Pages: [1] 2 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Debtor Prisons in 6 states and increasing (Read 5207 times)
|
|
kallen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Can New Hampshire end the exhausting trail of wandering for Kallen??? Kallen is counting on it.  |
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
Debtor prisons are a-OK by me, as long as clearly stipulated in the loan contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mauiguy
 Offline
Posts: 44
Made it!! Porcfest rocks!!!
|
Careful what contracts you enter into...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~Samuel Adams~
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, by Robert Heinlien
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
It should also be noted that the threshold for recognizing voluntary agreement should scale up with the severity of the consequences. A signature below 10 pages of small-print legalese probably wouldn't cut it. Why not have the loan client visit a neutral contract certification office in person, deposit a sample of his DNA, and speak loudly and clearly into the tamper-resistant high-def holographic recorder: "I understand that I may go to prison if I default on my repayment obligations". You get the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Will this eventually spread to more states resulting to millions of people being imprisoned? What would that mean for our society?
No. These procedures are holdovers from long ago. Collectors have just found they can be used to their advantage. Debtor prisons are a-OK by me, as long as clearly stipulated in the loan contract.
Such clauses are antithetical to the fundamental concepts of contract and the idea of liberty itself. You can breach such a contract whenever you want. But if the other party suffers damages, you are liable to pay them. Even if there is a clause requiring you to be restrained of your liberty, you can still choose to breach that contract and pay money damages. If you cannot actually pay the damages? Tough nuggets, lender. You made a poor decision, and you also need to take some responsibility for your poor lending practices. It comes down to the following social question: "Should WE imprison a man who fails to do that which he, in fact, cannot do?" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
kallen
|
It comes down to the following social question: "Should WE imprison a man who fails to do that which he, in fact, cannot do?"
Exactly right. And throwing someone in prison won't put any money in the debt collectors' pockets. Or perhaps maybe it is a scare tactic to arrest a few to send a message to the audience so the rest will pay their bills on time. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 11:29:04 pm by kallen »
|
Logged
|
Can New Hampshire end the exhausting trail of wandering for Kallen??? Kallen is counting on it. |
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
Such clauses are antithetical to the fundamental concepts of contract and the idea of liberty itself. [...] |
Maybe, but that would be up to the lenders proposing those contracts and the borrowers agreeing to them (or vice versa), not Glorious Central Planner B.D. Ross.  Blunt punishment to serve as deterrent is theoretically possible, but it probably won't be applied very often. In most cases the goal of such remedies would be to create an alternative revenue stream for the lender, like through prison labor, and perhaps there would be some creative PR ways of handling this, like making the deadbeat pick up trash along sides of roads while wearing big "I DEFAULTED ON MY XYZ BANK LOAN" signs on his front and back. Perhaps they could have a program where deadbeats would work off their loan by providing free services like car washes for the bank's more responsible customers. Etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Walt
|
It comes down to the following social question: "Should WE imprison a man who fails to do that which he, in fact, cannot do?"
IF the answer is "yes" ... the next question would be "Who pays for it?" I only see 3 options: 1 - The debtor. But if they don't have money to pay their bills, they probably won't have money to pay for their imprisonment. 2 - The taxpayer. Because we pay for all other prisoners. But why should we pay to imprison someone who isn't a danger to society? 3 - The creditor. So they lose MORE money on the person? I doubt many would want to. So it seems to me, from a financial standpoint, "debtor's prison" is a losing idea. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 01:48:06 pm by Uncle Walt »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
The debtor, obviously. The whole point of such prisons (or "boot-camps") is to intervene in a person whose lifestyle prevents him/her from pulling one's economic weight, and to influence that person toward being able to hold a job, practice fiscal discipline, and make one's debt payments on time. In many cases addiction would be the culprit, or just plain laziness, etc, and those facilities would specialize in helping people overcome those problems with as little violent force as possible. Since PR would be a major issue for the debt collector, non-profit charity-run prisons would probably dominate the market.
In absence of minimum wage laws and other economically-retarded government bullshit, every person should be able to find at least some form of employment, even if it's working for beans as a footstool. And, now that the cost of access to knowledge is now essentially zero, anyone can afford the opportunity to study their way up to a better job. Most people who fail to do that simply need a kick in the rear - and for the minority that really can't help themselves there would be charity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Blunt punishment to serve as deterrent is theoretically possible, but it probably won't be applied very often. Not at all. By their nature, contracts do not contain punitive "deterrents". What you're speaking about is for the specific enforcement of one party's preferred remedy. That too, is not how contracts work. Contracts protect economic expectations; they (usually) do not compel people to do anything in particular. Except, of course, to pay money. If you ever use the word "punishment" in the context of contract, you are no longer talking about contracts. You're talking about something else. IF the answer is "yes" ... the next question would be "Who pays for it?"
I only see 3 options:
1 - The debtor. But if they don't have money to pay their bills, they probably won't have money to pay for their imprisonment.
2 - The taxpayer. Because we pay for all other prisoners. But why should we pay to imprison someone who isn't a danger to society?
3 - The creditor. So they lose MORE money on the person? I doubt many would want to.
So it seems to me, from a financial standpoint, "debtor's prison" is a losing idea.
This was much the idea behind sponging houses. Naturally, people "detained" would have great incentive to produce money they were alleged to owe (from their hidden savings, family, and friends). To "facilitate payment", for the privilege of being imprisoned, debtors would need to pay for outrageously priced food, drink, etc. The whole point of such prisons (or "boot-camps") is to intervene in a person whose lifestyle prevents him/her from pulling one's economic weight, and to influence that person toward being able to hold a job, practice fiscal discipline, and make one's debt payments on time. In many cases addiction would be the culprit, or just plain laziness, etc, and those facilities would specialize in helping people overcome those problems with as little violent force as possible.
Most people that cannot pay their significant debts arrive in that situation from medical emergencies, from losing employment (through no fault of their own), divorce, or from making a one-time "big-mistake" e.g. signing a 30-year ARM. Sure, "lazy people" may owe money to someone. But they rarely accumulate significant amounts of debt that cannot realistically be repaid without minor inconvenience. You should focus your analysis on the real world, and not some minor subset of debtors. Point is, if one truly accepts the principle of self-ownership (and I don't; not necessarily) is a first principle, debt bondage is morally impermissible. Self-ownership, by its real nature, is inalienable: one may withdraw consent to the control of his person at any time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
Not at all. By their nature, contracts do not contain punitive "deterrents". What you're speaking about is for the specific enforcement of one party's preferred remedy. That too, is not how contracts work. Contracts protect economic expectations; they (usually) do not compel people to do anything in particular. Except, of course, to pay money.
If you ever use the word "punishment" in the context of contract, you are no longer talking about contracts. You're talking about something else. And those arbitrary limitations to what self-owning individuals can agree to do came from...? B.D. Ross's wishful thinking? Sorry, that's not a valid basis for Natural Law. If Person A and Person B want to enter into a contract where they bet on a flip of a coin and the losing party must set himself on fire - stupid as that may be, that is nonetheless a binding contract. Who has the right to say otherwise? Anyone with that magical right would then be empowered to apply his whims to the enforcement of any contracts, making unpopular contracts downright impossible to enforce, leading to the collapse of many essential segments of the economy. Without soldiers being held to certain obligations of service, for example, free market defense agencies would fall apart as soon as going gets tough, and so the much more violent government monopolies would be with us forever... Most people that cannot pay their significant debts arrive in that situation from medical emergencies, from losing employment (through no fault of their own), divorce, or from making a one-time "big-mistake" e.g. signing a 30-year ARM. Sure, "lazy people" may owe money to someone. But they rarely accumulate significant amounts of debt that cannot realistically be repaid without minor inconvenience. You should focus your analysis on the real world, and not some minor subset of debtors. Those people would not be candidates for "boot-camp training" (sounds much nicer than "debtor prison", doesn't it?); they would simply be allowed to rearrange their credit under stricter terms, with the lender making more profit in the long run. Those new terms might intervene in their personal life so as to cap recreational spending, mandate drug tests, limit their reproductive choices, etc. Only repeat offenders who keep falling over and over again and cannot get their act together for many years would be subject to any forceful "desperate measures". Point is, if one truly accepts the principle of self-ownership (and I don't; not necessarily) is a first principle, debt bondage is morally impermissible. Self-ownership, by its real nature, is inalienable: one may withdraw consent to the control of his person at any time. You cannot own something without having the power to give it away. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LoveFreedomAndLiberty
|
Kallen- Thanks for sharing this story.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"There has never been a good war or a bad peace." -Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
If you ever use the word "punishment" in the context of contract, you are no longer talking about contracts. You're talking about something else. And those arbitrary limitations to what self-owning individuals can agree to do came from...? B.D. Ross's wishful thinking? Sorry, that's not a valid basis for Natural Law. Huh? I didn't say that they could not agree. I said what you're speaking about isn't a contract; it's something else. If Person A and Person B want to enter into a contract where they bet on a flip of a coin and the losing party must set himself on fire - stupid as that may be, that is nonetheless a binding contract.
Wow. If it were a contract--assuming you also loosen several other conceptual things about contracts--upon losing the coin flip, the losing party could simply breach the contract and then be obligated to pay any resulting damages to the other party. (Which, in this case, would very likely be nothing.) Contracts are not statements of an outcome that is guaranteed to be certain. It is exceptionally rare that any party to a contract has a right or entitlement that a specific act must be done. Rather, the contract "locks in" a choice for both parties: (1) do what you promise; or otherwise (2) pay the party the damages he suffers if you break that promise. (And not even every promise is a contract...) Who has the right to say otherwise?
The losing party. He can breach the agreement any time he wants. Most people that cannot pay their significant debts arrive in that situation from medical emergencies, from losing employment (through no fault of their own), divorce, or from making a one-time "big-mistake" e.g. signing a 30-year ARM. Sure, "lazy people" may owe money to someone... Those people would not be candidates for "boot-camp training" (sounds much nicer than "debtor prison", doesn't it?); Oh, now whose magical powers and wishful thinking are we looking at?! (I kid, I kid...) Tthey would simply be allowed to rearrange their credit under stricter terms, with the lender making more profit in the long run. Those new terms might intervene in their personal life so as to cap recreational spending...
That's actually what we do today (some times). It's called Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Not every lender makes more profit though. Courts today have typically frowned upon lenders who don't secure their lending. i.e. their business model is predicated on granting lots of unsecured debt at very high interest with the knowledge that some borrowers will default. That doesn't mean they don't have a claim for payment. But, having failed to protect themselves, courts have little sympathy. You cannot own something without having the power to give it away.
Sure you can--that's what "inalienable" means. Now, history obviously flies in the face of any assertion that humans cannot be enslaved. I only assert that if self-ownership is a first principle (and for many *libertarians it is), this creditor-debtor framework doesn't work because then you would not own yourself. There's an enormous gap between others being able to make claims upon your property, and being able to own you. Just contradictory, 'tis all. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 08:18:13 am by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Yay! A Rand v. Rothbard debate!
I have to side with Rothbard on this one. A contract does not obligate you to do a specific thing. But if your failure to fulfill your part of the contract results in damages, you may owe restitution.
I will point out, though, that a contract can contain a penalty clause. If you fail to do X, you then owe Y, instead (with Y typically being larger in cost than X). So a contract can automatically include ways of defining what the damages are.
Punishment, though, is antithetical to liberty. If someone causes harm, he owes restitution. While having to pay up for damages is a deterrent, the goal is not to deter; the goal is to heal the damage to the victim. No libertarian would support a system designed to punish offenders (particularly not at the expense of others).
Someone (say, a bad credit risk, who really needs a loan) might agree to voluntarily submit to some restrictions on his freedom if he defaults on his obligation. "If you don't pay me back, you must work at my factory at standard wages, but only receive the minimum necessary for room and board, until such time as the debt is paid off." Or something even more like an indenture. If the result is too harsh, it makes more sense for him to just go on the run, rather than voluntarily submit, so any such contract would have to be equitable for it to make sense to both parties.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
kallen
|
For the first time, I actually agree with you on something. Someone (say, a bad credit risk, who really needs a loan) might agree to voluntarily submit to some restrictions on his freedom if he defaults on his obligation. "If you don't pay me back, you must work at my factory at standard wages, but only receive the minimum necessary for room and board, until such time as the debt is paid off." Or something even more like an indenture. If the result is too harsh, it makes more sense for him to just go on the run, rather than voluntarily submit, so any such contract would have to be equitable for it to make sense to both parties.
Couldn't agree more!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Can New Hampshire end the exhausting trail of wandering for Kallen??? Kallen is counting on it. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
