4 ms·

a bank reposessing a house and ousting a family is a much more immoral act than being unable to pay for one. moral considerations in interactions with a corpora

• JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  The day that credit becomes a civil right, I move to Mongolia. You pay for what you have; nobody owes you anything. To view a house as some natural right is an upside-down view of the world to me.
  • nyolfen 12y ago
    natural rights are arbitrary and we decide what they are as a culture. god didn't pass your right to free speech to moses on mount sinai. i'm not arguing for guaranteed credit (as i already oppose capitalism) but i think guaranteed housing is both noble and easily achievable in the developed world
    • sanderjd 12y ago
      Believing that housing should be a natural right may be a reasonable position (even if I disagree that it is practical), but surely you don't believe that everybody is entitled to indefinite ownership of an arbitrarily expensive house. I don't have statistics, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most people whose houses are foreclosed end up paying rent for an apartment, rather than living on the street.
      • nyolfen 12y ago
        opposition to capitalism entails opposition to private property, as the latter only emerges from the former (in the formal sense, where one of the states' primary roles is enforcing property law). i don't claim to have a roadmap for how this would be incorporated in the united states were the social order suddenly upended
        • sanderjd 12y ago
          I thought we were just talking about whether it's immoral for a bank to foreclose on a home owner... Not sure where all this opposition-to-capitalism stuff came from.