View Single Post
Old 07-31-2019, 08:24 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
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.
I'm not sure I understand the question. I personally don't have a particular opinion about Right To Work laws. Conceptually I can understand someone who advocates personal responsibility also advocating for workers being allowed to perform their own work agreement negotiations - and then having to live with them. Likewise, I can understand a business owner wanting the freedom to choose whether union membership in his business is optional or not. If you're asking me if a business owner should follow the terms of a contract that he agreed to, even if the law doesn't require him to, then yes I believe he should.

Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
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?
Yes, the loanmakers should be responsible for making bad loans and bankruptcy for people who genuinely can't pay off their loans should be allowed. I'd be in favour of there being a minimum period after graduation before a student can claim bankruptcy, and also a grace period where the loan is frozen but the student can't declare bankruptcy. But if someone is in a low-paying job 5 years after college and has an overwhelming amount of debt, then yes they should be allowed to declare bankruptcy.