3 ms·

You are correct. Disagreeing with the law obligates you to break it. Or at least it does according to Thoreau, Jefferson, Gandhi, ML King Jr, et al. But the

You are correct. Disagreeing with the law obligates you to break it. Or at least it does according to Thoreau, Jefferson, Gandhi, ML King Jr, et al. But the difference between a law and a promissory note is that the legislature didn't get your explicit approval before passing the law. The promissory note has your signature on it, under a promise that you made to pay a certain amount at a certain time in exchange for valuable consideration. The note is a contract, and you can make any contract you like. But we do have rules for the types of contracts that the state will help to enforce. The parties to the contract have to be competent, and the contract can't force anyone to do anything illegal, and everybody has to understand what they are agreeing to. If it was, indeed, a "shitty choice" to take a loan that you couldn't reasonably pay back, there may be an argument there that the contract was lopsided and unconscionable from the start, and being forced to repay it on the original terms would be rewarding bad behavior on the part of the lender. Defaulting on a loan because you now disagree with the terms is less ethical than dealing weed because you disagree with cannabis prohibition. You should really support clemency for nonviolent drug offenses before considering forgiveness of student loan debts. One is a matter of being forced to live under the (somewhat arbitrary and capricious) edicts of the powerful, and the other is about breaking promises after already realizing the benefits from making them.

lawnchair_larry 10y ago
This is kind of bullshit. The problem is assuming that borrowers are fiscally competent. We know this to be false, even among home buyers. 18 year olds, who have every adult that they trust telling them they must go to college and take these loans, don't stand a chance. The loan industry not only knows this, but they optimize the system to capitalize on it. I don't think the student was represented when laws were passed to prevent discharges in bankruptcy. A professional loan officer just has to fool some kid one time, and closing that 15 minute deal often destroys that kid's entire adult life. We provide Donald Fucking Trump more protections from financial disasters than well-meaning students who have never had a loan or investment in their life. Coincidentally, he is one of the many who are exploiting this system, with Trump University existing for little other purpose than siphoning this taxpayer-guaranteed free money. Then when the cards inevitably collapse, half of the population eats up the propaganda about "personal responsibility". Personal Responsibility would be not taking idiotic risks and getting the government to pay for it. I can assure you that approximately zero students took out loans thinking they wouldn't be able to repay them. But we know the lenders knew better, because they won't give out these loans without a cosigner and/or a government guarantee.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  You might also be able to argue that debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy represent a form of indentured servitude. And that is illegal now in the US, thanks to the 13th Amendment. In fact, indentures were a better deal, because the indenturee was guaranteed to have the job necessary to fulfill the contract. Student loan issuers don't have to accept work in lieu of cash.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

lawnchair_larry 10y ago

This is kind of bullshit. The problem is assuming that borrowers are fiscally competent. We know this to be false, even among home buyers. 18 year olds, who have every adult that they trust telling them they must go to college and take these loans, don't stand a chance. The loan industry not only knows this, but they optimize the system to capitalize on it. I don't think the student was represented when laws were passed to prevent discharges in bankruptcy. A professional loan officer just has to fool some kid one time, and closing that 15 minute deal often destroys that kid's entire adult life. We provide Donald Fucking Trump more protections from financial disasters than well-meaning students who have never had a loan or investment in their life. Coincidentally, he is one of the many who are exploiting this system, with Trump University existing for little other purpose than siphoning this taxpayer-guaranteed free money. Then when the cards inevitably collapse, half of the population eats up the propaganda about "personal responsibility". Personal Responsibility would be not taking idiotic risks and getting the government to pay for it. I can assure you that approximately zero students took out loans thinking they wouldn't be able to repay them. But we know the lenders knew better, because they won't give out these loans without a cosigner and/or a government guarantee.

logfromblammo 10y ago
You might also be able to argue that debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy represent a form of indentured servitude. And that is illegal now in the US, thanks to the 13th Amendment. In fact, indentures were a better deal, because the indenturee was guaranteed to have the job necessary to fulfill the contract. Student loan issuers don't have to accept work in lieu of cash.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]