5 ms·

The prisons want to ban gambling and currency counters (coins, chips, etc) in order to disrupt the rise of debt-based gang activity. "The house always wins" tu

The prisons want to ban gambling and currency counters (coins, chips, etc) in order to disrupt the rise of debt-based gang activity. "The house always wins" turns a prison into an organized structure of debtors and owners fairly rapidly, I'd imagine. And you can't fault the far fewer security guards from wanting to avoid a face-off with a unified enemy.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The prisons want to ban gambling and currency counters (coins, chips, etc) in order to disrupt the rise of debt-based gang activity. Well, also because in most states gambling is itself (entirely or, at least, without a whole lot of bureaucratic compliance stuff) illegal, and it would be very odd to reverse that prohibition in prisons.
pessimizer 9y ago
Well, there's no house in non-casino gambling; it's just in the nature of gambling that some people will lose and some people will win, and some people will borrow money to continue to play when they shouldn't. The only mechanism to force repayment of loans without government is violence or monopoly.
- nybble41 9y ago
  The only mechanism to force repayment of loans without government is violence or monopoly. Nonsense. First, while this is phrased to position government as an alternative to violence, forcing repayment of loans with government involves both violence and a monopoly—a monopoly on "legitimate" violence being the main factor which all governments have in common. Second, government cannot be relied upon to force repayment of loans (e.g. they allow debts to be discharged in bankruptcy). Third, social pressure can effectively force people to repay their loans without resorting to violence. As things stand today, the main factor that keeps people from skipping out on loans is not the threat that the government might get involved, or a more general fear of violence, but rather the impact it would have on their credit score—in other words, the risk of acquiring a reputation as someone who does not repay their debts, and consequently losing access to future credit.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The prisons want to ban gambling and currency counters (coins, chips, etc) in order to disrupt the rise of debt-based gang activity. Well, also because in most states gambling is itself (entirely or, at least, without a whole lot of bureaucratic compliance stuff) illegal, and it would be very odd to reverse that prohibition in prisons.

pessimizer 9y ago

Well, there's no house in non-casino gambling; it's just in the nature of gambling that some people will lose and some people will win, and some people will borrow money to continue to play when they shouldn't. The only mechanism to force repayment of loans without government is violence or monopoly.

nybble41 9y ago
The only mechanism to force repayment of loans without government is violence or monopoly. Nonsense. First, while this is phrased to position government as an alternative to violence, forcing repayment of loans with government involves both violence and a monopoly—a monopoly on "legitimate" violence being the main factor which all governments have in common. Second, government cannot be relied upon to force repayment of loans (e.g. they allow debts to be discharged in bankruptcy). Third, social pressure can effectively force people to repay their loans without resorting to violence. As things stand today, the main factor that keeps people from skipping out on loans is not the threat that the government might get involved, or a more general fear of violence, but rather the impact it would have on their credit score—in other words, the risk of acquiring a reputation as someone who does not repay their debts, and consequently losing access to future credit.