You didn't bother to address my point about fractional reserve lending. I take it you did further research and realized you were mistaken.
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.Really? So whats this below VVV
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.
Default on debt is not equivalent to theft. I will provide a very simple example. If a person takes out a loan, then a few years later their house burns down and they lose their job, and as a result they are unable to pay their debt, is this an act of theft? There are many perfectly innocent reasons someone might default on a loan, even without intent of "theft".
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.
See now here you show your ignorance of the system of law as well. There is a VERY important distinction between civil and criminal law for a very good reason. Criminal law is part of the public process and is put into place only after publicly elected officials pass legislation and it is approved by the local, state, or federal governments. Plaintiffs also have a right to a TRIAL BY JURY as well as several other protections to ensure a fair hearing under criminal law. Civil law can be invoked by ANYONE for ANY REASON. While you can often sue someone who is also guilty of violations of criminal law, you CAN NOT prosecute people under criminal law for a debt that is NOT A CRIMINAL ACT. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Criminal law does, and should have a much higher standard because it is not just a matter of property rights, it is a matter of human rights, and additionally there are no standards limiting who can sue whom in court and for what reason. What you are asking for as a result is a system where people can be judged against under civil law, and then have criminal penalties applied to them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
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.
This is exactly what you support in effect, regardless of your ignorance on the matter.
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.
Lawsuits are acceptable for property and contract disputes. Criminal law does not, and should not have the jurisdiction to prosecute civil cases. This is why DEBT COLLECTION COMPLETELY REMAINS IN THE JURISDICTION OF CIVIL LAW, at least in a society that has rule of law anyway. Obviously fascists such as your self would like to see that changed. Also before you accuse me of making a personal attack, those who advocate for the merger of the corporation and the state are by definition fascists.