Why not debtors' prison?

[Tpoints]

As I told you and told you and told you and told you, it is not tenable to encourage lenders to refuse to work with creditors or default their loans for the purpose of gaining the services of slaves. Were you paying attention this time?

I NEVER EVER said I wanted to encourage lenders to not work with borrowers. But what do we do when they tried and worked and debtors still don't pay? YOU didn't pay attention when I said many times that this should be LAST RESORT, not as a substitution for people who can pay and are willing.

I know you aren't seriously proposing the death penalty for fraud...

You know?

[Carson]

We're all in a Debtors Prison.

[acptulsa]

I NEVER EVER said I wanted to encourage lenders to not work with borrowers.

Then stop advocating a policy that would do the very thing.

You know?

I do. Or at the very least, I am very hopeful that you do not lack a shred of sanity...

[Danan]

just like the victims of rape and robbery should seek justice on their own too. because its none of your business who he harms, right? all loans ARE already voluntary contracts, but what do you do to a breacher?

There is a difference. You can easily specify what has to be done in case the debtor defaults before you lend out your money. Enforcing this contract should be a cost to you, just like fencing a farm is the responsibility of the farmer. If you don't make a fence, don't wonder when your cows are all gone some day. It's a cost of doing business.

I do agree with you though, you should have to pay for your own security and rights enforcement. So in a way, yes, you should have to seek justice on your own (although any sane person would use a paid proxy, especially knowing that the aggressor has protection too). But while we won't be able to convert any country on earth to a perfect private law society within this century, getting rid of all laws regulating lending by pointing out that it's advantageous for all sides is more likely to translate into actual law, while being completely consistent with the ultimate goal.

[anaconda]

Can I ask, do you agree that the bankruptcy system, essentially is the state subsidizing to encourage, if not activity supporting debtors and hurting creditors?

The state would be subsidizing lenders with a debtors prison. Lenders are in the business to lend. They are not out to "do someone a favor." The interest rate reflects the perceived risk. Part of the lender's transaction cost is acquiring and evaluating risk. If they fail to do so in one way or another, they must bear the loss, much like an auto manufacturer that builds and markets a product that no one wants to buy.

[Tpoints]

Then stop advocating a policy that would do the very thing.

No, it wouldn't, not if they require it to be last resort or for the lender to prove they have made diligent effort and the borrower is being difficult. But you want them to walk off freely.

I do. Or at the very least, I am very hopeful that you do not lack a shred of sanity...

Telling people they are free to agree to be killed makes me insane?

[Tpoints]

The state would be subsidizing lenders with a debtors prison. Lenders are in the business to lend. They are not out to "do someone a favor." The interest rate reflects the perceived risk. Part of the lender's transaction cost is acquiring and evaluating risk. If they fail to do so in one way or another, they must bear the loss, much like an auto manufacturer that builds and markets a product that no one wants to buy.

so is there a middle ground? Would you be in favor of not letting people discharge debt, and continue to let creditor harass the debtor until he either pays back or kills himself or hides the rest of his life wishing he did?

[Tpoints]

There is a difference. You can easily specify what has to be done in case the debtor defaults before you lend out your money. Enforcing this contract should be a cost to you, just like fencing a farm is the responsibility of the farmer. If you don't make a fence, don't wonder when your cows are all gone some day. It's a cost of doing business.

I do agree with you though, you should have to pay for your own security and rights enforcement. So in a way, yes, you should have to seek justice on your own (although any sane person would use a paid proxy, especially knowing that the aggressor has protection too). But while we won't be able to convert any country on earth to a perfect private law society within this century, getting rid of all laws regulating lending by pointing out that it's advantageous for all sides is more likely to translate into actual law, while being completely consistent with the ultimate goal.

did you just say you believe rape victims and robbers should take care of their own business and leave the state, society and taxpayers alone?

[Danke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_%28Christianity%29

[mczerone]

Prisons, ideally, have ONE role: to keep those who are imminent threats to others from doing harm. You and I can't restrain or imprison someone unless it is to defend ourselves or others, so neither should the govt be able to.