View Single Post
  #205  
Old 07-29-2019, 02:14 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Iím assuming that if theyíre under 18, thereís a parent approving the loan, but please correct me if Iím wrong. Beyond that, yes, I do believe an 18 year old, or a near 18 year old should be able to do a risk assessment. Iíd hope there would be guidance counsellors available to assist them with that risk assessment. If such guidance counsellors arenít available, then thatís a community flaw.
I have a question to springboard off of this - should the same standard apply to a business, run by a person or board of people over the age of 18? Because I have seen a lot of people who advocate 'personal responsibility' also advocate for Right To Work laws, and it seems rather strange to me that a 'near 18-year-old' is expected to bear personal responsibility for a potentially bad contract decision, but that a business run by a much older person gets the possibility of a contract they don't like outright forbidden by law. Why is a business owner negotiating with employees held to a much lower standard of personal responsibility than some kid with no real-world experience yet? It would seem to me that advocates of Personal Responsibility should be staunchly opposed to Right to Work laws, especially if they are also fans of "Small Government", and yet the majority of the time they just aren't.

Further question: Shouldn't the people giving loans take some responsibility for their loans in the first place? By making the loans not dischargeable in bankruptcy, it removes the risk to the lender of making the loan to someone who is not going to be able to actually pay the loan in the first place. You would think that advocates of 'personal responsibility' would argue that the lender of this specific type of loan should have to take the same risk of non-payment as the lenders of other loans, but for some reason people who make this loan aren't required to take responsibility for their bad lending decisions. Why doesn't any of the blame for these bad decisions lie on the person who's protected by law from the consequence of the bad decision?