3 ms·

You (and every other responder) have taken my comment completely out of context. Read the post I'm responding too. I was putting forth a hypothetical situation

by csallen 13y ago

You (and every other responder) have taken my comment completely out of context. Read the post I'm responding too. I was putting forth a hypothetical situation to prove a very specific and explicitly-stated point, not suggesting that prisons should enter the tech industry.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
No, I'm not. I replied to your post in the context you provided with your hypothetical example. I stand behind my point for whatever (profitable) industry you wish to apply it to. Or in other words. If a prison seeks to expand its inmate population for any economic reason, that, in itself is exploitation.
- csallen 13y ago
  You're still arguing against a strawman. The conversation isn't simply about whether or not what prisons do is "exploitation". It's more specific than that. Not is it about whether or not prison lobbying is sending undeserving people to jail. If we were to have that discussion I would likely agree with you. What we're talking about here, however, is whether prison work programs themselves are rehabilitative or exploitative for the prisoners themselves. My claim is that prisons lobbying to get more people into said programs is irrelevant when considering the quality and fairness of the programs themselves.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - kazagistar 13y ago
    Forced labor is not "fair". It is slavery. I do not accept the idea that by doing a crime, you forfeit your all your human rights. If the programs are entirely optional, it might be OK. As is, it is utterly exploitative.
    - csallen 13y ago
      I happen to agree, and haven't said anything to the contrary. My point is that forced labor isn't fair, and it wouldn't magically become more fair if prison management neglected to campaign for more prisoners. They're two separate issues.
jessaustin 13y ago
You (and every other responder) have taken my comment completely out of context. If your point is so difficult to discern, maybe you haven't made it very well. I think I've deciphered your meaning now. You contend that a non-exploitative prison owner might earn such profits from non-exploitation that she would seek to increase the multitudes upon which she inflicts her non-exploitation. This proposition has at least a couple of problems. First, a good measure of whether a practice is exploitative or not is whether people would freely choose it, so it's a bad sign when your SOP requires locks on the cells. Second, from a purely commercial perspective, we would expect a "just" prison owner to be indifferent (in the long term) to how many are imprisoned. That is, she would charge society a suitable administration fee, and transfer most resources directly to the charges in her care. A "kind" prison owner would lose money on every prisoner, so she would actually lobby for fewer of them! Then we come to the sort of prison owners we actually have, and it's no surprise they want to transform the nation itself into a vast prison.

by csallen 13y ago

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

No, I'm not. I replied to your post in the context you provided with your hypothetical example. I stand behind my point for whatever (profitable) industry you wish to apply it to. Or in other words. If a prison seeks to expand its inmate population for any economic reason, that, in itself is exploitation.

csallen 13y ago
You're still arguing against a strawman. The conversation isn't simply about whether or not what prisons do is "exploitation". It's more specific than that. Not is it about whether or not prison lobbying is sending undeserving people to jail. If we were to have that discussion I would likely agree with you. What we're talking about here, however, is whether prison work programs themselves are rehabilitative or exploitative for the prisoners themselves. My claim is that prisons lobbying to get more people into said programs is irrelevant when considering the quality and fairness of the programs themselves.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- kazagistar 13y ago
  Forced labor is not "fair". It is slavery. I do not accept the idea that by doing a crime, you forfeit your all your human rights. If the programs are entirely optional, it might be OK. As is, it is utterly exploitative.
  - csallen 13y ago
    I happen to agree, and haven't said anything to the contrary. My point is that forced labor isn't fair, and it wouldn't magically become more fair if prison management neglected to campaign for more prisoners. They're two separate issues.

jessaustin 13y ago

You (and every other responder) have taken my comment completely out of context. If your point is so difficult to discern, maybe you haven't made it very well. I think I've deciphered your meaning now. You contend that a non-exploitative prison owner might earn such profits from non-exploitation that she would seek to increase the multitudes upon which she inflicts her non-exploitation. This proposition has at least a couple of problems. First, a good measure of whether a practice is exploitative or not is whether people would freely choose it, so it's a bad sign when your SOP requires locks on the cells. Second, from a purely commercial perspective, we would expect a "just" prison owner to be indifferent (in the long term) to how many are imprisoned. That is, she would charge society a suitable administration fee, and transfer most resources directly to the charges in her care. A "kind" prison owner would lose money on every prisoner, so she would actually lobby for fewer of them! Then we come to the sort of prison owners we actually have, and it's no surprise they want to transform the nation itself into a vast prison.