6 ms·

> should be the total of their debt to society I call it BS. Why should ordinary people work and pay for criminals?

jacquesm 10y ago
Because ordinary people are just as much a part of society as the criminals that society has decided to lock away. By forcing criminals to work for free society is paying in another way: that work would have been done by someone on the outside, but you can't compete with slave labor. So this is bad both for the inmates and for society from an economic point of view, and then we're side-stepping the moral issue.
- scoobydoo123 10y ago
  Not really. The basic rule of economics is that you have to give something in order to get something. Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison. What you're talking about is really a disproportion between amount of work they make (and value they produce) and the total amount of pay they receive for delivering that value.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison. Their freedom to negotiate has been taken away, therefore they do not have any choices. > What you're talking about is really a disproportion between amount of work they make (and value they produce) and the total amount of pay they receive for delivering that value. That depends on the situation but is ultimately un-important. "Basic rules of economics" have no place inside prison walls.
    - scoobydoo123 10y ago
      > That depends on the situation but is ultimately un-important It actually is very important because this is exactly what distinguishes between labour slavery and ordinary paid work. Economic rules is not something that one can decide whether it applies or not. It's like telling that mathematical axioms don't apply in prison - sure, you can make people believe that 2 + 2 = 5 but this is nothing more than just rejecting the reality.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        In ordinary paid work both sides have consideration and freedom. In this case they don't so you can't compare it to 'ordinary work', it isn't. That leaves 'forced labor' as the only other option if you feel that letting people starve to death is a viable alternative (as you did in your earlier comment). The rest of your comment is not applicable.
        scoobydoo123 10y ago
        >if you feel that letting people starve to death is a viable alternative (as you did in your earlier comment) isn't it how this works in principle for folks that are not imprisoned? (And no, I don't think this a viable alternative, although - nice job what you did here - well played).
        jacquesm 10y ago
        > isn't it how this works in principle for folks that are not imprisoned? No, it isn't that's when you go on welfare. > (And no, I don't think this a viable alternative, although - nice job what you did here - well played). I didn't 'play', you basically made a bunch of statements that are un-supportable.
        narrowrail 10y ago
        Just so you are aware, individual states have the right to prevent forced labor. For example, CO prevented forced labor in its constitution in the last election by a voter initiative.
  - Retric 10y ago
    No that's not a basic rule of economics. Monopoly Rents for example are well understood to be paid for the economic position not work done. Remember Economics studies human behavior and humans have long used slavery for example.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - darpa_escapee 10y ago
    > Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison. Do you believe the work prisoners do pay for their incarceration costs? Are you jealous that people whose freedom and agency are taken away are fed and housed by the state?
    - scoobydoo123 10y ago
      No, I'm not jealous - there is no need for personal remarks here. I'm just pointing out that it's not fair to the rest of the society. State will only be able to feed and house inmates, if it forcibly takes money from members of that society in the form of taxes. In order to give to someone, you have to take from someone else - it's that simple.
      - 8note 10y ago
        I'm not seeing anything unfair here. the society pays money to the government and in return have prisons. Society benefits from said prisons. If you're going to tackle unfairness in society, you should be aiming for the massive imbalance of wealth. Anything else is premature optimization
        scoobydoo123 10y ago
        > I'm not seeing anything unfair here Yeah, because feeding and housing drug dealers for the money taken forcibly from an average Joe who works 12h a day to provide to his family is totally fair. > the society pays money to the government and in return have prisons. Society benefits from said prisons. This is very naive way of looking at it. > you should be aiming for the massive imbalance of wealth Wow, it didn't take much time before someone had to drag this into discussion about penitentiary system.
        jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        > This is very naive way of looking at it. Why? The concept of prison is literally society funding a project to keep undesirable crime out of said society. That's fundamentally and exactly what it is. Calling that naive is like saying water being able to drown you is a naive position to hold. I suggest visiting a lawless nation to observe what paying for prison does. > Yeah, because feeding and housing drug dealers for the money taken forcibly from an average Joe who works 12h a day to provide to his family is totally fair. You seem to not grasp (a) how many "drug dealers" (ooo scary, want to get a beer and find out what a former one is like?) are, themselves, average joes working twelves to provide money for their family, (b) that arguing about fairness is laughable when you're taking the positions that you are (fair for who?), and (c) how many "average joes" comprise the population of, especially minimum security, corrections for crimes you'd roll your eyes at. I was in with a guy who waived his trial timeframe completion rights -- different states call this by different names, and NEVER waive it -- and was in the middle of year three of being held, pretrial, for passing a single $600 bad check. Yes, really. His name was Isaiah and he was a black electrician. Nobody gave a shit, and I'm going to assume you don't either based on how you're arguing this. (Blah blah, bleeding heart, I know.) That you've indicted a whole group of real people because they've ended up in corrections is the lack of perspective I was warning you about elsewhere. They are humans. Just like you. People make mistakes. You should avoid speaking about them like they're cattle and are inferior to you or "average joes." Until you truly understand that, you're way on the wrong side of this. I promise.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Because ordinary people are just as much a part of society as the criminals that society has decided to lock away. By forcing criminals to work for free society is paying in another way: that work would have been done by someone on the outside, but you can't compete with slave labor. So this is bad both for the inmates and for society from an economic point of view, and then we're side-stepping the moral issue.

scoobydoo123 10y ago
Not really. The basic rule of economics is that you have to give something in order to get something. Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison. What you're talking about is really a disproportion between amount of work they make (and value they produce) and the total amount of pay they receive for delivering that value.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison. Their freedom to negotiate has been taken away, therefore they do not have any choices. > What you're talking about is really a disproportion between amount of work they make (and value they produce) and the total amount of pay they receive for delivering that value. That depends on the situation but is ultimately un-important. "Basic rules of economics" have no place inside prison walls.
  - scoobydoo123 10y ago
    > That depends on the situation but is ultimately un-important It actually is very important because this is exactly what distinguishes between labour slavery and ordinary paid work. Economic rules is not something that one can decide whether it applies or not. It's like telling that mathematical axioms don't apply in prison - sure, you can make people believe that 2 + 2 = 5 but this is nothing more than just rejecting the reality.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      In ordinary paid work both sides have consideration and freedom. In this case they don't so you can't compare it to 'ordinary work', it isn't. That leaves 'forced labor' as the only other option if you feel that letting people starve to death is a viable alternative (as you did in your earlier comment). The rest of your comment is not applicable.
      - scoobydoo123 10y ago
        >if you feel that letting people starve to death is a viable alternative (as you did in your earlier comment) isn't it how this works in principle for folks that are not imprisoned? (And no, I don't think this a viable alternative, although - nice job what you did here - well played).
        jacquesm 10y ago
        > isn't it how this works in principle for folks that are not imprisoned? No, it isn't that's when you go on welfare. > (And no, I don't think this a viable alternative, although - nice job what you did here - well played). I didn't 'play', you basically made a bunch of statements that are un-supportable.
        narrowrail 10y ago
        Just so you are aware, individual states have the right to prevent forced labor. For example, CO prevented forced labor in its constitution in the last election by a voter initiative.
- Retric 10y ago
  No that's not a basic rule of economics. Monopoly Rents for example are well understood to be paid for the economic position not work done. Remember Economics studies human behavior and humans have long used slavery for example.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  > Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison. Do you believe the work prisoners do pay for their incarceration costs? Are you jealous that people whose freedom and agency are taken away are fed and housed by the state?
  - scoobydoo123 10y ago
    No, I'm not jealous - there is no need for personal remarks here. I'm just pointing out that it's not fair to the rest of the society. State will only be able to feed and house inmates, if it forcibly takes money from members of that society in the form of taxes. In order to give to someone, you have to take from someone else - it's that simple.
    - 8note 10y ago
      I'm not seeing anything unfair here. the society pays money to the government and in return have prisons. Society benefits from said prisons. If you're going to tackle unfairness in society, you should be aiming for the massive imbalance of wealth. Anything else is premature optimization
      - scoobydoo123 10y ago
        > I'm not seeing anything unfair here Yeah, because feeding and housing drug dealers for the money taken forcibly from an average Joe who works 12h a day to provide to his family is totally fair. > the society pays money to the government and in return have prisons. Society benefits from said prisons. This is very naive way of looking at it. > you should be aiming for the massive imbalance of wealth Wow, it didn't take much time before someone had to drag this into discussion about penitentiary system.
        jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        > This is very naive way of looking at it. Why? The concept of prison is literally society funding a project to keep undesirable crime out of said society. That's fundamentally and exactly what it is. Calling that naive is like saying water being able to drown you is a naive position to hold. I suggest visiting a lawless nation to observe what paying for prison does. > Yeah, because feeding and housing drug dealers for the money taken forcibly from an average Joe who works 12h a day to provide to his family is totally fair. You seem to not grasp (a) how many "drug dealers" (ooo scary, want to get a beer and find out what a former one is like?) are, themselves, average joes working twelves to provide money for their family, (b) that arguing about fairness is laughable when you're taking the positions that you are (fair for who?), and (c) how many "average joes" comprise the population of, especially minimum security, corrections for crimes you'd roll your eyes at. I was in with a guy who waived his trial timeframe completion rights -- different states call this by different names, and NEVER waive it -- and was in the middle of year three of being held, pretrial, for passing a single $600 bad check. Yes, really. His name was Isaiah and he was a black electrician. Nobody gave a shit, and I'm going to assume you don't either based on how you're arguing this. (Blah blah, bleeding heart, I know.) That you've indicted a whole group of real people because they've ended up in corrections is the lack of perspective I was warning you about elsewhere. They are humans. Just like you. People make mistakes. You should avoid speaking about them like they're cattle and are inferior to you or "average joes." Until you truly understand that, you're way on the wrong side of this. I promise.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]