6 ms·

That doesn't explain the cost for use of e-books, especially the public domain books under Project Gutenberg, nor does it really explain the banning of book don

by GrifMD 5y ago

That doesn't explain the cost for use of e-books, especially the public domain books under Project Gutenberg, nor does it really explain the banning of book donations from registered non-profits. If the issue you describe is prevalent, then I could see the need for vetting non-profits before donation, but not outright blocking them.

MarkMarine 5y ago
The article is pretty clear about all this. Companies make money from this, so it’s done. Guards smuggle in most of the contraband, like cell phones, so banning books is like trying to hold back a flood with a bucket. Taken to its logical conclusion, private companies are making money hand over fist with private prisons, from the amount taxpayers pay to house inmates, and from modern day slave labor of prison “jobs” making products. Why not ensure you’ve got a recidivist population of that labor by taking away any avenue for someone to escape the cycle. Truly evil.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Don't forget all the corrections officers jobs and the money that flows into the system. It's not just private industry. The .gov is very much in on the racket.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > Taken to its logical conclusion, private companies are making money hand over fist with private prisons, from the amount taxpayers pay to house inmates, and from modern day slave labor of prison “jobs” making products. Given that private prisons cost less than state run ones, do you think taxpayers would prefer to pay more for prisons just so that companies running private prison don’t make a profit? Do you apply this logic also to construction projects? I.e. would you prefer to pay, say, twice as much for a bridge to be build by government construction agency, so long as no private construction company makes a profit building it?
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    I'd say, even if you are correct that it's cheaper on a per-prisoner, something I find hard to believe, the incentives to imprison more people are so perverse that I would anticipate the price would catch up, and that's before we even consider the moral ramifications of imprisoning people to satisfy a quota set by a profit-seeking entity.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      Of course it’s cheaper, this is a general pattern of government-ran vs. for-profit ran services in US. > the incentives to imprison more people are so perverse that I would anticipate the price would catch up, But it’s the state that’s imprisoning people, not private prisons. Private prisons cannot catch, prosecute, sentence and institutionalize people at tax payer dime any more than construction companies can build road and bridges on their own initiative while paid by the state. When government contracts bridge construction to a private company, are you also worried that said company will build 10 extra unnecessary bridges and charge government for them?
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        > Of course it’s cheaper, this is a general pattern of government-ran vs. for-profit ran services in US. I do not believe this to be so and it runs counter to what I would logically expect. At any rate, prison companies do things like write prisoner quotas into contracts, with penalties if the quota is not met, and lobby lawmakers to put more people in prison for committing petty crimes. So really it's nothing like your absurdist scenario.
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        > I do not believe this to be so and it runs counter to what I would logically expect. The only counterexample I can think of is elite private schools, which do cost more than public universities, but I think that it’s safe to assume that Yale provides rather different kind of service than University of Kansas. But, if you think that government-ran enterprises in US are cheaper than for-profit ones, I’m eager to hear some examples. This pattern is also logically expected: for profit companies are incentivized to keep costs low, while government ones much less so. It’s not like citizen can easily choose to change the government they are signed up with for a cheaper, better run one. > At any rate, prison companies do things like write prisoner quotas into contracts, with penalties if the quota is not met Sure, because otherwise they’d never commit to run the prison in the first place. Starting and maintaining prison operation is expensive, so if government does not commit to buying some level of service, you’re risking a lot of money. Imagine an alternative scheme, where government agrees to buy 1000 prisoner-years worth of capacity, and then is free to send as many prisoners as it wants between 0 and 1000. There is no prisoner quota, prison company is paid exactly the same amount regardless of whether it houses 100 or 1000 inmates. Would that arrangement be more acceptable to you?
- freeflight 5y ago
  > Taken to its logical conclusion, private companies are making money hand over fist with private prisons, from the amount taxpayers pay to house inmates, and from modern day slave labor of prison “jobs” making products. Tho it's not just private prisons, even federal prisons and state jails have massive rat-tails of private industries servicing them [0] Nor are private companies the only ones outsourcing labor to prisons, the US military is also doing it [1] [0] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html [1] https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/unicor_about.jsp https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/unicor_about.js...
  - 1cvmask 5y ago
    Just Chinese prison labor get any return at all? Apparently we give 4% back to the prisoners although it is vague as to how.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Guards smuggle in most of the contraband, like cell phones, so banning books is like trying to hold back a flood with a bucket. No, it's increasing demand for the C.O.’s contraband racket. It is not trying to hold back the flood at all. (Yeah, it also narrows competition for the approved sellers, too.)

by GrifMD 5y ago

MarkMarine 5y ago

The article is pretty clear about all this. Companies make money from this, so it’s done. Guards smuggle in most of the contraband, like cell phones, so banning books is like trying to hold back a flood with a bucket. Taken to its logical conclusion, private companies are making money hand over fist with private prisons, from the amount taxpayers pay to house inmates, and from modern day slave labor of prison “jobs” making products. Why not ensure you’ve got a recidivist population of that labor by taking away any avenue for someone to escape the cycle. Truly evil.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Don't forget all the corrections officers jobs and the money that flows into the system. It's not just private industry. The .gov is very much in on the racket.
xyzzyz 5y ago
> Taken to its logical conclusion, private companies are making money hand over fist with private prisons, from the amount taxpayers pay to house inmates, and from modern day slave labor of prison “jobs” making products. Given that private prisons cost less than state run ones, do you think taxpayers would prefer to pay more for prisons just so that companies running private prison don’t make a profit? Do you apply this logic also to construction projects? I.e. would you prefer to pay, say, twice as much for a bridge to be build by government construction agency, so long as no private construction company makes a profit building it?
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I'd say, even if you are correct that it's cheaper on a per-prisoner, something I find hard to believe, the incentives to imprison more people are so perverse that I would anticipate the price would catch up, and that's before we even consider the moral ramifications of imprisoning people to satisfy a quota set by a profit-seeking entity.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    Of course it’s cheaper, this is a general pattern of government-ran vs. for-profit ran services in US. > the incentives to imprison more people are so perverse that I would anticipate the price would catch up, But it’s the state that’s imprisoning people, not private prisons. Private prisons cannot catch, prosecute, sentence and institutionalize people at tax payer dime any more than construction companies can build road and bridges on their own initiative while paid by the state. When government contracts bridge construction to a private company, are you also worried that said company will build 10 extra unnecessary bridges and charge government for them?
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      > Of course it’s cheaper, this is a general pattern of government-ran vs. for-profit ran services in US. I do not believe this to be so and it runs counter to what I would logically expect. At any rate, prison companies do things like write prisoner quotas into contracts, with penalties if the quota is not met, and lobby lawmakers to put more people in prison for committing petty crimes. So really it's nothing like your absurdist scenario.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        > I do not believe this to be so and it runs counter to what I would logically expect. The only counterexample I can think of is elite private schools, which do cost more than public universities, but I think that it’s safe to assume that Yale provides rather different kind of service than University of Kansas. But, if you think that government-ran enterprises in US are cheaper than for-profit ones, I’m eager to hear some examples. This pattern is also logically expected: for profit companies are incentivized to keep costs low, while government ones much less so. It’s not like citizen can easily choose to change the government they are signed up with for a cheaper, better run one. > At any rate, prison companies do things like write prisoner quotas into contracts, with penalties if the quota is not met Sure, because otherwise they’d never commit to run the prison in the first place. Starting and maintaining prison operation is expensive, so if government does not commit to buying some level of service, you’re risking a lot of money. Imagine an alternative scheme, where government agrees to buy 1000 prisoner-years worth of capacity, and then is free to send as many prisoners as it wants between 0 and 1000. There is no prisoner quota, prison company is paid exactly the same amount regardless of whether it houses 100 or 1000 inmates. Would that arrangement be more acceptable to you?
freeflight 5y ago
> Taken to its logical conclusion, private companies are making money hand over fist with private prisons, from the amount taxpayers pay to house inmates, and from modern day slave labor of prison “jobs” making products. Tho it's not just private prisons, even federal prisons and state jails have massive rat-tails of private industries servicing them [0] Nor are private companies the only ones outsourcing labor to prisons, the US military is also doing it [1] [0] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html [1] https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/unicor_about.jsp https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/unicor_about.js...
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  Just Chinese prison labor get any return at all? Apparently we give 4% back to the prisoners although it is vague as to how.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Guards smuggle in most of the contraband, like cell phones, so banning books is like trying to hold back a flood with a bucket. No, it's increasing demand for the C.O.’s contraband racket. It is not trying to hold back the flood at all. (Yeah, it also narrows competition for the approved sellers, too.)