The lesson here is that if you’re gonna commit a crime, don’t make excuses to try justify it, those will inevitably put the philosophy cops on your trail, just do it cause you want to. Prepare with some Stirner in case there’s a sting operation.
I have so many questions. Like, for instance, do you think being in debt to a money lender means you're not poor or something?
the threat of poverty from nature itself
The threat of poverty comes from society. Or are you under the impression that fucking bears are the ones who will be beating your ass for failing to make rent, or for camping in a city park.
What a terrible comic. It very much gives a “I just found out about communism” vibe. Without banks, you wouldn’t even have the choice to get a loan to purchase a house or get starting capital for a business. And about the interest part, do you expect them to be a non profit? How will the banks pay their workers? I agree that the rates are too high, but come on, it’s a service that you choose to make use of.
Well of course not, I expect them to not exist as private entities. If they’re so big that their failure would cause the collapse of the economy, they should be federalized to prevent the greedy fucks from playing fast and loose with other people’s money to make themselves rich.
it’s a service that you choose to make use of.
Imagine you’re in a plane crash, and you wake up on an island…
I never said they were the be-all-end-all of distribution. This comic implies that banks somehow are responsible for providing money to people to buy housing. This is a way larger systemic issue. People should be paid enough to be able to purchase property.
Dialectically thinking would be to consider the issue at hand, and to form multiple positions to interpret or explain the situation, often contradictory or opposing positions.
The banker example has the philosophy cop browbeat the banker with a single line of reasoning. What he could do is take the bankers position himself, flesh it out, and argue both points (and others) to find the most sound position, that is often a nuanced blend of the others.
About the last panel, I mean, ok, but isn't that what the banker is doing too? Isn't that what everybody does for everything? So therefore the only sin is coercion?
But the banker thought it was ok when he did it but not when the “robber” did it. Which represents (so it is claimed) a poorly grounded belief system, since what the banker does is (it is argued) the same as what the robber does.
The thing is, it’s not an argument (at least, in the context of this comic), it’s a joke. It’s not intended to stand up to scrutiny, it’s intended to humorously contrast with your expectations (which, whether it succeeds or not is really a matter of opinion - I happen to kinda like it).
I never said the banker created the threat of poverty, indeed, I never even said I agreed with the premise of the comic. “Philosophy cop” is supposed to be a cop, why would you be surprised that he tries to arrest someone on shaky grounds? That happens even in real life, non-joke contexts. Honestly, if you try to take the comic seriously rather than as a joke, the more surprising element would be that the cop was not only called out by internal affairs, but purportedly should expect to be punished for his misdeeds.
Add comment