Why does capital not deserve moral respect? Because all property is theft!

I imagine many readers (actually, I don't have many readers) being offended by my attitude toward debt in my axiom "Default Early and Often!"

These angry readers may say things like: People should be responsible!  People shouldn't sponge off of others!  Etc!  Essentially taking moral outrage at bankruptcy.

They're making it too hard.  There is no reason to believe that following the rules of Capital (i.e. Property…and as now constituted not including slaves in-the-traditional-sense) represents morality or immorality.

It fundamentally can't because the origin of property itself is theft!  Original land property, and many other kinds, was simply taken from the commons.  It's continued existence and trading is the continuation of an original crime.  It is not cleansed of immorality by successive generations who may have actually "contributed" to the general welfare in the process of earning their share.  Stolen property is stolen property regardless of whether you paid good money for it.  Furthermore the biggest share has always gone, all along, to the biggest crooks, liers, and slavers.  The notion that we're supposed to have moral respect for this, who owns what and can therefore tell us what to do in order to survive, is positively laughable.

Now if you want an easy life, or even a tolerable life, going along is the way to get along.  Living in the context of an original and continuing Grand Theft of Everything it's most often easiest to follow the rules, and be square with the devil of who owns what and how much.

But when you have the clear opportunity, and nothing to lose except your fake sense of morality…

It doesn't take them more than a second to discharge one fraction of their their debt to society, through limited liability or other legal means, bribery, or other means, or even to acknowledge it exists.  And these are the ones we ultimately obey as rent is paid to the original theft.

Polyamory? Good Luck! Polygamy? Well, no.

I've taken a kind of libertarian position, uneasily, regarding polygamy.  But this fascinating blog blows all my thinking about this away.

Polyamory is fine, assuming real polyamory among roughly free equals and not sex slavery.

Polygamy, multiple marriage, is something different.  It involves a contract, explicit state sanction and support, and has a long history of being associated with the abuse of young women.  I would now agree agree it is not a good idea to allow such legal associations.

Now because of its history, Utah has set a very tough standard against polygamy.  No state in the US permits multiple marriage contracts.  But Utah considers single marriages with multiple related childbearing cohabitants to be common law polygamy, and prohibits that as well.

That goes right at the heart of freedom of association, and many other rights.  But I don't even have to be a civil libertarian not to like it.  A Federal Court has ruled that Utah's prosecution of such associations is against federal law.  Utah has appealed the latest US court judgement in September 2014.

Now back to polyamory.  I don't think I'm just speaking for myself when I say that sexual relationships are hard, hard, hard.  I have never been in a polyamorous relationship, but I have spoken with some who are, and they say it gets harder still with multiple parters.  The negotiation of everything exponentially more complex.

Polyamorous relations are far more common among LGBT than straight.

Polyamorous associations possibly haven't done much, however, for a social difficulty which may be at the root of much crime and social dysfunction.  I don't think it's done more for lone wolf hetero males, since polyamorous associations which involve any women are likely to more women than men

That's not a reason to prohibit polyamory, it a reason for new, different, and restored institutions to actually replace traditional society rather than just denigrate it.

One institution which does soothe the pain felt by lone wolf males is legal prostitution.

I am anything but a champion of the market idea for solving everything, especially wrt allocation of social resources.  I more take the position that markets may be useful in some circumstances and should be used only in those circumstances, and be appropriately regulated.  Prostitution is one of those places where a well regulated market is especially useful.

Should make marajuana centric "coffee shops" also, another social institution that supports lone wolves and brings them into new associations.

The Cross of Neoliberalism

The Euro is a 24k Cross of Neoliberalism.

Like all neoliberalism, it enables financial kleptocracy, and ultimately the end of democracy.

It should all be abolished, and we should return immediately to Social Democracy.

Sadly, neoliberalism will not be easy to dislodge.

It pays just the right people, like Presidents who can retire and make gazillions from their connections.

And more generally, moneys own the press, the airwaves, ultimately the outcome, which is uses to make still more money.

Cashing out should be expensive, and income more than 10 times the median and wealth accumulated from it should be taxed away, not built into a permanent enslaver of everyone else through endless means.

For every irresponsible--or just unlucky--borrower, there is an irresponsible lender, and we should hold the latter more responsible.  Default early and often is what rich people do, though they have better ways of doing that through negative externalities (aka cost shifting), limited liability and other means.  So I suggest default early and often to poor creditors too…Chapter 7 Bankruptcy if possible…there is no loss in moral virtue for a creditor unable to pay* in my view--that possibility was the Banker's responsibility.  Only consider the benefit of continuing credit, something I think is good and fine and best maintained if possible in societies that have it.  The greatest virtue is in having no claims to anything whatever.  Perhaps balancing debts with assets is one way to achieve that.  I'm glad to own a home outright, it fits my lifestyle, but I see no more virtue either in doing so or having done so.  I have some revolving credit card debt, now mostly at zero interest until next year.  I wonder if it wouldn't be more moral to have what bankers even seem to want…more long term financing.  I wonder if there wouldn't be greater virtue in being more extended and having paid for the work of others in developing my future establishment even more, and die with liabilities equalling assets.

Anyway I had some luck, after all, and worked many years.  But my only virtue from owning a home may be found in how I maintain or develop it and to what ends I use it.  Not the mere fact of ownership.

(*I would take their word for it…I don't think people should suffer much beyond the expectations at the time of taking the loan.  The lender is responsible for making sure the loan contributors to the borrowers life in such a way that enables them to pay back and still be able to benefit.  Being a gatekeeper for society, a lender takes on these responsibilities.  To do otherwise is to be a predatory lender, intending to profit from the misfortune of others.  Much of this is already in many laws which tended to be overlooked leading to the collapse of 2008.)

All are entitled to healthcare and higher education, regardless of ability to pay.  No overall benefit to society accrues from making people pay for those things…so they shouldn't!

When a need is not being met by private industry, or cannot be well met, it should be met by The People, just as Lincoln said.

Every financial asset is a claim on the future labor of others…that is what it actually represents.  Therefore there is no benefit to society from having "rich" people who have accumulated many of such claims.  The same real wealth in the physical world exists independent of any claims on it.  The only benefit from capital accrues from organization, organization which would be better achieved through democratic means.