4 ms·

> 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 tha

> 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OK to do that in general what I mean is that there are laws which say that it's OK and nobody is pushing to have them repealed.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
    > 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"? Yes, that's precisely the point. At that point it's a contract playing out the way the contract was worded. In the case of the mortgage, the bank gets the keys and you don't get to keep living there. Why should you both give up the house and continue to make payments on the loss of value that the house incurred between the purchase and what the bank eventually was able to sell the house for? That's what a secured loan is; the bank is betting that even if you default the security for the loan has value in excess of the loan balance. In this case the bank lost that bet. There's no morality involved.

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
  > 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"? Yes, that's precisely the point. At that point it's a contract playing out the way the contract was worded. In the case of the mortgage, the bank gets the keys and you don't get to keep living there. Why should you both give up the house and continue to make payments on the loss of value that the house incurred between the purchase and what the bank eventually was able to sell the house for? That's what a secured loan is; the bank is betting that even if you default the security for the loan has value in excess of the loan balance. In this case the bank lost that bet. There's no morality involved.