4 ms·

> Do you guys feel debts are morally bound? Yes. You'll read a lot of hamstering about how morally bankrupt those big, bad corporations are. If they're so terr

> Do you guys feel debts are morally bound? Yes. You'll read a lot of hamstering about how morally bankrupt those big, bad corporations are. If they're so terrible, why are you doing business with them in the first place? Ultimately the bottom line is that you made a deal, as surely as if you'd shaken hands on it. Regardless of your evaluation of the counterparty's moral fortitude, YOU made a deal, and it's up to you to keep your end. I am endlessly shocked at how in this community of logical minds, "well they were dicks, so I should get a free ride" is a valid justification.

msandford 12y ago
What if they (the big, bad corporation, that is) didn't keep up their end and the only recourse you have is to not pay? From what I understand this does happen from time to time, or maybe even a lot! Do you think it's possible for a company to keep perfect records and never make a mistake? I once worked for a company that absolutely had to keep track of physical items for our customers. We barcoded everything the second it came through the door and scanned everything before it left. Even so items occasionally went missing. If we handled 20k items in a month and "only" lost 0.02% that's still 4 items that can't be accounted for. 0.02% is 1/50th of 1% and a 1% error rate in many, many types of businesses is quite acceptable. So we did a 50x better than an acceptable error rate but it would still be unacceptable if it was your items that got lost. Now what if it's your debt that accidentally didn't get canceled out but should have, and it's for $137 and it would cost you $400 an hour to get a decent lawyer (you live in a big city, say) to write that company a letter telling them to go to hell? What should you do in that circumstance?
- Domenic_S 12y ago
  > What if they didn't keep up their end and the only recourse you have is to not pay? Then there is no debt. The company may mistakenly think there is, but that's a difference scenario than the one we're discussing here.
  - msandford 12y ago
    Whether there is or is not any debt is the matter of the dispute! That's what a lot of cases are. What about a mortgage that states that they take the house back if you can't pay. In that case is there still a debt once you stop paying and give the bank back the keys? The problem here is that the language gets really slippery really fast. How many "debts" are truly legitimate? How is one even able to tell the legitimacy of a debt? We don't have a perfect oracle to tell us, only an imperfect court system. Even that doesn't necessarily get the RIGHT judgement, just A judgement. If I sign up for a gym membership and that gym makes it impossible to cancel technically I agreed to it so I owe them, according to your logic. But we as human being also have notions of "reasonableness" which people must adhere to in order to not get sued out of existence. For example, let's suppose that a large nationwide chain of gyms will sign you up for a membership at any local branch. And let's suppose that their corporate policy is that you can only cancel by going to the corporate headquarters in person between the hours of 10am and 2pm and to take a number and stand in line until your number is called. Is that reasonable? What if the only way to cancel is to mail a notarized cancellation form to corporate? Why won't they just let you cancel in person, with your membership card as proof of you being the account holder? It's not as though the idea of bankruptcy just got invented and everyone is struggling to wrap their brains around it. It's been around for thousands of years. What's the difference between a general default and a specific default? What makes it OK to tell all your creditors "I can't pay, tough noogies!" but not OK to tell one particular creditor? When I say it's OK to do that in general what I mean is that there are laws which say that it's OK and nobody is pushing to have them repealed. Further there are laws which limit the statute of limitations for individual debts, which also aren't seeing a huge movement to reform or repeal. Would you argue that the two are different? Or maybe that they're the same and both are morally reprehensible? Or maybe something else entirely?
    - diminoten 12y ago
      Aren't you agreeing to all these nonsense terms when you do business with the entity? By giving the entity money to enter their gym or use their money to pay for a house, aren't you saying, "I accept the terms you've set, even if they're absurd"? Why do you have a right to their goods if their terms aren't reasonable, and are you the judge of what's reasonable? Can you imagine a scenario where the "you" in question is someone who has a mental disorder or otherwise is incapable of accurately estimating value?

msandford 12y ago

What if they (the big, bad corporation, that is) didn't keep up their end and the only recourse you have is to not pay? From what I understand this does happen from time to time, or maybe even a lot! Do you think it's possible for a company to keep perfect records and never make a mistake? I once worked for a company that absolutely had to keep track of physical items for our customers. We barcoded everything the second it came through the door and scanned everything before it left. Even so items occasionally went missing. If we handled 20k items in a month and "only" lost 0.02% that's still 4 items that can't be accounted for. 0.02% is 1/50th of 1% and a 1% error rate in many, many types of businesses is quite acceptable. So we did a 50x better than an acceptable error rate but it would still be unacceptable if it was your items that got lost. Now what if it's your debt that accidentally didn't get canceled out but should have, and it's for $137 and it would cost you $400 an hour to get a decent lawyer (you live in a big city, say) to write that company a letter telling them to go to hell? What should you do in that circumstance?

Domenic_S 12y ago
> What if they didn't keep up their end and the only recourse you have is to not pay? Then there is no debt. The company may mistakenly think there is, but that's a difference scenario than the one we're discussing here.
- msandford 12y ago
  Whether there is or is not any debt is the matter of the dispute! That's what a lot of cases are. What about a mortgage that states that they take the house back if you can't pay. In that case is there still a debt once you stop paying and give the bank back the keys? The problem here is that the language gets really slippery really fast. How many "debts" are truly legitimate? How is one even able to tell the legitimacy of a debt? We don't have a perfect oracle to tell us, only an imperfect court system. Even that doesn't necessarily get the RIGHT judgement, just A judgement. If I sign up for a gym membership and that gym makes it impossible to cancel technically I agreed to it so I owe them, according to your logic. But we as human being also have notions of "reasonableness" which people must adhere to in order to not get sued out of existence. For example, let's suppose that a large nationwide chain of gyms will sign you up for a membership at any local branch. And let's suppose that their corporate policy is that you can only cancel by going to the corporate headquarters in person between the hours of 10am and 2pm and to take a number and stand in line until your number is called. Is that reasonable? What if the only way to cancel is to mail a notarized cancellation form to corporate? Why won't they just let you cancel in person, with your membership card as proof of you being the account holder? It's not as though the idea of bankruptcy just got invented and everyone is struggling to wrap their brains around it. It's been around for thousands of years. What's the difference between a general default and a specific default? What makes it OK to tell all your creditors "I can't pay, tough noogies!" but not OK to tell one particular creditor? When I say it's OK to do that in general what I mean is that there are laws which say that it's OK and nobody is pushing to have them repealed. Further there are laws which limit the statute of limitations for individual debts, which also aren't seeing a huge movement to reform or repeal. Would you argue that the two are different? Or maybe that they're the same and both are morally reprehensible? Or maybe something else entirely?
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Aren't you agreeing to all these nonsense terms when you do business with the entity? By giving the entity money to enter their gym or use their money to pay for a house, aren't you saying, "I accept the terms you've set, even if they're absurd"? Why do you have a right to their goods if their terms aren't reasonable, and are you the judge of what's reasonable? Can you imagine a scenario where the "you" in question is someone who has a mental disorder or otherwise is incapable of accurately estimating value?