoughtful of me.  I should have called you what you really are.  A troll dressed up in a pink bunny outfit.   2103 post but nothing to actually say.  Sad.

 

“Prove” me wrong.

[Befree]

I don't think you will find many people here that agree with this idea.  besides the fact that it is not practical or effective to take on the grizzly bear in hand to hand combat, the Fed is a symptom of abuse, not the source.  

Good point Powder.  And I really like your avatar by the way.  Cat’s rule!

 

But, it doesn’t matter if you’re afraid of grizzly bears.  You can’t out run them.  But you can grab a spear and stand your ground.  If you run your dead, if you fight, at least you have a chance.

 

I agree, the fed isn’t the source of the abuse.  The source is the man on the other side of the mirror.

[Bipedal Primate]

I should note that by not making due payments to (most of your) debts, your credit history and scores will be damaged. This might sound trivial, but I assure you, it's not. People with bad credit will only be able to borrow money on bad terms. Your interest will be higher, which means you will likely pay the cost your education--it will just be via another bill down the road. It balances out. Nothing is free.

Excellent point Leevan. :-)

 

Everytime you you rent an apartment, apply for a loan to buy a car or house, your credit score will be used to to determine your eligibility. Everytime you apply for household services like water, gas, electric, cable TV, these companies will run your credit score and if it's low you will have to put down a very high security deposit. Many jobs run credit scores before hiring too, this could hinder future employment options. The worst part for you, imo, is that school debt never goes away, unlike other types of unpaid debt which is eventually erased after 7 or so years.

 

I validate your right to make your own choices in life, which is why I stated before I don't have a problem with you demonstrating your freedom of choice, you are the one who will live with the consequences.

[J. D. Stembal]

Excellent point Leevan. :-)

 

Everytime you you rent an apartment, apply for a loan to buy a car or house, your credit score will be used to to determine your eligibility. Everytime you apply for household services like water, gas, electric, cable TV, these companies will run your credit score and if it's low you will have to put down a very high security deposit. Many jobs run credit scores before hiring too, this could hinder future employment options. The worst part for you, imo, is that school debt never goes away, unlike other types of unpaid debt which is eventually erased after 7 or so years.

 

I validate your right to make your own choices in life, which is why I stated before I don't have a problem with you demonstrating your freedom of choice, you are the one who will live with the consequences.

 

I thought that was Philip J. Fry falling off the bike for a moment.