EPTOn April 19 2012 01:07 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
I never signed any social contract.
I never signed any social contract.
Your signature is not required. As long as you are not actively opting out of the social contract, you are part of it.
Student Loan Forgiveness Act - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
Your signature is not required. As long as you are not actively opting out of the social contract, you are part of it. | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
| ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:15 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Blazinghand : I hope you don't take this bizarre perspective on consent to all aspects of your life. The social contract myth about the origin of the state is simply that. The state arose not out of any voluntary arrangement but, as Oppenheimer explains 'The state arises through conquest and plunder and exists through exploitation'. It has remained fundamentally unchanged to the present day. No one is going to stop you from going into the wilderness and living by yourself. If you want to live in modern society then you have to pay taxes. Personally, I like having things like running water, public parks, and public roads so I pay taxes. | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
And how is supporting people to get better education "taking from poor and giving it to rich". Middleclass and upper class pays way more taxes than poor people and this support will give everyone (including poor people) the opportunity to rise in society based on their skills and not their heritage. This is also creates a healthier enviroment than forcing young people to take threatening loans and working in low skill and wage jobs while trying to study a scientific field. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:15 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Blazinghand : I hope you don't take this bizarre perspective on consent to all aspects of your life. The social contract myth about the origin of the state is simply that. The state arose not out of any voluntary arrangement but, as Oppenheimer explains 'The state arises through conquest and plunder and exists through exploitation'. It has remained fundamentally unchanged to the present day. I disagree with Oppenheimer. The fact of the matter is, there's nothing preventing you from leaving society except that you WANT to stay. The state, and the way our society is structured, provides valuable resources that makes you want to be a part of this society. You can complain all you want, but unless you take matters into your own hands, you're just whining. You're using a computer (or some similar device). You're consenting to be part of the system. You're not a real anarchist. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On April 18 2012 20:16 -_-Quails wrote: What I see is someone proposing a bill that might just make university education less of a risk for people that haven't had the opportunity to 'do their work' and save up. But then I've lived in an area where there was youth unemployment at rates above 40% before the crisis, where some of the people in my class were primary breadwinners for their families by 16. How were the kids working 30 hours a week on top of high school to pay rent supposed to save up for college? What were the 40% of kids who wanted to work but couldn't get a job supposed to do more? Commute 4 hours per day to work in the next city at the cost of 2 hours of wages? Luckily for people in that area, their government has already put in place a system to eliminate punitive debt associated with higher education. Even though they don't have savings or parental savings to support them, they will graduate with a low total amount of debt which will gather interest at a low rate and will only have to make repayments proportional to their income. One idea behind measures like this is that a university education will on average make a person more valuable to the economy by enough that it is worth educating them, and that debt or the fear of debt drives away the people whose value would most be increased by the education more than any other group. If you haven't saved up, then you shouldn't go to college. Your fault. Who says you need to go to college as soon as you graduate high school? If you haven't planned ahead, then start now. My roommate now started college at 23. How is that a big deal? He has a scholarship full ride to law school now and was a friggin' poli sci major. On April 18 2012 14:54 Takkara wrote: Or are in law school. (Including the good ones) I should have clarified. I meant for undergrad. If you want to go to law school and don't have the money, then you should get a job after you graduate, make money for 3-4 years, THEN go back to law school. What bothers me is all the people that think they should be able to go to school for however many ridiculous years and not have to pay the costs of doing so. As I said, I took out extra loans to party my ass off in college. TONS of people do this. TONS of people don't have jobs. What the hell is with the mentality of (mostly Europeans, from what I've seen) that think you shouldn't have to work while in school... | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:27 paralleluniverse wrote: Yes, it's a good idea. Education is a positive externality, and basic economic theory says that positive externalities should be subsidized. Partly forgiving student loans and tying it to working in jobs that society needs, like teachers, etc, increases the net societal good. In Australia, everyone can get a university loan, which gets paid back through the tax system if your income after university exceeds a certain threshold. Even better, the government reduces the cost of university if you study in high demand areas such as science, nursing or education. And even better than that, the government in effect further reduces this debt if you are employed in science after graduating. This way, we encourage people to be educated in areas of need, like science, and further encourage them to work in these areas. All of this has positive spillover effects on society. Having a well manicured and landscaped yard is a positive externality to all the other properties around yours. So do lots of other things. Should all those things be subsidized? The fact is that there is no need to subsidize a positive externality, because they always provide utility for the bearer, and like say, protection can be denied to those not paying for service, which renders moot the 'public good' mantra. You should read Hoppe's Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. http://library.mises.org/books/Hans-HermannHoppe/TheoryofSocialismandCapitalism,A.pdf Besides, subsidies increase the price of goods and services and serve as distorting the allocation of resources within the economy. Orthodox economic theory is in shambles and has brought mass ruination to the lot of people. From FRB to Central Banking, to econometrics, etc. Besides, economics is a value-free science, so for your to presume normative statements belies the entire premise of the science in the first place. Economics doesn't say anything about what action you should take, only what consequences occur based on human action. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:27 Wegandi wrote: Having a well manicured and landscaped yard is a positive externality to all the other properties around yours. So do lots of other things. Should all those things be subsidized? Actually, the externality a nice yard is internalized by social interaction (not the gov't). We have block parties and stuff, and if you have a shitty yard (which nobody does, except this one old guy) you'd definitely get some weird looks. Neighborhoods don't exist in a vacuum, people have social interactions. | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
On April 18 2012 09:22 Candadar wrote: Well considering the entire system is built around fucking over students in every way possible, yeah. How exactly is the entire system built around fucking over students? Offering someone a loan so that they could attend a school they otherwise wouldn't be able to attend is an offer nobody is forced to accept. People need to be responsible for their own actions. Nobody is forcing you to take a loan out. The big bad school isn't fucking anyone over. If you don't want the loan, don't sign the paper. It's not that difficult. Time to grow the fuck up. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:15 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Blazinghand : I hope you don't take this bizarre perspective on consent to all aspects of your life. The social contract myth about the origin of the state is simply that. The state arose not out of any voluntary arrangement but, as Oppenheimer explains 'The state arises through conquest and plunder and exists through exploitation'. It has remained fundamentally unchanged to the present day. All human societies function like that to some degree. Stating that you do not like it, is like stating you do not like that people are dying. There is nothing you can do about it in foreseeable future. So the question remain how to choose from the real options. Modern states are rather good choice. Social contract pertains to all human societies, not only states. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:37 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: You can't improve society by forcing people to do things they don't want to do. And education plays a significant role in people being more aware of the world and society around them so that they would not need to be forced to do something like this, but would actually want to do those things instead because they would be more open minded and capable of understanding why it's a good thing for everyone to know more and have as easy path as possible to obtain that knowledge. You also can't improve society by letting people do whatever they want. That's just a one way ticket to a catastrophe at some point in the future. It's not a "system", it's an absence of system. On April 19 2012 00:37 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Everyone has their own subjective value scales, their own things they want to spend their money on. Taxation decreases people's utility by forcing them to spend money on things they don't want to spend money on. And it's wrong. It's wrong to use state power to loot one group in order to subsidize another. Can we please get past the childish notion that having to pay taxes is equal to money being "stolen" or "looted" from you? Whether you like it or not, the society owns a fraction of your income. It's not your money, it's not even money that was earned exclusively by your own hard work, because you are not an isolated and independent entity. Every single basic human right that you have, starting from your right to actually live and work, everything that gives you an opportunity to even think about making money from yourself, is provided to you by the society. Every cent you earn, you earned partly by yourself, but a part - realistically a more significant part than what anyone ever pays in taxes - of what you earn is due to being allowed to live and work in your society and having many benefits and opportunities you seem to take for granted provided for you. Without a society, you own nothing and are not worth anything, let alone money. It is safe to say that you get A LOT more value out of the society than what you put in through taxes. Rather than money being "taken away" from you, the reality of it is closer to you being allowed to keep the majority of your income and spend it as you see fit on things that benefit only yourself. You even have a proportional input in the collective decision on what tax money is being spent on (or at least you would have if you had a functioning government and an election system). Your standpoint and things you complain about is completely irrational and based on some abstract ideas that are unsustainable in reality. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:29 Blazinghand wrote: Actually, the externality a nice yard is internalized by social interaction (not the gov't). We have block parties and stuff, and if you have a shitty yard (which nobody does, except this one old guy) you'd definitely get some weird looks. Neighborhoods don't exist in a vacuum, people have social interactions. You are oblivious to what I am talking about. Having well-maintained properties increase the value of other properties around yours. Thus, using his definition it absolutely should be subsidized, and the Government should be paying to have my yard landscaped and maintained, as well as to fix issues that arise with the aesthetics of my house. The reason you shouldn't subsidize such things is because subsidies raise the price and distort allocation of resources as well as there being no need to because having a well-maintained househould has utility of its own as it increases the value of your own house, as well as providing enjoyment to the residents. The same goes with education, and all other so-called 'public goods'. Orthodox economists can't even provide a useful definition of what is one and what is not and why only the State can provide. You should really read the link I provided in my earlier post. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
i never had to get a loan, but if i went back, shit why not get a loan if in 10 yrs it'll be gone making minimum payment? i'm 20yrs old, and normally pretty damn left-winged. but this is a really stupid bill idea that is 100% for the people who have no idea how to manage life and don't deserve to not pay for their decisions... | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:34 Wegandi wrote: You are oblivious to what I am talking about. Having well-maintained properties increase the value of other properties around yours. Thus, using his definition it absolutely should be subsidized, and the Government should be paying to have my yard landscaped and maintained, as well as to fix issues that arise with the aesthetics of my house. The reason you shouldn't subsidize such things is because subsidies raise the price and distort allocation of resources as well as there being no need to because having a well-maintained househould has utility of its own as it increases the value of your own house, as well as providing enjoyment to the residents. The same goes with education, and all other so-called 'public goods'. Orthodox economists can't even provide a useful definition of what is one and what is not and why only the State can provide. You should really read the link I provided in my earlier post. Actually, the economic definition of a public good includes non-exclusivity and rivalry, which does not apply to a lawn in your neighborhood-- the extra value of that lawn is only available to those who own property in your neighborhood. If we're talking economics, your lawn is a "common good", which is different. In any case, your lawn IS subsidized, when your neighbors are friendlier to you as a result. Is it subsidized by the government? No, it isn't, but then again, it's not a public good, it's a common good. The positive exterality of your lawn is limited to your neighbors. Oh snap turns out blazinghand payed attention in econ 101 what now | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:34 Silidons wrote: i have to ask...WHO WOULD NOT GET A LOAN WITH THIS PASSING? i never had to get a loan, but if i went back, shit why not get a loan if in 10 yrs it'll be gone making minimum payment? i'm 20yrs old, and normally pretty damn left-winged. but this is a really stupid bill idea that is 100% for the people who have no idea how to manage life and don't deserve to not pay for their decisions... These yuppies think this is a great thing, but there's always consequences. If the people giving the loans out don't get paid back they lose money and they will simply up their interest rate to make up for it. Those with money never lose out. If you control the market you control everything. The notion that the debt will be "forgiven" and nobody will be on the hook is foolish. Someone will pay because someone has to pay. It's like the people who vote for gas taxes thinking it will hurt oil companies, but in reality they just pass the tax on to the consumer. Big oil doesn't give 2 shits about tax because it knows you NEED what it has. America is addicted to taking out loans, they know you NEED what they have and regardless of how high the interest rate goes people will be in line. tldr: someone always pays and it's not the people in the suits. | ||
|
TheAngryZergling
United States387 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:13 Talin wrote: I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours. Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:27 FabledIntegral wrote: If you haven't saved up, then you shouldn't go to college. Your fault. Who says you need to go to college as soon as you graduate high school? If you haven't planned ahead, then start now. My roommate now started college at 23. How is that a big deal? He has a scholarship full ride to law school now and was a friggin' poli sci major. I should have clarified. I meant for undergrad. If you want to go to law school and don't have the money, then you should get a job after you graduate, make money for 3-4 years, THEN go back to law school. What bothers me is all the people that think they should be able to go to school for however many ridiculous years and not have to pay the costs of doing so. As I said, I took out extra loans to party my ass off in college. TONS of people do this. TONS of people don't have jobs. What the hell is with the mentality of (mostly Europeans, from what I've seen) that think you shouldn't have to work while in school... Mentality is about making starting conditions for people as equal as possible. And after that let life/society/market distinguish them by their accomplishments. Point is to have a system where what you earn when adult is not related to where you were born, but to your abilities. Meritocracy. And as far as empiric data go, quality public education including university level seems to be a good way to go compared to US system. Students will pay what they get from state in taxes back anyway. That of course assumes well designed education system, where college/university degrees are required for jobs where it makes sense, so basically far below what many western systems are designed for. Point of this law should be to transition to a better educational system altogether, but that would be hoping too much. As it is it should not be permanent leeching off the state by some students and not others. They should just give some kind of amnesty for current students and offer state-sponsored, but still profitable (or at least not with a loss) loans to the students and make it possible to get rid of those loans by bankruptcy. | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
Rather than money being "taken away" from you, the reality of it is closer to you being allowed to keep the majority of your income and spend it as you see fit on things that benefit only yourself You are correct that this is the fundamental statement of the income tax, that the government owns your income and ALLOWS you to keep a % of this. It`s just that I would rather not be a slave to the state. | ||
|
HiTeK532
Canada171 Posts
On April 18 2012 23:10 Equity213 wrote: Yes. People with guns come for my money and kidnap me if I dont give it to them. Dont have kids? Dont use the system? Too bad I have no chioce. Slave is an inflammatory word because obviously im not getting whipped, but thats only because I always pay up. The idea behind it is that you were once a kid and you therefore used the system. | ||
| ||
