You don’t think he’s going to respond to questions, do you? If he doesn’t have a pat answer, he just ignores them or, later, says you’re strange for asking.
It is these obviously nonsensical questions that are so silly and beside the point!!!
2 Likes
And in a relevant turn of events…
1 Like
But why is he ignorant that the man is selling salt water? Everybody knows the man sells salt walter; it says “salt walter” on the sign outside his door. He’s not hiding the saltiness in his water.
If I get a loan to start a business and that business goes bust, I can’t refuse to pay back the loan because I don’t like the way things turned out.
Society made me do it, @albill! 
You sympathize, don’t you?
Just because the government doesn’t go around breaking kneecaps for people who couldn’t keep up with their usurious payments doesn’t mean the set-up is any more ethical than if it were set up by the Mob.
1 Like
Not breaking kneecaps seems a bit more ethical than breaking kneecaps.
Since our supply of college graduates is way, way higher than the number of jobs requiring a degree, I could support “free access to higher education” if and only if:
(1) it’s provided mostly online at a minimal incremental cost, rather than by requiring butts planted in classrooms at $30,000 and up per year.
(2) it’s understood going in that it’s provided mostly for personal growth (avocational use), rather than being in any way a ticket to a particular job or lifestyle.
1 Like
And fixing that problem by making it easier and cheaper for everyone to get a college degree is akin to fixing a potholed road by providing free new tires and shocks to everyone who drives on it.
See my post #208 (edit) #207
I have a relative who took out a “liar loan” at the peak of the housing market. Now he’s way underwater, and barely making the payments.
Should he be allowed to keep the house and default on the loan, since he couldn’t afford to live there any other way?
If not, how is his situation different. The housing loan pushers were every bit as bad if not worse than today’s student loan lenders.
This whole thread, and no one mentioned that contracts are designed to inherently remove the “morality” involved in keeping or breaking your promise?
I mean, if it’s morally wrong to break the contract, then why are there specific stipulations on what happens when you do?
If I have to move out of my rental unexpectedly, then I can exercise the penalties for lease-breakage.
The “moral” angle is just one pushed by those in power to make the common man ignore the fact that business break contracts all the time and no one blinks an eye because contracts are written to take this possibility into account.
If you are underwater on your loan and have no hope of surfacing, the moral thing to do in capitalism is to take the hit to your credit and walk away. If anyone tells you different, they’re operating under bad business/financial ideology.
9 Likes
But why is he ignorant that the man is selling salt water? Everybody knows the man sells salt walter; it says “salt walter” on the sign outside his door. He’s not hiding the saltiness in his water.
Why would any person of sound mind knowingly drink salt water when they’re dehydrated? They don’t know it’s salt water, or they don’t know that salt water isn’t good to drink when you’re dehydrated, or they’re coerced, or they’re not of sound mind, or they’re suicidal. Anyone who would sell salt water to such a person is an opportunist. Why not just sell water instead if you’re honestly looking to help someone out?
If I get a loan to start a business and that business goes bust, I can’t refuse to pay back the loan because I don’t like the way things turned out.
Personal liability for business loans are able to be discharged in personal bankruptcy. Student loans aren’t except in rare cases. So yes, you can “refuse” to pay back the business loan if the business goes bust by going bankrupt.
3 Likes
I quite agree that if the debtor reviews the options of (a) continuing to make the payments, or (b) walking away and accepting the resultant consequences, and determines that (b) is the better option, that there is no moral opprobrium attached to that decision.
However, to take option (b) and then whine about the consequences, or assert one’s victimhood, is a character flaw in my opinion.
“Coercion” aside – and I think our relative positions on that are clear – none of that is the fault of the person selling the salt water. He says he sells salt water; he advertises that he sells salt water, he’s not hiding the salt in the water. If someone comes in and asks for salt water, he’s going to get some salt water. Caveat emptor.
Why aren’t horses unicorns?
I should have said “shouldn’t” instead of “can’t”, but a loan’s forgivability has no bearing on whether or not it’s right keep your word if you are able.
Your conversational tactics in a nutshell:
2 Likes
none of that is the fault of the person selling the salt water.
Fault is not the source of the immorality. It’s knowingly taking advantage of someone. You don’t sell a drowning man a brick, even if he asks for it, even if you didn’t throw him in the water.
But even that is beside the point since earlier you said that rigging the game was okay, so you’ve already said it’s okay to remove the salt part of the label from the water bottle. Either you’re backtracking, contradicting yourself, or at least misunderstanding the metaphor.
Caveat emptor.
More like cave canem.
I should have said “shouldn’t” instead of “can’t”, but a loan’s forgivability has no bearing on whether or not it’s right keep your word if you are able.
No, sorry, you don’t get move the goalposts.
And the fact that the loans can’t be discharged very often in bankruptcy and the lender is taking virtually no risk makes the terms of the loan unconscionable compared to a regular loan like a business loan that you can get out from under if you’re drowning.
4 Likes
Who’s taking advantage? These loan companies aren’t enticing kids into a back room. These loans are sought out, applied for, and approved. The terms are written down.
I assume you’re referring to my answer to this question…
… but you’re taking your metaphor too seriously. No one “rigged” the college loan. The company offered money at specific terms and provided it. That the loan recipient used the cash to buy a subpar educational product, and regrets it, is not the fault of the loan company.
Who’s moving what goalposts? I’ve said the same thing since the beginning of this thread: you have a moral obligation to discharge your debt if you are able.
Well, that’s a major part of the problem right there. At some point, we stopped thinking of higher education as something you do to broaden your mind and challenge yourself, and started thinking of it in terms of “insert 4 years, pull lever, receive higher salary”.
A liberal arts degree is a wonderful thing, unless you live in a society which only validates what they can attach a dollar sign to.
8 Likes
Well said.
Anyone in mind?
I wrote my MA thesis on the beliefs concerning the soul in a 19th century British occult order. Can I get a job with that?
