5 ms·

Loaning money at 8% interest to informed parties is OK. Loaning money at 200% interest to vulnerable people is usury and should be illegal. Where in the middle

by feoren 2y ago

Loaning money at 8% interest to informed parties is OK. Loaning money at 200% interest to vulnerable people is usury and should be illegal. Where in the middle is the right line to draw, legally? Does the intent of the lender matter? Does it matter if the lender is intentionally trying to keep people uninformed and vulnerable? These are hard questions, but that doesn't change the basic facts at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Clearly the Sacklers' behavior was in the realm of exploiting vulnerable people as much as possible in order to create a cycle of dependence. I think they're villains who destroyed lives. I don't think that means no pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to sell opioids, or that Purdue should be shut down for that reason. Clearly giving birthing women access to epidurals (fentanyl!) is OK. Clearly bribing doctors to over-prescribe addictive opioids to vulnerable people is villainous and should be illegal. It's a hard problem to find the exact right line in the middle, but it's a problem worth attempting. Obviously it involves a lot of regulatory oversight.

thegrimmest 2y ago
> Loaning money at 200% interest to vulnerable people is usury and should be illegal Stop with the patronizing. Any transaction between consenting parties (backed by bankruptcy protection) should be allowed. We're all grown ups, let people make their own decisions. Setting upper limits on interest rates simply makes it so that high-risk borrowers are unable to access credit. This harms those borrowers more than anyone else, by limiting their opportunities. Regarding the Sacklers, they never prescribed any drugs to anyone. Doctors did. Why aren't we holding them responsible? It is doctors who have a duty of care to their patients, not pharmaceutical companies.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > Stop with the patronizing. Any transaction between consenting parties (backed by bankruptcy protection) should be allowed. Any? Can I sell my kidney? You are arguing an extreme minority opinion, consumer protection laws exist because it is not possible for an average consumer to understand all safety implications of vehicle design, house construction or a medical procedure.
  - smabie 2y ago
    Unfortunately the people who make the laws don't understand the safety implications either. Letting people make their own choices, on net, probably is better than the alternative (and that included selling their own kidneys)
  - thegrimmest 2y ago
    > Can I sell my kidney? I don't see why not. Me saying you can't would imply that I have a stronger claim to your own kidney than you do. This is a pretty hard claim to substantiate. The majority can be, and often is, wrong.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      Interesting if I can sell my organs, Essential for survival, That I’m selling my life logically I should be able to sell my life in other ways. So I should be able to sell myself into slavery. If so, Then your idea of freedom creates more un-freedom. If not, Then you must have a logical reason why selling my liver and dying after that is okay but selling myself and living after that is not okay. And it cannot rely on the fact that it’s been hammered into us from a young age that slavery is bad. It has to be consistent and logical
      - thegrimmest 2y ago
        > So I should be able to sell myself into slavery. No, because that would imply that a person can own another person. Free, morally equal, people cannot own each other. It would also imply that present-you can obligate future-you in a way that fundamentally compromises future-you's freedom. Present-you can however terminate his own existence, since present-you has the strongest claim on it. Interactions must be consensual with the possibility to opt-out backed by bankruptcy protection. If you agree to donate your organs in return for compensation (presumably to your estate), but change your mind on the operating table, you should be perfectly entitled to do so. You may incur a bankruptcy protected obligation if you signed an agreement to that effect Consent should be the fundamental principle guiding all interactions. It also conveniently precludes slavery.
shawndrost 2y ago
I like this analogy. How does it apply to the status quo of opioids? What rate of interest is the present-day Purdue business charging? This year I was prescribed 30 days of opioids for post-vasectomy use and guided to expect low-grade pain for 1-2 days. Is this like 8% interest or 200%? Does anyone here feel like they know the answers to these questions? It seems to me like the emergent answer I get is that the old Purdue was charging 200% interest and the new Purdue is charging 8%. But why does anyone think that? It seems like the core doom loop (dumb opioid scrips -> addiction -> fentanyl) is still in place, from what I can tell.

by feoren 2y ago

thegrimmest 2y ago

> Loaning money at 200% interest to vulnerable people is usury and should be illegal Stop with the patronizing. Any transaction between consenting parties (backed by bankruptcy protection) should be allowed. We're all grown ups, let people make their own decisions. Setting upper limits on interest rates simply makes it so that high-risk borrowers are unable to access credit. This harms those borrowers more than anyone else, by limiting their opportunities. Regarding the Sacklers, they never prescribed any drugs to anyone. Doctors did. Why aren't we holding them responsible? It is doctors who have a duty of care to their patients, not pharmaceutical companies.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> Stop with the patronizing. Any transaction between consenting parties (backed by bankruptcy protection) should be allowed. Any? Can I sell my kidney? You are arguing an extreme minority opinion, consumer protection laws exist because it is not possible for an average consumer to understand all safety implications of vehicle design, house construction or a medical procedure.
- smabie 2y ago
  Unfortunately the people who make the laws don't understand the safety implications either. Letting people make their own choices, on net, probably is better than the alternative (and that included selling their own kidneys)
- thegrimmest 2y ago
  > Can I sell my kidney? I don't see why not. Me saying you can't would imply that I have a stronger claim to your own kidney than you do. This is a pretty hard claim to substantiate. The majority can be, and often is, wrong.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    Interesting if I can sell my organs, Essential for survival, That I’m selling my life logically I should be able to sell my life in other ways. So I should be able to sell myself into slavery. If so, Then your idea of freedom creates more un-freedom. If not, Then you must have a logical reason why selling my liver and dying after that is okay but selling myself and living after that is not okay. And it cannot rely on the fact that it’s been hammered into us from a young age that slavery is bad. It has to be consistent and logical
    - thegrimmest 2y ago
      > So I should be able to sell myself into slavery. No, because that would imply that a person can own another person. Free, morally equal, people cannot own each other. It would also imply that present-you can obligate future-you in a way that fundamentally compromises future-you's freedom. Present-you can however terminate his own existence, since present-you has the strongest claim on it. Interactions must be consensual with the possibility to opt-out backed by bankruptcy protection. If you agree to donate your organs in return for compensation (presumably to your estate), but change your mind on the operating table, you should be perfectly entitled to do so. You may incur a bankruptcy protected obligation if you signed an agreement to that effect Consent should be the fundamental principle guiding all interactions. It also conveniently precludes slavery.

shawndrost 2y ago

I like this analogy. How does it apply to the status quo of opioids? What rate of interest is the present-day Purdue business charging? This year I was prescribed 30 days of opioids for post-vasectomy use and guided to expect low-grade pain for 1-2 days. Is this like 8% interest or 200%? Does anyone here feel like they know the answers to these questions? It seems to me like the emergent answer I get is that the old Purdue was charging 200% interest and the new Purdue is charging 8%. But why does anyone think that? It seems like the core doom loop (dumb opioid scrips -> addiction -> fentanyl) is still in place, from what I can tell.