3 ms·

From a fairly basic set of morals, both privatized prisons and health care are obviously wrong. Heavy rules and regulation could reduce the problem somewhat, bu

From a fairly basic set of morals, both privatized prisons and health care are obviously wrong. Heavy rules and regulation could reduce the problem somewhat, but fundamentally, you have a business that wishes to profit. In terms of health care, it is providing less and charging more. In terms of prison, it's incarcerating more and spending less / treating worse. The US is IMO far into coo-coo land on the approach to both, and with so many of the things that make no sense there, it's deeply rooted in systemic racism.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
> From a fairly basic set of morals... obviously wrong... "Privatized" prisons are a typical distraction from the deeper problems. California's prison system sterilized women as late as 2010, and those were public prisons. The state of Texas saved a little money by pulling inmates' teeth and putting them on liquid diets instead of supplying dentures, and only just started to reverse course in 2018. Even private actors actively conspiring to exploit people have a hard time matching the sadistic cruelty that the public and the law enforcement apparatus train on those who it has deemed un-peopled — even many of those merely accused of crimes, and not yet tried.
- okamiueru 5y ago
  There are certainly more than one set of problems indeed. I suppose that was your point, and not just a whataboutism? Edit: To clarify, since I assume the immediate downvote was from the parent. A "typical distraction from deeper problems" is not relevant here, as, I am in fact, explicitly, and quite deliberately pointing out the moral issues of privatized prisons and health care. The definition of the logical fallacy I am asking whether or not you intended is the "attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument". Now, as I mentioned, I do not think the issues you've pointed out are non-existent, or non-problematic, they are just irrelevant to the issue and point I made. So, if what you wanted was to give particular examples of issues in non-private institutions, then, by all means. I don't see how that relates, and it would be a pretty spot on example of a whataboutism.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
    Pretty sure the person you're responding was to suggesting that your argument is missing the forest for the trees. That privatized prisons is a lesser evil when considering all the evils wrought upon those imprisoned be they in a public or private prison.
    - okamiueru 5y ago
      Ah, I see. Well, thank for clarifying. My argument was however that, by not explaining what this "larger evil" is, and just giving examples that exist and are equally problematic, if not more, in private prisons, while at the same time not addressing my point, which was the moral aspect of profiting from incarceration... That the response I got seemed disingenuous or unrelated? I don't know. People seem to downvoted anything that isn't pro USA. Just see my other comment. I took the time to answer how this doesn't apply to food production, and also got downvoted without explanation. So, maybe this isn't the website for thoughtful discussions that it once was. Arguing the immorality of private prisons is not the same as arguing the morality of public prisons. The response I got seemed based on an assumption that I argued the latter, and is a logical fallacy. A: profit on prison population has significant moral problems B: public prisons exploit workers in the US! A: well... That's, bad too. And, it's a bit tiresome. I'm pointing out something that is pretty obvious, yet, instead of some argument that can be refuted, my argument is made to be something different. And that's the crux of it. People don't like that their constitution explicitly allows forced labour of incarcerated people, aka slavery. I wouldn't like it either. It's immoral and wrong. Put it under a for profit business? Even worse... I mean. What counter argument can you possibly have. So, of course people will attempt to refute it with logical fallacies instead.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
        I've down voted you for complaining about votes. It detracts from the quality of the discussion and is against the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I'm glad I was able to clarify something for you, but I have nothing else to add.
gruez 5y ago
>From a fairly basic set of morals, both privatized prisons and health care are obviously wrong. [...] In terms of health care, it is providing less and charging more. In terms of prison, it's incarcerating more and spending less / treating worse. Can't you extended this argument to most things? ie. "privatized food production is obviously wrong because you're providing less and charging more"
- okamiueru 5y ago
  For food production, the intention is that at least the mechanics of capitalism can mitigate bad products. Incarceration has multiple purposes in a society, to which one can argue over the effect or desire, but the main ones are: - Person who did bad thing should be punished - People should not want to do bad things because that would lead to punishment - People who do bad things should be stopped from doing more bad things - People who have done bad things should learn and/or be given the means to do things differently The last one is pretty big in a lot of places outside the US, and vice versa for the first one. Regardless, the difference between incarcerating people to fulfill these functions, and creating a product for people to buy, are fundamentally different in a capitalistic setting. Private businesses wish to maximize profit. Then, one should consider the effect of this in each case. So let's do that. Food? Well, you make the process cheaper or more effective, and otherwise there are regulations in place in order to not cause harm or deceive. You try to get as many as possible to buy your product. However, if you do not make a product that people want, then, you don't get to sell it. Whether or not one thinks capitalism is a good thing, one could argue that this in its intention, can function OK. Prisons? How do you maximize profit? The selling point is to also make it more effective. This is indeed OK. The moral problem is the other parts of maximizing profit: increasing the prison population, spending less on treating the prison population, less on education and rehabilitation, why not also make them do stuff? All of this would increase the profit margin. As I mentioned, rules and regulation can mitigate this, similar to how they can exist for food in terms of not using harmful ingredients, etc. But fundamentally, there is a moral component to how one treats other people, that doesn't exist for how one produces a product. To answer your question succinctly: no. Not unless it's inmates making carrot soup through forced labour.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

> From a fairly basic set of morals... obviously wrong... "Privatized" prisons are a typical distraction from the deeper problems. California's prison system sterilized women as late as 2010, and those were public prisons. The state of Texas saved a little money by pulling inmates' teeth and putting them on liquid diets instead of supplying dentures, and only just started to reverse course in 2018. Even private actors actively conspiring to exploit people have a hard time matching the sadistic cruelty that the public and the law enforcement apparatus train on those who it has deemed un-peopled — even many of those merely accused of crimes, and not yet tried.

okamiueru 5y ago
There are certainly more than one set of problems indeed. I suppose that was your point, and not just a whataboutism? Edit: To clarify, since I assume the immediate downvote was from the parent. A "typical distraction from deeper problems" is not relevant here, as, I am in fact, explicitly, and quite deliberately pointing out the moral issues of privatized prisons and health care. The definition of the logical fallacy I am asking whether or not you intended is the "attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument". Now, as I mentioned, I do not think the issues you've pointed out are non-existent, or non-problematic, they are just irrelevant to the issue and point I made. So, if what you wanted was to give particular examples of issues in non-private institutions, then, by all means. I don't see how that relates, and it would be a pretty spot on example of a whataboutism.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
  Pretty sure the person you're responding was to suggesting that your argument is missing the forest for the trees. That privatized prisons is a lesser evil when considering all the evils wrought upon those imprisoned be they in a public or private prison.
  - okamiueru 5y ago
    Ah, I see. Well, thank for clarifying. My argument was however that, by not explaining what this "larger evil" is, and just giving examples that exist and are equally problematic, if not more, in private prisons, while at the same time not addressing my point, which was the moral aspect of profiting from incarceration... That the response I got seemed disingenuous or unrelated? I don't know. People seem to downvoted anything that isn't pro USA. Just see my other comment. I took the time to answer how this doesn't apply to food production, and also got downvoted without explanation. So, maybe this isn't the website for thoughtful discussions that it once was. Arguing the immorality of private prisons is not the same as arguing the morality of public prisons. The response I got seemed based on an assumption that I argued the latter, and is a logical fallacy. A: profit on prison population has significant moral problems B: public prisons exploit workers in the US! A: well... That's, bad too. And, it's a bit tiresome. I'm pointing out something that is pretty obvious, yet, instead of some argument that can be refuted, my argument is made to be something different. And that's the crux of it. People don't like that their constitution explicitly allows forced labour of incarcerated people, aka slavery. I wouldn't like it either. It's immoral and wrong. Put it under a for profit business? Even worse... I mean. What counter argument can you possibly have. So, of course people will attempt to refute it with logical fallacies instead.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
      I've down voted you for complaining about votes. It detracts from the quality of the discussion and is against the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I'm glad I was able to clarify something for you, but I have nothing else to add.

gruez 5y ago

>From a fairly basic set of morals, both privatized prisons and health care are obviously wrong. [...] In terms of health care, it is providing less and charging more. In terms of prison, it's incarcerating more and spending less / treating worse. Can't you extended this argument to most things? ie. "privatized food production is obviously wrong because you're providing less and charging more"

okamiueru 5y ago
For food production, the intention is that at least the mechanics of capitalism can mitigate bad products. Incarceration has multiple purposes in a society, to which one can argue over the effect or desire, but the main ones are: - Person who did bad thing should be punished - People should not want to do bad things because that would lead to punishment - People who do bad things should be stopped from doing more bad things - People who have done bad things should learn and/or be given the means to do things differently The last one is pretty big in a lot of places outside the US, and vice versa for the first one. Regardless, the difference between incarcerating people to fulfill these functions, and creating a product for people to buy, are fundamentally different in a capitalistic setting. Private businesses wish to maximize profit. Then, one should consider the effect of this in each case. So let's do that. Food? Well, you make the process cheaper or more effective, and otherwise there are regulations in place in order to not cause harm or deceive. You try to get as many as possible to buy your product. However, if you do not make a product that people want, then, you don't get to sell it. Whether or not one thinks capitalism is a good thing, one could argue that this in its intention, can function OK. Prisons? How do you maximize profit? The selling point is to also make it more effective. This is indeed OK. The moral problem is the other parts of maximizing profit: increasing the prison population, spending less on treating the prison population, less on education and rehabilitation, why not also make them do stuff? All of this would increase the profit margin. As I mentioned, rules and regulation can mitigate this, similar to how they can exist for food in terms of not using harmful ingredients, etc. But fundamentally, there is a moral component to how one treats other people, that doesn't exist for how one produces a product. To answer your question succinctly: no. Not unless it's inmates making carrot soup through forced labour.