30 Dec 2012, 2:20 pm
30 Dec 2012, 2:32 pm
Raptor wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor's liberalism is showing today. 
No, a liberal wouldn't even want them doing any work inside the prison. Better to spend the taxpayer dollar on food instead of growing it and having a true feeling of self worth and accomplishment...
To some extent, political liberalism (as the term is currently understood) is about creating dependence on the State.
On the other hand conservatism (in the sense of Crony Rule) is about abusing the many for the benefit of the few. It is about socializing losses and privatizing profits.
Neither position is really right for a health and human society.
ruveyn
30 Dec 2012, 11:41 pm
30 Dec 2012, 11:50 pm
31 Dec 2012, 2:19 am
31 Dec 2012, 6:11 am
31 Dec 2012, 9:30 am
31 Dec 2012, 2:05 pm
31 Dec 2012, 2:07 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
A Liberal would hire janitors from outside to come in and clean the toilets?
At three times the minimum wage...
31 Dec 2012, 11:01 pm
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,692
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
01 Jan 2013, 11:41 am
03 Jan 2013, 1:53 pm
03 Jan 2013, 10:23 pm
03 Jan 2013, 10:27 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
I went to the optometrist yesterday, and saw a pair of frames that I liked, but I couldn't have them. The frames were in a section reserved solely for Medicaid patients, and had been made by prisoners.
Since free Americans don't produce frames anyway (everything else comes from China, Italy or Austria), I think that American prison frames should be made available to the public. Heck, we're spending a fortune to keep millions of our countrymen locked away. We might as well get some benefit out of the situation.
Since free Americans don't produce frames anyway (everything else comes from China, Italy or Austria), I think that American prison frames should be made available to the public. Heck, we're spending a fortune to keep millions of our countrymen locked away. We might as well get some benefit out of the situation.
So now you're encouraging commercial slave labor just to have nice frames.
I guess it just depends on what side of the bread the butter is on....
03 Jan 2013, 10:48 pm
visagrunt wrote:
Exploitation of prison labour, and the market distortion that results is, I suggest, a direct result of small-government activism.
Government turns prisons over to private interests, to get them off the books. The public service has instantly shrunk by the number of prison guards and support workers that used to be paid directly from the public purse. The private interests then look to monetize the prison. Well, government still pays to house inmates. But now government pays one "incarceration fee" per prisoner, instead of paying for guards, workers, food and electricity, etc. And private prison owners can still turn around and supplement that income, paying the result to their shareholders by way of dividends.
Private interests that own prisons have an interest in fully populated prisons--bigger fee income, and larger workforce to exploit. And so they put money into ad campaigns to convince the public that danger lurks around every corner, and that the only way to protect society is to, "lock 'em up and throw away the key."
Three strikes laws don't make communities safer. But they make prison owners richer.
Mandatory minimum sentences don't deter crime. But they make prison owners richer.
The war on drugs doesn't combat drug use. But it makes prison owners richer.
And the Amercian public continues to believe that public safety depends on a "tough on crime" agenda. Pathetic.
Government turns prisons over to private interests, to get them off the books. The public service has instantly shrunk by the number of prison guards and support workers that used to be paid directly from the public purse. The private interests then look to monetize the prison. Well, government still pays to house inmates. But now government pays one "incarceration fee" per prisoner, instead of paying for guards, workers, food and electricity, etc. And private prison owners can still turn around and supplement that income, paying the result to their shareholders by way of dividends.
Private interests that own prisons have an interest in fully populated prisons--bigger fee income, and larger workforce to exploit. And so they put money into ad campaigns to convince the public that danger lurks around every corner, and that the only way to protect society is to, "lock 'em up and throw away the key."
Three strikes laws don't make communities safer. But they make prison owners richer.
Mandatory minimum sentences don't deter crime. But they make prison owners richer.
The war on drugs doesn't combat drug use. But it makes prison owners richer.
And the Amercian public continues to believe that public safety depends on a "tough on crime" agenda. Pathetic.
I'll agree with you on one thing: That the corrections system (and all executive functions of law and justice) should strictly be a government function because that does fall within the role of government IMHO.
That aside, NOT being tough on crime obviously isn't the answer to lower crime. Either they get caught and locked up for a long time or we armed citizens deal with them more terminally when they come our way. Either way something has to be done and letting them run wild or appeasing them somehow isn't the answer.
One thing I am very weary of is the war on drugs. I'm generally against hard substance abuse but for all the people that get killed, (innocent or guilty) and incarcerated every year it's just not worth it. It never was worth it.
..........Says the boy who lied about the German pirates.
04 Jan 2013, 9:19 am
