Why not debtors' prison?

[Tod]

Why should I have to pay for prisons because your dumbass can't pay your creditors?
Maybe we'd have money to pay our bills if the state didn't always have it's hand in our pockets.

and the lesser known corollary

Why should I have to pay for prisons because your dumb*ss can't loan to good risks?

 

[Tpoints]

and the lesser known corollary

Why should I have to pay for prisons because your dumb*ss can't loan to good risks?

let's start over, why should you pay for any prisons? Are you happy to pay for any prisons? Or do you believe we should have none at all?

 

[CT4Liberty]

Tpoints - I get what you're trying to do, which is to discourage debt, but you're thinking about it all wrong for both practical and theoretical reasons.

First lets talk about practicality. What good does this do the creditor? As a creditor, you care about getting paid - how exactly do you think youll get paid if the person is unable to work being incarcerated? I could care less about someone being "punished" for not paying me back, I just want my money - in your scenario I have 0 chance of recouping some or all of my money... We already have courts that will force debtors to sell off assets in order to pay their debts.

Now in theory, this is very flawed. As many have pointed out, who pays for this prison? What you are doing is forcing a bunch of people to fund a deterrent for a particular industry. Most are not involved in banking, loaning of money, etc. So a small group of people will benefit from stealing money from the majority in order to help ensure their money is repaid? Taking away the risk from lenders does not help ensure a stable market, as the housing industry is a prime example, it actually destroys the real market. Those who want to lend money must do so at their own risk, this is how you ensure that only those qualified to borrow do and those who are not qualified either cannot get the money or have to pay a much higher premium to do so. That is your deterrent... but what you are talking about is welfare for the credit/banking industry to allow them to have hired guns and detention centers paid for by the people they are lending to.

 

[Tod]

Let's see: I start a business where I loan money to someone who loses their job and can't pay me back. So now not only did I loan them money but now now I have to support them by paying for their imprisonment? Who are we punishing again?

 

[Tpoints]

Tpoints - I get what you're trying to do, which is to discourage debt, but you're thinking about it all wrong for both practical and theoretical reasons.

First lets talk about practicality. What good does this do the creditor? As a creditor, you care about getting paid - how exactly do you think youll get paid if the person is unable to work being incarcerated?

Because they're already convinced that paying them back is impossible either because the person is unable or unwilling. That's like asking how is putting my rapist or robber in prison going to unrape or unrob me?

I could care less about someone being "punished" for not paying me back, I just want my money - in your scenario I have 0 chance of recouping some or all of my money... We already have courts that will force debtors to sell off assets in order to pay their debts.

Of course I want to get paid if it was possible, but if I can't, why shouldn't I have the person punished if it either discourages him from doing it again, keeps him from doing it again, and teaches people what happens if you wrong people? Again, who doesn't want to prevent crime and undo crimes if they could? But if they can't why would doing nothing be better than punishing the criminal?

Now in theory, this is very flawed. As many have pointed out, who pays for this prison?

Who pays for prisons now? Who's happy to pay for which prisons and which crimes to be imprisonable?

What you are doing is forcing a bunch of people to fund a deterrent for a particular industry. Most are not involved in banking, loaning of money, etc.

Most of us are not victims of rape or murder either, so why should we pay to punish those people?

So a small group of people will benefit from stealing money from the majority in order to help ensure their money is repaid?

No, everybody will benefit from not having debtors cheat people left and right.

 

[acptulsa]

nobody likes funding prisons unless they benefit from it. I guess I can't convince you to fund it if you don't see the benefit.

Huh, ya think?

This nation was founded with no debtors' prison being a basic principle. Why? Because it gets abused. How? Well, at the time, the slippery slope went like this: People get locked up because borrowing money they couldn't repay was considered fraudulent, then the lenders complained that this didn't help them recover their money, then those in debtors' prison were forced to work and the proceeds went to the lenders, then the lenders were motivated to make bad loans and put as many people as possible into debtors' prison, then people finally started asking how this system of slavery got started in the first place.

There's a garden path I won't be led down. I not only don't see the benefit (free men can pay their debts, men in prison can't unless it's forced labor a.k.a. slavery) but I do clearly see the risks. No thanks.

Most of us are not victims of rape or murder either, so why should we pay to punish those people?

Fail. Are you arguing that those who are raped or murdered are 'asking for it'? Or do you seriously believe that a lender that negotiates a loan with someone has as little to do with his situation as someone who is a victim of random violence? Under your system, getting a loan wouldn't be illegal, not repaying it would be. So, you're not a criminal until you miss a payment. At what point do rape and murder go from being legal to being illegal? They don't. They're illegal from the moment the perp goes from impulse to action. Therefore, the comparison is a major failure of logic.

Take your propaganda down the hall.

No, everybody will benefit from not having debtors cheat people left and right.

And do they borrow by force? Or does someone willingly lend to them? Left and right? And how does everyone benefit? Because this makes getting credit easier? What about those people who never borrow? They do exist, you know.

 

[Tpoints]

Let's see: I start a business where I loan money to someone who loses their job and can't pay me back. So now not only did I loan them money but now now I have to support them by paying for their imprisonment? Who are we punishing again?

you most likely were not stupid enough to lend to a person without some reasonable belief he'd pay back, that's what the credit rating system is for. But even then, there are unpredictable things and times. So would you be at the very least in favor of not allowing bankruptcy and discharge of debts? so the debts can never borrow again unless he pays previous debts?

 

[TonySutton]

As a country we chose bankruptcy over debtors prison about 150 years ago. I consider the arguments for bankruptcy compelling.

 

[Tpoints]

Huh, ya think?

This nation was founded with no debtors' prison being a basic principle. Why? Because it gets abused. How? Well, at the time, the slippery slope went like this: People get locked up because borrowing money they couldn't repay was considered fraudulent, then the lenders complained that this didn't help them recover their money, then those in debtors' prison were forced to work and the proceeds went to the lenders, then the lenders were motivated to make bad loans and put as many people as possible into debtors' prison, then people finally started asking how this system of slavery got started in the first place.

Oh, and all that time, nobody learned to stop borrowing? Nobody knew where their friends were kidnapped or scammed? People just kept falling for it?

There's a garden path I won't be led down. I not only don't see the benefit (free men can pay their debts, men in prison can't unless it's forced labor a.k.a. slavery) but I do clearly see the risks. No thanks.

so what do we do to people who never repays their debts? let them walk freely and continue to borrow money? Wipe their slate clean every 7 years so they can keep doing it? Or make sure their records stay with them so people know not to trust them?

 

[acptulsa]

Oh, and all that time, nobody learned to stop borrowing? Nobody knew where their friends were kidnapped or scammed? People just kept falling for it?

Actually, during that time the government just kept making it harder and harder for people to make ends meet.

so what do we do to people who never repays their debts? let them walk freely and continue to borrow money? Wipe their slate clean every 7 years so they can keep doing it? Or make sure their records stay with them so people know not to trust them?

Do you really and truly think there are no records of who goes through bankruptcy? Seriously?

 

[Tpoints]

Actually, during that time the government just kept making it harder and harder for people to make ends meet.

So it's not the lender's fault. What if they didn't?

Do you really and truly think there are no records of who goes through bankruptcy? Seriously?

Yes, I thought that. So tell me, does that mean they're ruined for life? If not, why not? Do lenders keep falling for them or forced to lend them?

Or, specifically, how is the current system of telling the lender "you can fuck off, you're not getting paid back and we're not going to let you pursue this debtor anymore" any better?

 

[acptulsa]

So it's not the lender's fault. What if they didn't?

So, the Federal Reserve isn't the banks' fault? They just bought the legislation, they didn't pass it? Is that what you're saying? The entity that buys influence with the legislature is guilty of no crime, can hold no fault, is pure as the driven snow? We have a God-given right to try to buy legislators; only the legislators themselves are guilty if they sell themselves? Only the prostitute is wrong, the person who pays the prostitute is perfectly moral?

Yes, I thought that. So tell me, does that mean they're ruined for life? If not, why not? Do lenders keep falling for them or forced to lend them?

Are lenders more likely to lend to them if they can put them in jail for not paying it back? Can the lenders make slaves of them if they don't? Does this policy make lenders more likely to make risky loans, just the way bad legislation and the newfangled 'credit default swaps', which allow a bank to (arguably with fraudulent misrepresentation in the process) sell their bad loans to suckers encourage lenders to make risky loans?

Are you going to accuse me of arguing too much practicality now, and hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue because you're ostensibly arguing about principle? Are you aware that the lack of debtors' prison is a founding principle of this nation? Do you really not see why?

 

[Tpoints]

Fail. Are you arguing that those who are raped or murdered are 'asking for it'?

They are no less a victim than creditors who trusted people to pay them back but were refused or betrayed.

Or do you seriously believe that a lender that negotiates a loan with someone has as little to do with his situation as someone who is a victim of random violence?

Not sure why that matters. And why would that matter to third parties who are paying for prisons.

Under your system, getting a loan wouldn't be illegal, not repaying it would be.

so would fraud.

So, you're not a criminal until you miss a payment.

Or committed fraud, or committed force. How else do you force people to pay?

At what point do rape and murder go from being legal to being illegal? They don't.

As soon as bullies in society decided it was their business to make it illegal. You think it was always illegal and we always had prisons for them? And courts? Juries? No. These all took time to form, some took longer, some came late, but we've accepted them (oh, no, we didn't, you didn't ask every single person in this room if they agreed to pay to punish rapists and murderers, how dare you steal their money to punish people only you hate)

They're illegal from the moment the perp goes from impulse to action. Therefore, the comparison is a major failure of logic.

WRONG. Legality of actions are human and social constructs. They're only illegal in societies that make it illegal, and only effectively illegal in countries that bother to punish them. Ever heard of "it's not illegal if you're not caught"?

 

[Tpoints]

Are lenders more likely to lend to them if they can put them in jail for not paying it back?

would my answer settle anything or will you ask another one? I think they would.

Can the lenders make slaves of them if they don't?

I think they should, but you must have a better solution.

Does this policy make lenders more likely to make risky loans, just the way bad legislation and the newfangled 'credit default swaps', which allow a bank to (arguably with fraudulent misrepresentation in the process) sell their bad loans to suckers encourage lenders to make risky loans?

I love being vindicated, when arguments fail, blame the system for tricking idiots into being cheaters (call them the real victims) and tell the victims to fuck off.

Are you going to accuse me of arguing too much practicality now, and hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue because you're ostensibly arguing about principle? Are you aware that the lack of debtors' prison is a founding principle of this nation? Do you really not see why?

Nope. I never said I was arguing for either principle or practicality. I don't think there's anything wrong with being practical, I just don't think you're holding yourself to the same rules you do to me. I am not aware that lack of debtors prison is a founding principle of this nation, nor do I see why. It's not like you preserve or want to preserve every single founding principle of this nation (all the good stuff like not letting women and blacks vote).

 

[CT4Liberty]

Although I think this is a futile argument to have with you, because you'll revert to the "why have any laws at all" that could be used justify any law and pretty much ends any sensible debate. I'll try to engage...

Because they're already convinced that paying them back is impossible either because the person is unable or unwilling. That's like asking how is putting my rapist or robber in prison going to unrape or unrob me?

Who determines that paying them back is impossible? They do? A court? Laws that the big lending companies help write through lobbyists? You like to go on about comparing an unpaid loan to being raped or robbed, but its again flawed logic and a poor analogy. Someone who rapes me or robs me, does so against my will. Someone who I give money to, in exchange for interest on the loan, is done so by 2 mutually agreeing parties. 1 party gets cash that they otherwise would not have, they have to pay a penalty in the form of interest in order to obtain the funds. The other party gives cash, with the promise to pay it back in the future with interest. Risk/Reward for both parties... Debtor pays more/have something they want now... Creditor loses money/earns more in interest. Nobody was forced into that agreement.

Of course I want to get paid if it was possible, but if I can't, why shouldn't I have the person punished if it either discourages him from doing it again, keeps him from doing it again, and teaches people what happens if you wrong people? Again, who doesn't want to prevent crime and undo crimes if they could? But if they can't why would doing nothing be better than punishing the criminal?

Who says youre doing nothing... in the credit world, if you become known for not paying debts, then other creditors will not lend you money...that is the deterrent. Should we punish creditors who loan people money with no credit checks and 0 money down without seeing how much money the person makes, etc? Should they go to "creditor prison"?

The credit industry is not very complicated at all... and the risk for loans should fall mainly on those who are giving the money out.

Who pays for prisons now? Who's happy to pay for which prisons and which crimes to be imprisonable?

This is an apples to oranges comparison, who cares who pays for prisons now... who pays for the war in Iraq? Does the fact that we pay for the war in Iraq make a war in Iran justifiable?

Most of us are not victims of rape or murder either, so why should we pay to punish those people?

That is a great question...probably one that is deserving of a different thread.

No, everybody will benefit from not having debtors cheat people left and right.

How so? Please explain to me, how myself as someone not involved in this transaction at all benefits? You also assume all debtors are cheaters, who went out preying on the innocent Bank of America... defrauded them, because when they didnt ask for proof of employment or a W-2 or do a simple credit check and handing over 500,000 on a house with no money down.... the evil debtor should have said "Hey, BoA....wait a minute... I dont deserve this money". And if they had, that would have somehow benefited me...

Much like every other business, you take calculated risks in the credit industry and as such you have to write some things off and keep going. At the end of the day as long as those paying off their loans outweighs those who default on their loans, then a credit company will make money, most are doing ok...

 

[acptulsa]

They are no less a victim than creditors who trusted people to pay them back but were refused or betrayed.

Some people say that those who engage in risky behaviors deserve less attention and recompense than those who don't.

Not sure why that matters. And why would that matter to third parties who are paying for prisons.

It would very obviously matter to third parties because they're not at risk of having some stranger fail to repay a loan to them. Simply because, of course, they don't make loans to strangers. Which means the debtors' prison would either have to be a slavery operation, or those third parties would have to subsidize them--and for the express purpose of aiding lenders in their profitable businesses.

so would fraud.

So you're saying fraud isn't illegal or immoral until you fool someone? Or are you saying all borrowers who end up not repaying their loans get said loans with no intent of paying them back? No one ever got a loan with every intention of paying it off, then found themselves in changed circumstances and suddenly no longer able to pay it? Really?

Or committed fraud, or committed force. How else do you force people to pay?

You can perpetrate fraud without intending to perpetrate fraud? Doesn't that kind of go against the very definition of the word?

As soon as bullies in society decided it was their business to make it illegal. You think it was always illegal and we always had prisons for them? And courts? Juries? No. These all took time to form, some took longer, some came late, but we've accepted them (oh, no, we didn't, you didn't ask every single person in this room if they agreed to pay to punish rapists and murderers, how dare you steal their money to punish people only you hate)

Do you always make up your own questions to answer? Do you always call making up your own questions and answering them 'debate'? I very, very clearly did not ask, 'At what point in history did x and y come to be considered crimes?' I very, very clearly did ask, at what point do these acts go from being acceptable behavior to being crimes. If you want someone to ask you only questions that you want to answer, what are you doing here interacting with me? Have you lost your mind?

WRONG. Legality of actions are human and social constructs. They're only illegal in societies that make it illegal, and only effectively illegal in countries that bother to punish them. Ever heard of "it's not illegal if you're not caught"?

And how, exactly, does that make me WRONG? Am I WRONG because you really think an illegal act is illegal if you're caught? Are you saying that robbing a bank and escaping scot free is legal? Can you quote me the legislation that says so? Because if you can't, guess what that means? It means that you're the one who's WRONG and I would actually be RIGHT.

would my answer settle anything or will you ask another one? I think they would.

I suppose it all depends on whether your answer is RIGHT or WRONG.

I think they should, but you must have a better solution.

I consider it better to have no solution at all than to give corporations a chance to enslave us.

I love being vindicated, when arguments fail, blame the system for tricking idiots into being cheaters (call them the real victims) and tell the victims to fuck off.

This bears no relation whatsoever to what I said. Must be a reading comprehension problem. Let's see if I can reduce it to second grade English.

Banks found a way to sell bad loans to other people and leave it to them to collect. This made banks happy to make any loan they could, even to people who couldn't pay them off. It doesn't matter if these people were trying to commit fraud or just stupid. The banks wanted to lend to them either way, so they could package and sell the bad loans to someone the bank was trying to defraud.

Now, if a bank isn't above doing that, either to another bank or to an individual investor, why would a bank be scrupulous about not making bad loans in order to get slaves (given the opportunity)? Are you really going to tell me no state ever passed stupid laws to get more people in their chain gangs?

Nope. I never said I was arguing for either principle or practicality. I don't think there's anything wrong with being practical, I just don't think you're holding yourself to the same rules you do to me. I am not aware that lack of debtors prison is a founding principle of this nation, nor do I see why. It's not like you preserve or want to preserve every single founding principle of this nation (all the good stuff like not letting women and blacks vote).

Obviously I do not want to preserve everything about the eighteenth century, or I wouldn't be arguing against a system of slavery that you seem to favor. That said, blacks were never prevented from voting in this nation unless they were slaves, or subject to Jim Crow laws (and I don't know of any federal Jim Crow laws). Nevertheless, a lack of debtors' prison is a founding principle of this nation. I cannot help you with your ignorance problem, obviously--you claim to be ignorant of the 'why' even though I have explained it, so you're obviously wilfully ignorant and you're free to be wilfully ignorant. I can turn on a light, but I can't make you open your eyes.

I'm not holding you to any 'rules', I am merely winning this debate. If you aren't interested in either principle or practicality, I guess you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which, I guess, explains why you keep arguing points you've already lost. Either that, or your a troll hoping to make us all look like we're as pointless and obstinate as you're acting in this thread. Either way, I hope you're enjoying yourself.

 

[phill4paul]

Credit rating system. Collateral. Caveat faenerator.

No debtor prisons needed.

 

[Tpoints]

And how, exactly, does that make me WRONG? Am I WRONG because you really think an illegal act is illegal if you're caught?

Yes, unless you're going to tell me it's illegal just because somebody says so.

Are you saying that robbing a bank and escaping scot free is legal?

It would be a very short way of saying "the law doesn't matter to those who can get away". But yes.

Can you quote me the legislation that says so?

Can you force me (or anybody) to follow a law they manage to escape?

Because if you can't, guess what that means? It means that you're the one who's WRONG and I would actually be RIGHT.

Your definition of illegal is being able to cite a law that says something is illegal?

 

[Tpoints]

Credit rating system. Collateral. Caveat faenerator.

No debtor prisons needed.

doesn't bankruptcy mess that up?

 

[Tpoints]

You can perpetrate fraud without intending to perpetrate fraud? Doesn't that kind of go against the very definition of the word?

what's your point? that you are happy to punish thoughts/intentions?