Quote from Cutten:
The big difference is one of consent. No one consents to pay 90% tax, no one consents to a draft. EVERY customer of credit card companies consented to get into debt and agreed to the terms and conditions.
Doing something harmful against someone's consent is generally considered immoral. Whereas the consent of a counterparty is generally a pretty good justification for doing the activity in question.
To use your analogy correctly, you would have to apply it to someone who *voluntarily moved* to a country which had 90% tax...and then later complained about paying it. Or someone who volunteered for the army, then wanted to quit as soon as a war broke out.
What would you think of such a person? I'd think they were pretty fucking dumb, to be honest. I don't see any problem with calling them a loser, deadbeat, hypocrite, yellow-belly etc.
Well, if you really don't like a subset of humanity you should not associate with them in this thread !! I'd like you to exercise your discretion and stop posting here, otherwise you are just another monkey in a cage throwing shit at the crowd

