5 ms·

> I propose to instead privatize the detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime. Yes, because privatization of the prison system worked out so well, didn'

> I propose to instead privatize the detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime. Yes, because privatization of the prison system worked out so well, didn't it? So let's go the whole hog and privatize the entire justice system.

nickik 8y ago
These two things are very different and if you don't have any smart arguments then why post at all?
- Retric 8y ago
  'are very different' How so? You are also making an argument, but I don't follow the reasoning.
  - nickik 8y ago
    Putting people into a house and stopping them from leaving the house is the same as 'detection, prosecution'. Pretty sure there are pretty different people who handle these things. And as the punishment proposed is about money, that is also incredibly different then 'stop people from leaving house'. So, other then that the functionality is now with the government and that one proposes to privatize it. What do they have in common from a functional perspective?
    - Retric 8y ago
      Ok, the argument about private prisons is not that they fail to detain people. It's a question of second order effects relating to different incentives of private institutions vs government organizations. Governments see prisoners and thus prisons as a net loss because they pay for them. Private companies see prisons and thus prisoners as a profit center because they are paid to detain them.
      - nickik 8y ago
        If the people who put criminal in prison had to pay for it with their own money, there would not be as many people in prison as there would be far more efficient ways to deal with the situation in 70-90% of cases. That's the whole point of the argument about intensives. The very problem here is not the privatization but rather that the government wants to imprison so many people. The very reason the US has private prisons is because there were to many prisoners and many governments couldn't handle it. A ineffective legal system and bad laws created the problem. People focus to much on privatization. Government run prisons have many of the same intensives and are often equally as bad. Government prison guard unions for example are amounts the strongest supporters of harsher punishments including for things like weed. But honestly, so long as the laws are bad, no system will really improve anything systematically.
        Retric 8y ago
        > and many governments couldn't handle it Or, people lobbied to have private prisons so they could make money. There are incentives to making things private even if it's less efficient to do so because politicians are not spending their own money and companies profit from lobbing more than they profit from not doing so. > so long as the laws are bad Laws are an outgrowth of the incentives given to politicians. Breaking the system so people can benefit from fixing it is a very time tested strategy. The core problem is privatization does not directly change the rules of the game. You still have everything wrong with government and increase it by everything wrong with companies instead of replacing those same problems. Consider, the US has both a social security system (SS) AND multiple tax deductible private retirement accounts (Roth, 401K).
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  I think the conversation would benefit from you explaining the important distinctions that you think the GP failed to make.
- mikestew 8y ago
  Three things, actually, one of which "prisons" fall under. I find it a quite reasonable argument to say that privatizing one of those three things hasn't worked out so well, so why would we think privatizing all three would be a good idea? And you might want to dial back the snark a bit. Parent might not be the most substantive thing I read today, but your final phrase was uncalled for.
- fao_ 8y ago
  If the poster above you doesn't have any smart arguments, you don't have any arguments. A counter-argument is only a counter-argument through presenting an alternate (and supposedly-superior in some way) point of view. You haven't fleshed out anything, just posted a snarky comment on the internet.
johndevor 8y ago
Isn't it the justice system that fills the prisons?
- rosser 8y ago
  Many private prison contracts have terms requiring a minimum number of prisoners. The state is thus contractually obligated to convict people. How is this OK?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Ooooor, move people from the public system to the private one, creating inefficiencies. Let's not call conspiracy, this is getting silly.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - nickik 8y ago
    Yes. But that is only possible because the justice system allows that. I totally agree that these contracts should not be legal. But the argument is still correct overall, the prisons don't put people in prison. And the US had overpopulated prisons before private prisons. In fact, the VERY REASON why private prisons were established was because there were so many prisoners that the government were just not efficient enough to organize it at that scale in some cases. Fundamentally it is the bad laws and the bad legal system that leads to this.

nickik 8y ago

These two things are very different and if you don't have any smart arguments then why post at all?

Retric 8y ago
'are very different' How so? You are also making an argument, but I don't follow the reasoning.
- nickik 8y ago
  Putting people into a house and stopping them from leaving the house is the same as 'detection, prosecution'. Pretty sure there are pretty different people who handle these things. And as the punishment proposed is about money, that is also incredibly different then 'stop people from leaving house'. So, other then that the functionality is now with the government and that one proposes to privatize it. What do they have in common from a functional perspective?
  - Retric 8y ago
    Ok, the argument about private prisons is not that they fail to detain people. It's a question of second order effects relating to different incentives of private institutions vs government organizations. Governments see prisoners and thus prisons as a net loss because they pay for them. Private companies see prisons and thus prisoners as a profit center because they are paid to detain them.
    - nickik 8y ago
      If the people who put criminal in prison had to pay for it with their own money, there would not be as many people in prison as there would be far more efficient ways to deal with the situation in 70-90% of cases. That's the whole point of the argument about intensives. The very problem here is not the privatization but rather that the government wants to imprison so many people. The very reason the US has private prisons is because there were to many prisoners and many governments couldn't handle it. A ineffective legal system and bad laws created the problem. People focus to much on privatization. Government run prisons have many of the same intensives and are often equally as bad. Government prison guard unions for example are amounts the strongest supporters of harsher punishments including for things like weed. But honestly, so long as the laws are bad, no system will really improve anything systematically.
      - Retric 8y ago
        > and many governments couldn't handle it Or, people lobbied to have private prisons so they could make money. There are incentives to making things private even if it's less efficient to do so because politicians are not spending their own money and companies profit from lobbing more than they profit from not doing so. > so long as the laws are bad Laws are an outgrowth of the incentives given to politicians. Breaking the system so people can benefit from fixing it is a very time tested strategy. The core problem is privatization does not directly change the rules of the game. You still have everything wrong with government and increase it by everything wrong with companies instead of replacing those same problems. Consider, the US has both a social security system (SS) AND multiple tax deductible private retirement accounts (Roth, 401K).
DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
I think the conversation would benefit from you explaining the important distinctions that you think the GP failed to make.
mikestew 8y ago
Three things, actually, one of which "prisons" fall under. I find it a quite reasonable argument to say that privatizing one of those three things hasn't worked out so well, so why would we think privatizing all three would be a good idea? And you might want to dial back the snark a bit. Parent might not be the most substantive thing I read today, but your final phrase was uncalled for.
fao_ 8y ago
If the poster above you doesn't have any smart arguments, you don't have any arguments. A counter-argument is only a counter-argument through presenting an alternate (and supposedly-superior in some way) point of view. You haven't fleshed out anything, just posted a snarky comment on the internet.

johndevor 8y ago

Isn't it the justice system that fills the prisons?

rosser 8y ago
Many private prison contracts have terms requiring a minimum number of prisoners. The state is thus contractually obligated to convict people. How is this OK?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Ooooor, move people from the public system to the private one, creating inefficiencies. Let's not call conspiracy, this is getting silly.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- nickik 8y ago
  Yes. But that is only possible because the justice system allows that. I totally agree that these contracts should not be legal. But the argument is still correct overall, the prisons don't put people in prison. And the US had overpopulated prisons before private prisons. In fact, the VERY REASON why private prisons were established was because there were so many prisoners that the government were just not efficient enough to organize it at that scale in some cases. Fundamentally it is the bad laws and the bad legal system that leads to this.