Bethany Dutch wrote:I also don't really view mortgage debt automatically as a bad thing.
I have a mortgage on my land. If I didn't have my land, I wouldn't have been able to build my home (which I built with cash/sweat equity). If I didn't have that mortgage, I'd probably still be renting and throwing money away every month.
While I do agree that it is important to do everything you can to pay off a mortgage asap, sometimes taking on a mortgage is the only way to get out of the renting trap. I'd much rather be paying monthly for a mortgage than monthly rent. Now having said that, it is my intent to use my land as a way to give my kids a way to have a home w/o a mortgage, but I think sometimes leveraging a mortgage is probably the quickest path to actually being debt free.
If I hadn't been able to build my house with cash, I would still be renting and probably would still have consumer debt. Having built my home with cash has allowed me to pay off all my consumer debt... but I had to get that mortgage on the land to get to that point.
Stacy Witscher wrote:Jackie - In my experience, not all bills are voluntary. For example, around here if an ambulance is used to transport you, you are legally reasonable for the bill regardless of whether or not you chose to take it. But that aside, I find things way more complicated than you, and rarely attach morality or ethics to payments to corporations. It's extremely freeing.
Lucrecia Anderson wrote:
Kathleen Sanderson wrote:Someone up there seems to think that there is nothing morally wrong with murder in order to get food if you are starving...thought I might address that a little bit.
There are times when it is morally right to kill another human being: if you are fighting in a war, you have to kill your enemies or they will kill you (this generally only pertains to soldiers but under some circumstances civilians can get caught up in the fighting). And if you or yours are being attacked, you have a moral obligation -- not just a right, but an obligation -- to protect them with all force necessary to neutralize the threat.
Other than those particular situations, it is *never* morally correct to commit murder. If you failed to be prepared or to develop skills, or to overcome laziness, and you failed to make sure that you could feed yourself and your family/tribe, that is on you. The fellow who did prepare or develop skills, and who has a good work ethic, has no moral obligation to die in order for his provisions to feed you. He does have a moral obligation to be armed so he can fight off the parasites who have that mind set.
There, that's my two cents on that subject!
If someone thinks murdering your neighbors so you can steal their stuff is "moral" then I don't think they have a good understanding of the word. However you can be sure LOTS of people will find reasons to "justify" robbing and even killing their neighbors.
Having said that, in a serious long term shtf situation the standards for justifiable homicide will drastically change (unless you are in Texas, then it stays about the same). Theft and the like will probably be a capital offense simply because a) stealing someone's food/supplies can be the same as killing them and b) no one will have the time/energy/resources to incarcerate criminals.