Obama Failure Thread Part VI

The most current standard-bearer for the party disagrees with you on for-profit prisons:

 

Either this is stated completely in ignorance of the vast majority of government-run prison systems around the world, or it's sarcasm. The major mechanism you're ignoring is the profit incentive; government prisons have no desire to expand whereas for-profit prisons do.

 

Wait - they shit in their hands? Is that to keep shit from splashing up on their ankles when it hits the ground? I really don't know much about the middle east.

 

To be perfectly clear (and I still don't know why nice is stuck on the for-profit prison vis-a-vis libertarian arguments), libertarians are not monolithic on this issue and my personal view does not exclude them as part of a solution; I and other libertarians don't necessarily have hard objections to them, but some do. What sparked this was, given that it seems that most people thing for-profit prisons are evil (and to some extent, profit at all for any reason), I would think that by slashing demand (i.e. ending the Drug War), the state-run prison system wouldn't need to be augmented by for-profit deals and everyone would be happier.

That I allowed nice to turn that into some ********ing gotcha about libertarian policy on for-profit prisons is largely my fault for indulging it.

 

Ahhhahahahahahaha!

Good one.

 

Sure, but that's external lobbying - internal lobbying has the same problem. People who run public prisons have as much interest in urging their colleagues in charge of sentencing to increase prison terms, and that's not even considered lobbying, because they work for the same entity.

LOL You're clueless if you think privatization isn't a libertarian idea. The whole raison d'etre of libertarianism is that private (read=free) action among citizens is preferable to government (coerced) action.

The libertarian argument is that it's in fact the opposite - once you set up a program it has an incentive to increase itself. So the prison system doesn't have an incentive to trim costs. Which is exactly what you see in California/New York.

Timon supported this position with his post below, which makes his "personal" opposition to private prisons harder to justify.

You haven't explained WHY your personal reasons are what they are. The justification you gave - it encourages unfair bids - is prima facie ludicrous because the same argument can be used to suggest the government should do everything for which it pays itself. Why should we pay companies to pave roads when we risk those bids being unfair - we should just have the government do it. What's the difference?

Again, you haven't explained why public prisons are preferable to public ones other than "non-open bids". Which is, again, a terrible argument.

There has been no gotcha. You're annoyed because you've been unable to offer any plausible justification for your personal view. I am asking, what is the reason libertarians would oppose private prisons?

 

Why are you hung up on this?

I posited that the whole question could be mooted by ending the Drug War.

 

You're completely ignoring the question, and the Drug War is irrelevant to it. What is your objection to prisons being private?

 

You wouldn't have guessed it but GG Allin is to the Middle East what Hasselhoff is to Germany.

 

For some reason, you took this as my personal dislike/distaste for private prisons.

Again, my mistake for indulging this shit. Sorry, everyone.

 

We could have used the Kurds, all they wanted was their independence (Turkey would have been pissed).

Yes being pissed about using chemical weapons to kill people when they are using bullets to do the same is hypocritical.

But to see it from the political side, Syria is not supposed to have Chemical weapons, they are illegal, if they use them then that confirms that Syria is breaking international law (even if they killed no one).

Is kind of like Israel, they are not supposed to have nuclear weapons, but it is kind of well know that they do (at least they want their neighbors to think they do), but if Israel ever drops a nuclear weapon on anyone, we (The USA) would no longer have deniability and would have to "punish" Israel for breaking International law.

Then again I am not sure if Israel signed the non-proliferation treaty, if they did not then I guess it would not be illegal.

 

This.

 

hypocri

http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...former-bain-capital-exec-to-top-economic-spot

Obama names former Bain Capital exec to top economic spot

 

Typically you want the issue to be handled at the local municipal/state level, and the people can choose what flavour they want-- public or private .

Note that public prezs aren't that great either
violence, physical abuse, drug abuse, ...etc. is rampant
and it's over packed because of the plea-bargaining phenomena that is going on today

In any case, I suggest you study watlter or stefan's work on this topic:

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-conte...ock_theory-guilt-punishment-crime-statism.pdf

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/11/...evils-the-stateless-society-and-violentcrime/

 

Failure! for using AP phone logs to find him. The press needs the latitude to operate without govt intimidation. This stinks.

 

Well "that openness and transparency" thing in govt is working out pretty good so far .

 

http://tracking.si.com/2013/10/09/mike-dikta-senate-race-barack-obama-biggest-mistake/?sct=obinsite

 

As an Illinois native and one-time Chicagoan, I like Mike Bidner's comment:

No, trading a whole entire year's draft picks for Ricky Williams thing is still the biggest. Nice deflect, though.​

​

 

I would've said letting the Fridge score a touchdown in Super Bowl XX at the expense of Sweetness, but that works as well.

 

Da Coach - Buddy Ryan = Wanny