Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha  Why do you target the people who give out the loans and blame them but not the people who take loans? |
For the most part, the people giving out the loans are acting from a position of strength whereas the people accepting the loans are acting from a position of weakness. I think there should be a higher moral standard for the strong than for the weak. To him whom much is given, much is expected.
As far as limiting freedom goes, this stuff is more in the realm of contract law. As in which clauses in contracts will be enforced by the government and how. So the government wouldn't have to go out and actively stop people from entering into usurous contracts, but the collectors wouldn't have government authority to back up the collection of the monies.
It IS very nice to be able to get a loan without acquiring "partners" who will be all up in your business. For instance, I was able to get a home equity loan at a pretty good rate because I can leverage my house as collateral. Of course, I could end up losing my house in case of catastrophic financial failure, but that could have happened anyways just with the initial bank loan.
But really I am most concerned by the theory that usury is a cause of wars, perhaps the main cause. I would be willing to sacrifice some amount of ease of borrowing money if the result were a more peaceful world.
Finally, even if lending REAL money at interest is justified, this (fractional reserve) system of banks creating money out of thin air and lending this money at interest is just so wrong...