5 ms·

"The purpose of a system is what it does". Maybe you didn't mean for your position to lead to private prisons. But it does, anyway, and that is all that matter

"The purpose of a system is what it does". Maybe you didn't mean for your position to lead to private prisons. But it does, anyway, and that is all that matters.

brigandish 5y ago
Contracting out the running of prisons by the government is a recent innovation[1]. Are we to say that government was historically small in 1983 and has remained small and then notice that somehow there are more private prisons in the US now? That's not a description I'd want to defend. The US is also not the only place where prisons are private[2], there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. big government paradise, and it has a private prison. To say either "public" or "private" and ascribe some sort of good or bad to them without providing any reasoning is presumptuous in the least, but to then tell someone what their actual position is - in your view - after making such a presumption would only be to compound an error. I know what I meant, try to focus on what you mean and fixing that before mischaracterising my views again, thank you. [1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-americas-private-prison-industry-timeline/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-amer... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/critical-look-private-prisons-overseas https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/crit...
- jessaustin 5y ago
  You claim to know what you meant, but that isn't clearly the case. GP's post was short and to the point. Your posts are long and confusing. We do have private prisons. As you note, they started under Reagan, in response to Reagan's "anti-crime" policies. Reagan is notorious for claiming to support small government and balanced budgets while actually spending us deep into deficit in order to purchase boondoggles. How are your preferences different than Reagan's?
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > Your posts are long and confusing What’s the average length of a post on HN and where does that post stand? > How are your preferences different than Reagan's? You just stated that he acted contrary to his claims, if your position is that I say I’m for small government but wish to spend, spend, spend, then I can see why you’re confused. Try dropping the assumption I’m lying, the principle of charity is a wonderful thing. More to the point, as you are confused by sarcasm in the service of proof by contradiction, I’ll rephrase: Would you claim that the government was historically small in 1983? Is today’s government smaller or bigger? How do both of your answers correlate with the increasing number of private prisons? Finally, since your answers should be no, bigger, and bigger government correlates with more private prisons, what on Earth are you on about?
    - grkvlt 5y ago
      > where does that post stand i think the bit where you talked about Sweden being in the southern hemisphere places it in the top tier of 'confusing' for me...
      - brigandish 5y ago
        Ah, a helpful comment. I meant to write there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. New Zealand, the big government paradise I can't edit now but thanks for pointing out something in a reasonable way.
        grkvlt 5y ago
        np, makes more sense now, tx.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Correlation is not causation (I hate having to post this.) This is an awful lot of words to avoid the question of whether the small-government philosophy you personally subscribe to, whatever it may be, would prefer that government contract out prison services, or run them itself. If you prefer contracts, stop arguing, if you don't, explain why you think the operation of prisons is a proper function of a small government. It's not hard.

"The purpose of a system is what it does". Maybe you didn't mean for your position to lead to private prisons. But it does, anyway, and that is all that matters.

brigandish 5y ago

Contracting out the running of prisons by the government is a recent innovation[1]. Are we to say that government was historically small in 1983 and has remained small and then notice that somehow there are more private prisons in the US now? That's not a description I'd want to defend. The US is also not the only place where prisons are private[2], there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. big government paradise, and it has a private prison. To say either "public" or "private" and ascribe some sort of good or bad to them without providing any reasoning is presumptuous in the least, but to then tell someone what their actual position is - in your view - after making such a presumption would only be to compound an error. I know what I meant, try to focus on what you mean and fixing that before mischaracterising my views again, thank you. [1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-americas-private-prison-industry-timeline/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-amer... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/critical-look-private-prisons-overseas https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/crit...

jessaustin 5y ago
You claim to know what you meant, but that isn't clearly the case. GP's post was short and to the point. Your posts are long and confusing. We do have private prisons. As you note, they started under Reagan, in response to Reagan's "anti-crime" policies. Reagan is notorious for claiming to support small government and balanced budgets while actually spending us deep into deficit in order to purchase boondoggles. How are your preferences different than Reagan's?
- brigandish 5y ago
  > Your posts are long and confusing What’s the average length of a post on HN and where does that post stand? > How are your preferences different than Reagan's? You just stated that he acted contrary to his claims, if your position is that I say I’m for small government but wish to spend, spend, spend, then I can see why you’re confused. Try dropping the assumption I’m lying, the principle of charity is a wonderful thing. More to the point, as you are confused by sarcasm in the service of proof by contradiction, I’ll rephrase: Would you claim that the government was historically small in 1983? Is today’s government smaller or bigger? How do both of your answers correlate with the increasing number of private prisons? Finally, since your answers should be no, bigger, and bigger government correlates with more private prisons, what on Earth are you on about?
  - grkvlt 5y ago
    > where does that post stand i think the bit where you talked about Sweden being in the southern hemisphere places it in the top tier of 'confusing' for me...
    - brigandish 5y ago
      Ah, a helpful comment. I meant to write there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. New Zealand, the big government paradise I can't edit now but thanks for pointing out something in a reasonable way.
      - grkvlt 5y ago
        np, makes more sense now, tx.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Correlation is not causation (I hate having to post this.) This is an awful lot of words to avoid the question of whether the small-government philosophy you personally subscribe to, whatever it may be, would prefer that government contract out prison services, or run them itself. If you prefer contracts, stop arguing, if you don't, explain why you think the operation of prisons is a proper function of a small government. It's not hard.