4 ms·

s/employed/enslaved/g One thing we can do right now is start to use the correct language. Involuntary labor is not employment and we shouldn't call it such. Th

s/employed/enslaved/g One thing we can do right now is start to use the correct language. Involuntary labor is not employment and we shouldn't call it such. There is even a market where you can buy their products. https://unicor.gov/index.aspx https://unicor.gov/index.aspx You can even outsource work to prison slaves. https://vimeo.com/125010485 https://vimeo.com/125010485 There are even private companies that have prison slaves work for them and keep the profits. http://vltp.net/casinos-prison-labor-strange-bedfellows/ http://vltp.net/casinos-prison-labor-strange-bedfellows/ Just like slavery did in the American south pre-1865, prison slave labor depresses wages in any industry it operates in.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
modells 8y ago
It's disgusting but a reality that the 13th amendment loophole expressly permits slavery of convicts. And so the Civil War was won by the South since Plantations 2.0 continue unimpeded. Some counties' DA's lock up as many people as possible in order for officials to earn kickbacks from private prisons run by the likes of GEO Group.
mywittyname 8y ago
It should be noted that the US Constitution allows prisoners to be treated as slaves: > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Just because it is in the constitution doesn't make it right. That is a document designed to be changed, after all. Women couldn't vote for quite some time. Some people weren't fully human. Only landowners could vote. And so on. Furthermore, it being in the constitution still doesn't detract from it being slavery.
  - ghayes 8y ago
    Also, the Constitution is a minimum bound on rights, not a maximum. We don't need to change the Constitution to make just laws.
  - YokoZar 8y ago
    We were comfortable calling slavery by what it was back then, and we shouldn't shy away from the term if that's what's still happening. The constitution defining slavery doesn't make it right. But it does imply we shouldn't mince words.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    Even if we accept that it being in the Constitution makes it right, it is permitting slavery as a punishment and not as an expedient.
    - arthur_pryor 8y ago
      i agree that's one way to read it, but it seems plausible to me that the intent really was just as a winnable end-run around abolition.
ahelwer 8y ago
But thanks to Reaganomics, prisons turned to profits Cause free labor is the cornerstone of US economics Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison You think I am bullshitting, then read the 13th Amendment Involuntary servitude and slavery it prohibits That's why they giving drug offenders time in double digits Killer Mike, Reagan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU
packet_nerd 8y ago
Are prisoners forced to work? What happens if they physically refuse? End up having to serve more time?
- inetknght 8y ago
  Well if you "volunteer" to work you can get less time. So yes, if you physically refuse then you serve more time.
  - liaukovv 8y ago
    "Not giving something"(term reduction in this case) and "taking something away" are very-very different things. You would have to be incredibly entitled to confuse them.
    - subway 8y ago
      You would have to be incredibly naive to believe this statement stands on its own, without evaluating implementation details and expectations of the parties involved.
    - danShumway 8y ago
      The problem is that many "taking something away" cases in prison can be rephrased as "not giving something." Am I taking away your visitation rights, or am I just not giving them to you? Am I taking away your food, or am I just not giving you food? Expectation and norms play a role in this. Suppose a judge gives a prisoner a higher sentence under the expectation that they'll work it off. They assume the prisoner will work 7 days a week, so they give a prisoner 6 years instead of 3. Now suppose another judge gives a prisoner the correct sentence (3 years), but then says, "for every day of your original sentence that you don't work, you will spend one additional day in prison." You're arguing that there's a fundamental difference between these two scenarios, but what is it? It's certainly not a difference for the prisoners -- they have the exact same incentive structure, and their outcomes and choices are exactly the same. It's not any different for the people benefiting from their labor; the work that they produce will look exactly the same. It doesn't even reveal any compelling differences in the judges' motivations -- both judges might reach their decision for the exact same same reasons. So where is the difference?
garfieldnate 8y ago
It's interesting to note that the Geneva convention does not allow this treatment in the case of POWs. Wikipedia says German POWs in the US during WWII were required to be paid military wages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_United_States#Work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

modells 8y ago

It's disgusting but a reality that the 13th amendment loophole expressly permits slavery of convicts. And so the Civil War was won by the South since Plantations 2.0 continue unimpeded. Some counties' DA's lock up as many people as possible in order for officials to earn kickbacks from private prisons run by the likes of GEO Group.

mywittyname 8y ago

It should be noted that the US Constitution allows prisoners to be treated as slaves: > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Just because it is in the constitution doesn't make it right. That is a document designed to be changed, after all. Women couldn't vote for quite some time. Some people weren't fully human. Only landowners could vote. And so on. Furthermore, it being in the constitution still doesn't detract from it being slavery.
- ghayes 8y ago
  Also, the Constitution is a minimum bound on rights, not a maximum. We don't need to change the Constitution to make just laws.
- YokoZar 8y ago
  We were comfortable calling slavery by what it was back then, and we shouldn't shy away from the term if that's what's still happening. The constitution defining slavery doesn't make it right. But it does imply we shouldn't mince words.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Even if we accept that it being in the Constitution makes it right, it is permitting slavery as a punishment and not as an expedient.
  - arthur_pryor 8y ago
    i agree that's one way to read it, but it seems plausible to me that the intent really was just as a winnable end-run around abolition.

ahelwer 8y ago

But thanks to Reaganomics, prisons turned to profits Cause free labor is the cornerstone of US economics Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison You think I am bullshitting, then read the 13th Amendment Involuntary servitude and slavery it prohibits That's why they giving drug offenders time in double digits Killer Mike, Reagan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU

packet_nerd 8y ago

Are prisoners forced to work? What happens if they physically refuse? End up having to serve more time?

inetknght 8y ago
Well if you "volunteer" to work you can get less time. So yes, if you physically refuse then you serve more time.
- liaukovv 8y ago
  "Not giving something"(term reduction in this case) and "taking something away" are very-very different things. You would have to be incredibly entitled to confuse them.
  - subway 8y ago
    You would have to be incredibly naive to believe this statement stands on its own, without evaluating implementation details and expectations of the parties involved.
  - danShumway 8y ago
    The problem is that many "taking something away" cases in prison can be rephrased as "not giving something." Am I taking away your visitation rights, or am I just not giving them to you? Am I taking away your food, or am I just not giving you food? Expectation and norms play a role in this. Suppose a judge gives a prisoner a higher sentence under the expectation that they'll work it off. They assume the prisoner will work 7 days a week, so they give a prisoner 6 years instead of 3. Now suppose another judge gives a prisoner the correct sentence (3 years), but then says, "for every day of your original sentence that you don't work, you will spend one additional day in prison." You're arguing that there's a fundamental difference between these two scenarios, but what is it? It's certainly not a difference for the prisoners -- they have the exact same incentive structure, and their outcomes and choices are exactly the same. It's not any different for the people benefiting from their labor; the work that they produce will look exactly the same. It doesn't even reveal any compelling differences in the judges' motivations -- both judges might reach their decision for the exact same same reasons. So where is the difference?

garfieldnate 8y ago

It's interesting to note that the Geneva convention does not allow this treatment in the case of POWs. Wikipedia says German POWs in the US during WWII were required to be paid military wages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_United_States#Work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the...