4 ms·

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

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.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > Correlation is not causation (I hate having to post this.) And yet you're going to avoid defending it, or even looking at, nor answering any of my questions and then accuse me of such matters. Ironic. > This is an awful lot of words to avoid the question What is it with those who support big government ascribing mendacity to their opponents? I'm not avoiding anything (except fallacies like ad hominem and false dilemmas). > whether the small-government philosophy you personally subscribe to, whatever it may be Here you admit that there is more than one possible outlook, yet you go on to produce this: > 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. A false dilemma. Make your mind up, are there many types or only one? Perhaps if my questions were answered I might feel more in the mood to answer those from people who accuse me of avoiding theirs. > would prefer that government contract out prison services, or run them itself My answer is either, it's irrelevant. The government is regulator and enforcer. It should promote (high) standards which it then enforces regardless of whom is running a service. Problems may arise when: a) the one running the service is also the regulator, a clear conflict of interest and though in some cases permissible, it's not one for incredibly powerful entities like government. b) the ones providing the service are also over-represented in government i.e. they have more than a vote, they have lobbying power (or straight up corruption) which in this case would lead to criminalising essentially non-criminal behaviours to produce whatever positive outcome for them and not for the populace they're supposed to serve. How many people are in gaol for marijuana possession?[1] More criminals means more prisons, more tax money, more staff and budget (hence more power), more cheap labour… how does that sound anything like small government? This[2] will come in handy for you. [1] https://www.drugtestpanels.com/blogs/articles/jail-time-for-drug-possession https://www.drugtestpanels.com/blogs/articles/jail-time-for-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

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.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > Correlation is not causation (I hate having to post this.) And yet you're going to avoid defending it, or even looking at, nor answering any of my questions and then accuse me of such matters. Ironic. > This is an awful lot of words to avoid the question What is it with those who support big government ascribing mendacity to their opponents? I'm not avoiding anything (except fallacies like ad hominem and false dilemmas). > whether the small-government philosophy you personally subscribe to, whatever it may be Here you admit that there is more than one possible outlook, yet you go on to produce this: > 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. A false dilemma. Make your mind up, are there many types or only one? Perhaps if my questions were answered I might feel more in the mood to answer those from people who accuse me of avoiding theirs. > would prefer that government contract out prison services, or run them itself My answer is either, it's irrelevant. The government is regulator and enforcer. It should promote (high) standards which it then enforces regardless of whom is running a service. Problems may arise when: a) the one running the service is also the regulator, a clear conflict of interest and though in some cases permissible, it's not one for incredibly powerful entities like government. b) the ones providing the service are also over-represented in government i.e. they have more than a vote, they have lobbying power (or straight up corruption) which in this case would lead to criminalising essentially non-criminal behaviours to produce whatever positive outcome for them and not for the populace they're supposed to serve. How many people are in gaol for marijuana possession?[1] More criminals means more prisons, more tax money, more staff and budget (hence more power), more cheap labour… how does that sound anything like small government? This[2] will come in handy for you. [1] https://www.drugtestpanels.com/blogs/articles/jail-time-for-drug-possession https://www.drugtestpanels.com/blogs/articles/jail-time-for-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity