Hacker News Reader

Comment by UnoriginalGuy | Hacker News Reader

> I would also add that there are significant benefits that follow from keeping one's word, from not defaulting on the obligations one chooses.

Tell that to companies.

How many people, during the credit crunch, had their house defaulted on even in spite of never missing a single payment? The bank just decided the physical property was more valuable than the debt, and kicked them out.

I will absolutely keep my word when dealing with other people. I don't care about companies and businesses, because they are amoral and I will be amoral towards them. You're a fool if you treat companies like they're people, they don't treat you that way...

View on HN

> How many people, during the credit crunch, had their house defaulted on even in spite of never missing a single payment? The house just decided the physical property was more valuable than the debt, and kicked them out.

Are you saying people paid their debt, but the bank was still able to take property the borrower owned? Can that actually happen?

Any sources where I can read more about this?

Generally, no, it can't. Mortgages are contracts. By their typical contract terms, the lender can't foreclose unless the borrower is in breach of the contract. That means falling behind on payments. Could you write a custom mortgage to allow the lender to foreclose anyway? Sure, but then the problem is whether it would be securitizable or in compliance with local law. Unlikely, thus, a bank would not do that. The average mortgage and note are form contracts with some variation, but not this 'steal your house' term.

Parent post also implies that during the foreclosure crisis the value of houses increased. The opposite occurred.

> I will absolutely keep my word when dealing with other people. I don't care about companies and businesses, because they are amoral and I will be amoral towards them. You're a fool if you treat companies like they're people, they don't treat you that way...

On the one hand, you say that you will absolutely keep your word when dealing with other people. On the other hand, all bets are off when you are dealing with companies and businesses, "because they are amoral."

How do you square these two claims with the fact that "business" is just another name for a collection of people who have decided to work together to achieve some outcome?

For example, if I'm a contract software engineer (in fact, I am) and you hire me to write some code for you, will you pay me when I deliver the work I agreed to deliver, because I am a person, or will you default on the payment because I am incorporated and therefore also a business?

> How do you square these two claims with the fact that "business" is just another name for a collection of people who have decided to work together to achieve some outcome?

Have you ever tried to sit down and have a nuanced conversation with a mob? Or given a speech in front of an audience? Those are both pretty loose, flat organizations of people and they behave radically differently to an individual (and to each other, though one can sometimes change into the other). A company is a much more complex structure that absolutely deserves different treatment than an individual.

Surely you understand this. Have you never, or would you never be friends with someone who worked for a company you didn't like? Clearly there is a difference between an organization and the individuals who compose it, though the distinction is fuzzier in your case since presumably the corporation consists solely of you. I suspect that your corporation is also less likely to engage in the kinds of amoral hanky-panky that the large organizations get up to.

Mob, audience, company, business, corporation, etc. All are concepts that have individuals as an essential element of the concept. None exist as tangible entities in the real world. For example, you can't point to a mob without pointing to the people who make it up, and neither can you point to an audience without also pointing to the people who define it.

The argument is not that these entities should be treated equivalently, but rather, whether an individual should drop considerations of morality in dealing with them.

The morality that I follow (rational egoism) serves my life. It's not a hindrance, but a help. Morality helps me achieve the things I value; it's not a millstone around my neck.

I don't agree with the advice that when I'm in some particular context I should throw my morality overboard, which would be tantamount to saying that when dealing with companies, or mobs, or audiences, I should act irrationally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com