This is an interesting idea . Classically these kinds of policy changes are implemented through voting and the government. But when the govt. becomes unresponsive, more creative solutions arise. This happened for example with the union, suffrage and civil rights movements.
The counter to this will of course be: "hey, you agreed to the loan so pay it back." This will be cast as a moral issue. That is, how can people become fully developed human beings when they are free to abandon their obligations? This kind of action breaks our social, agreement-based fabric. That's compelling, but it ignores what's happening at the system level of our economy.
Corporations and banks drive our policy and laws, yet are amoral - they are profit-driven. Whatever creates profit is fair game. When profit suffers, the rules of the game are changed regardless of the consequences.
What's more relevant is that agreements can be changed, and should be changed when intrinsically unfair, but that only happens when attending parties have something to offer. During the financial collapse, the American people had something to offer: we will bail you out with tax dollars if you also take a haircut on the bad loans you issued and adjust Americans' personal debt downward. Under Bush and then Obama, our government gave away that negotiating card on our behalf without asking us. The kind of collective action represented by a debtors' strike seeks to recapture negotiating power and tilt the balance away from giant financial institutions and back toward the individual. Arguing that this kind of action is immoral would be more relevant if the system were fair. It is not fair.
No comments:
Post a Comment