6 ms·

> Me? Thanks for your sacrifice. What if I am not willing to pay? Will I be sent in prison? That'd be pretty ironic.

HarryHirsch 9y ago
Americans manage crime by moving away from it into the next county. Don't worry, you'll get to pay anyhow through a longer commute and a HOA-mandated minimum enclosed floor space.
- sova 9y ago
  If only we analysed actual costs and not just numerical metrics!
minikites 9y ago
I'm "not willing" to pay for a lot of things our government does but that's how society works, you don't get to pick and choose individual line items.
- grondilu 9y ago
  I was pointing out the paradox that even in the fantasy where there is no crime because everyone gets "free housing and food", there will always be people who refuse to pay for housing and feeding other people.
  - kasey_junk 9y ago
    Reductive arguments rarely hold up in the real world. It is not true that if we had a great universal safety net there would be no crime. But it's also not true that advocating for a rebalance of the resources going into this space towards prevention and away from punishment is arguing for mass wealth theft. There is no paradox in that.
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
Do you think the cost of the program would be less than the 30k per person you're already paying? If it were less, would you pay? Or is more of principal thing?
- Taek 9y ago
  Not to mention the gdp boost. If half those in prison instead end up with jobs, we have a more functional society. Even if they aren't paying taxes they are still helping the economy.
vacri 9y ago
Well, if you're not willing to pay your current tax that already goes towards funding prisons, you'll eventually be sent there as well. It's not that ironic.
- grondilu 9y ago
  "We should give money to people so that nobody feels miserable enough to commit crime and we won't have to put them in prison." -> "But what about those who refuse to pay?" -> "We'll put them in prison". That's the irony.
  - skewart 9y ago
    "We should pay lots of money to keep people who have committed minor crimes locked up in prison for a long time just so we can pretend we're making the world safer." -> "But what about those who refuse to pay?" -> "We'll put them in prison". That's the further irony. You're already paying lots of money to keep too many people in prison. The poster back up the thread was simply suggesting a cheaper alternative that would save you money.

Americans manage crime by moving away from it into the next county. Don't worry, you'll get to pay anyhow through a longer commute and a HOA-mandated minimum enclosed floor space.

sova 9y ago
If only we analysed actual costs and not just numerical metrics!

minikites 9y ago

I'm "not willing" to pay for a lot of things our government does but that's how society works, you don't get to pick and choose individual line items.

grondilu 9y ago
I was pointing out the paradox that even in the fantasy where there is no crime because everyone gets "free housing and food", there will always be people who refuse to pay for housing and feeding other people.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  Reductive arguments rarely hold up in the real world. It is not true that if we had a great universal safety net there would be no crime. But it's also not true that advocating for a rebalance of the resources going into this space towards prevention and away from punishment is arguing for mass wealth theft. There is no paradox in that.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

Do you think the cost of the program would be less than the 30k per person you're already paying? If it were less, would you pay? Or is more of principal thing?

Taek 9y ago
Not to mention the gdp boost. If half those in prison instead end up with jobs, we have a more functional society. Even if they aren't paying taxes they are still helping the economy.

vacri 9y ago

Well, if you're not willing to pay your current tax that already goes towards funding prisons, you'll eventually be sent there as well. It's not that ironic.

grondilu 9y ago
"We should give money to people so that nobody feels miserable enough to commit crime and we won't have to put them in prison." -> "But what about those who refuse to pay?" -> "We'll put them in prison". That's the irony.
- skewart 9y ago
  "We should pay lots of money to keep people who have committed minor crimes locked up in prison for a long time just so we can pretend we're making the world safer." -> "But what about those who refuse to pay?" -> "We'll put them in prison". That's the further irony. You're already paying lots of money to keep too many people in prison. The poster back up the thread was simply suggesting a cheaper alternative that would save you money.