In your opinion, is it acceptable for libertarian/constitutionalist/small government Ron Paul supporters to accept federal college loans paid for via taxpayers, or even to go to a government run college? I read that Ron Paul did not allow his children to accept federal college loans and I have seen him bashing the department of education a few times. Many RP supporters including me are in college, so are we shooting ourselves in the foot?
Steve1225:In your opinion, is it acceptable for libertarian/constitutionalist/small government Ron Paul supporters to accept federal college loans paid for via taxpayers, or even to go to a government run college?
Is it acceptable to drive on publically funded federally owned freeways? It's a definate catch-22. IMHO, if you can avoid doing anything contrary to ones beliefs, then go for it. However, by the same token, very few may have the financial means to do so.
Take Dr. Paul for example, not only did he not accept federal college loans for his kids, but he also accepted patience without medicare. He is a man of principle. In his personal practice, he found a way to make it profitable for himself, while still helping others. Try other avenues for paying for college, ie private scholarships.
While in college, just make sure to keep a critical mind, if you are getting governtment funds, there is bound to be government/statist propadanda in the curriculum.
Suppose a robber breaks into your house in the dead of night and steals you money at gun point. You have no choice in the matter and he claims to have a "right" to your property. At a later time, the robber comes back and offers you some of the money he stole from you in the form of a low-interest loan. Is it "acceptable" for you to take the loan? I don't know, ask yourself, "Would I be better off accepting the loan or passing it up?" If the answer is "yes", then by all means, take the loan. If "no", don't take the loan. The question is this: Is it okay to take a meagre advantage offered by an entity that has threatened and stolen from you in the past?
Now consider this scenario: A man knocks on your door and offers you a low-interest loan. He makes it clear, though, that in a few years he will begin to break into your house and steal a percentage of your income, which will, in the course of your lifetime, dwarf the sum of the loan. He also makes it clear that he will perpetrate this theft regardless of whether or not you accept his loan. Is it "acceptable" for you to take the loan? Again, I don't know. You should ask yourself, "Will I be benefitted more in the long run from accepting this loan or from passing it up? If it is to your advantage, take the loan. The real question is this: Is it acceptable to take a meagre advantage offered by an entity that is guaranteed to threaten and steal from you in the future?
To compound these two questions, let me ask the following: Is it "acceptable" to receive a meagre advantage offered by a violent entity that has threatened and stolen from you in the past and is virtually guaranteed to continue to do so in the future? and that, furthermore, effectively claims ownership over your body and property and control over every aspect of your life?
There is no moral "should" or "shouldn't", no ethical "ought" or "oughtn't" about these questions. Life is expansion and assimilation, clawing for anything and everything within reach and using it to gain power over as much environment as possible. The choice is between being victimized by the State more or less, between being parasitized by bureaucrats and politicians more or less. If you are determined to "turn the other cheek" to those who exploit you, logical consistency dictates you must not accept government aid. If you are determined to embrace life and secure as much advantage to yourself as possible, logical consistency dictates you must accept government aid whenever it is offered to you.
Perhaps there is no moral concern, and all that is sought to be gained by the acceptance or rejection of government aid is a political advance. In that case, if your intent is to preserve and expand the power of the State, you must not accept the loan. The higher the ratio of people paying into the State versus taking out of the State, the stronger and more entrenched the State becomes. If there is a higher ratio of people taking out of the state versus paying into the State, the State's position becomes more fragile and precarious. If you seek the destruction and dissolution of the State, or at least the reduction of its size and/or scope, then logical consistency dictates you must accept the loan, if it is to your advantage.
I ultimately can't tell you what you "should" or "should not" do, because these are artificial constraints that have no basis in life or reality itself. No action "needs" to be justified. It is self-delusional to be troubled with the "spooks in the mind" of static moral principles. But I can tell you what I would likely do were I in your situation: I would do whatever I perceived to be in my own long-term interest, and my conscience would not trouble me either way.
"Nolite confidere in principibus"
~ Psalm 146:3
I agree with Taylor on this one. The state is going to be stealing your money for most of your life, and when I get the chance to get some of it back, I take it. Plus, the more money we get back, the faster the state collapses.
Block and Lora.
Steve1225: In your opinion, is it acceptable for libertarian/constitutionalist/small government Ron Paul supporters to accept federal college loans paid for via taxpayers, or even to go to a government run college? I read that Ron Paul did not allow his children to accept federal college loans and I have seen him bashing the department of education a few times. Many RP supporters including me are in college, so are we shooting ourselves in the foot?
Just because a slave accepts a meal from his master, doesn't mean he accepts his slavery.
In the present, most jobs require a college degree. Even if that piece of paper represents no actual knowledge, you need it to get a decent job.
With college loans, you're placing yourself in debt slavery. It may make economic sense, if the increase in future earnings exceeds the burden of the loan.
All colleges are directly or indirectly State funded, so you have no options there.
If you study Math and Computers and Engineering, you may learn actual skills in college. Are you better off learning on your own?
It isn't clear that going to college is better than starting your own business.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Taylor:I would do whatever I perceived to be in my own long-term interest, and my conscience would not trouble me either way.
Nice.
No, there is nothing wrong with it.
But yes you are shooting yourself in the foot. Government interventions in education and fiancing have resulted in the placing an entire generation into the pocket of the banksters. This level of debt is neither natural nor healthy.
Don't feel guilty, feel angry.
Peace
ViennaSausage:Is it acceptable to drive on publically funded federally owned freeways? It's a definate catch-22.
No its not. The feds dont own the roads, they squat on them. Anyone who removed the feds from the roads would be doing a great service to humanity. You belong, they don't.