Quote from: CoinCube on October 25, 2014, 01:23:37 PM

Default is a natural risk of lending. It's why lenders charge a huge interest rate especially for unsecured debt.

And shoplifting is a natural risk of retail. It's why retailers put magnetic anti-theft devices on their merchandise. That doesn't mean they shouldn't use the full force of the law to punish shoplifters.

Quote from: CoinCube on October 25, 2014, 01:23:37 PM

Why are you cheering the morphing of our government into the debt collection agency of big business?

I'm not. I'm merely cheering debt collection. It hardly matters whether that's done by the government or a private company.

Quote from: CoinCube on October 25, 2014, 01:23:37 PM

"Don't worry about that credit card debt college kid it's a great deal at 0%. We wont even require you to make payments until you are done with collage and get a job. What you missed your first payment sorry that 50k now has an interest rate of 26%. We get to take 25% of all your earnings forever. What you did not know what you were doing when you signed up for this at age 18? Sorry that's you problem after all not paying your debt is theft."

Ignorance is no defence.

Quote from: CoinCube on October 25, 2014, 01:23:37 PM

Is this the future you want a society of slaves?

I see you don't know the meaning of that word. A slave is someone who is forced to work against their will. But nothing about debt is against the debtor's will. When they signed they contract, they willingly agreed to repay the loan. They accepted the responsibility completely voluntarily.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 25, 2014, 01:27:10 PM

So how is my improper choice of investment any different than a bank making a loan to an unfit party? Banks can sue debtors who default on their loans, why do banks get to imprison people as well ON TOP of the lawsuit?

I never said anything about imprisoning people.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 25, 2014, 01:27:10 PM

So putting someone in a cage is not loss of their rights?

With freedom comes responsibility. In particular, I expect any free person to be responsible enough to not harm or steal from other people. I see no problem with denying freedom to people who deny their responsibilities. Most civilised justice systems function on this concept. There are worse alternatives.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 25, 2014, 01:27:10 PM

At what point did civil matters become criminal matters?

Not sure if rhetorical question, but if not, all actions against a person or property have both a civil and criminal component.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 25, 2014, 01:27:10 PM

You are basically supporting a world where anyone can be sued for anything, and if you can afford it you can take anyone's freedom away via a civil suit process.

I support no such thing.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 25, 2014, 01:32:39 PM

The problem is he is going even a step further past wage garnishments, and saying it is right for people to be imprisoned for bad debt. As you mentioned there is a risk vs reward analysis for every act of commerce. Demanding that commerce some how be risk free for the lender is asinine and against the very fundamental principals of commerce.

I made no such demand, either. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to demand that lenders can reduce the risk by suing or prosecuting those who don't pay their debts.