I'm not sure the "government" makes money from the prisons directly. The more they arrest, the more money they make from the "criminals". Arrests are great revenue generators for cities and states.

Also it creates an industry called the prison industrial complex, and it's yet another reason for big business to nestle up next to daddy government and collude.

"charities would handle need", can you point to any instance where this has worked better than federally mandated social programs?

also, charities, theoretically, reserve the right to refuse services based on lifestyle choices and proselytize at will. governments don't.

if we are upset because our tax dollars are going to fund aggression, foreign occupations, war and a prison state, then fuck yeah i'm with you.
if we are bitching that our tax dollars are providing much needed social services, then... meh.

do those social services need innovation and renovation? could they be run better? absolutely.
could we stop foreign aggression and bloated defense budgets and save billions and still have the funds to provide social services and infrastructure in a vastly superior fashion than we ever have before? fuck yes!
do those services need to be abolished? that's dangerous.

as far as your willingness to help people who's needs aren't met by a nanny state: may i point you to somalia? algeria? the sudan? DR congo, perhaps? or how about the 17% of american children who belong to the "working poor" and don't ask for state assistance?

also, let's talk about CPS.
I have had personal and professional dealings with CPS that lead me to believe that it is severely underfunded and that has led to its gross incompetence. however, i still think it's a very important service.
so if, theoretically, charities would take care of the poor. who is going to take on the nasty job of removing, investigating, and protecting children from abuse?
here's a hint: law enforcement is severely ill-equipped to handle this all by itself, the needs of those children reach far beyond arresting offenders. and in a lot of counties in the country, women and children are still property.






>> ^blankfist:
>> ^peggedbea:
what is the libertarian solution to making sure these people are cared for and have the highest quality of life possible?
i obviously believe that a society is responsible for taking care of its most vulnerable members.
but milton friedman and ayn rand say i'm wrong.
so what is the solution? sometimes people with disabilities are born into poverty too. and i refuse to accept that their dignity, health and quality of life just aren't as important as your bank statement.

Not all Libertarianism is shades of Friedman and Rand. The truth is charities would take care of those without if people didn't A) think there's already a welfare system in place to take care of everyone and B) they weren't already taxed so much currently. You sound like you already understand that the welfare system is broken if there's a 7 year wait for medicaid benefits for these people, yet I don't imagine you'll attribute that to poor government management. The military spending is enough to take care of every poor soul in this country, but the fact that politicians from the two party system are content on raising military budgets while people are suffering domestically should be the biggest indicator that they're not capable of handling the welfare responsibly and legitimately!
Taxation of this magnitude is immoral. They're saying they own your labor if they can directly steal from what you earn, and then they can use that money any way they choose to use it. They claim they want to help, but they're too busy dumping bucketfuls of the stolen money into the military and prison industrial complex, while those on welfare and social security have drudge through the harassment of red tape to get any help.
I'd take any system outside of government and bet it would work more efficiently and better than government. Any of them. If I learned there was a place where old people were dying because they didn't have funds for health care (and there wasn't a nanny state already devised to take care of them), you better believe I'd be there to help in what way I could. Not wanting the government stealing from you does not mean you are against helping others. You honestly think everyone around you is a cretin who is selfish and unwilling to help those in need? When did we become so cynical of our neighbors? If this is the case, then we should just throw in the towel on humanity now, because we certainly don't have a chance, government or no government.

>> ^peggedbea:
what is the libertarian solution to making sure these people are cared for and have the highest quality of life possible?
i obviously believe that a society is responsible for taking care of its most vulnerable members.
but milton friedman and ayn rand say i'm wrong.
so what is the solution? sometimes people with disabilities are born into poverty too. and i refuse to accept that their dignity, health and quality of life just aren't as important as your bank statement.


Not all Libertarianism is shades of Friedman and Rand. The truth is charities would take care of those without if people didn't A) think there's already a welfare system in place to take care of everyone and B) they weren't already taxed so much currently. You sound like you already understand that the welfare system is broken if there's a 7 year wait for medicaid benefits for these people, yet I don't imagine you'll attribute that to poor government management. The military spending is enough to take care of every poor soul in this country, but the fact that politicians from the two party system are content on raising military budgets while people are suffering domestically should be the biggest indicator that they're not capable of handling the welfare responsibly and legitimately!

Taxation of this magnitude is immoral. They're saying they own your labor if they can directly steal from what you earn, and then they can use that money any way they choose to use it. They claim they want to help, but they're too busy dumping bucketfuls of the stolen money into the military and prison industrial complex, while those on welfare and social security have drudge through the harassment of red tape to get any help.

I'd take any system outside of government and bet it would work more efficiently and better than government. Any of them. If I learned there was a place where old people were dying because they didn't have funds for health care (and there wasn't a nanny state already devised to take care of them), you better believe I'd be there to help in what way I could. Not wanting the government stealing from you does not mean you are against helping others. You honestly think everyone around you is a cretin who is selfish and unwilling to help those in need? When did we become so cynical of our neighbors? If this is the case, then we should just throw in the towel on humanity now, because we certainly don't have a chance, government or no government.

Prison industrial complex and corporate welfare. Insidious. Absolutely insidious.

ipfreely, actually I have. Here in Atlanta, I met a 20someyearold black male who spent time in prison for slinging dope. Guess what his job was? Trash pickup. You know those fellas that come around once a week? Yep. Sure, he may have been lying, but the fact is that this Prison-Industrial complex exists. Go look it up. It is a logical symptom and is inherently created in a capitalist system: Corporations seeking profit

I apparently didn't pick up your point-of-view there. I suppose it could be considered a dilemma if that's the way you want to look at it.

Personally, I tend to see it from another side. The penal system's private owners are effectively using slave labor to make large profits, and this is a huge ethical problem. That has nothing to do with how the townfolk near the prison make their livings, and if it does then that too is a huge problem. My response would be to shut it down...and prosecute those who profited. If the townfolk suffer, then it's only due to their own willingness to abuse others.

Note: I've been unemployed for nearly a year now, in large part -because- I have principles about who I'll work for. I won't work for a company that I believe makes the world worse (like Monsanto, or Koch Industries). So I've been draining my savings instead. I do practice what I preach.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
then i think dilemma is an apt word.
let me clarify:
the institution of prisons in america being run by private corporations seeks only to get bigger,which means more funding and hence..more inmates.this will lead to incarcerations based on laws lobbied by the prison system which will translate to more jailable offenses.
this will not bode well for american society,nor for someone who finds themselves facing longer and longer prison terms.
on the other hand it will create more and more fairly decent jobs.the infrastructure that supports these institutions is massive.from the janitors to food service,linens,landscaping etc etc.

now if we decrease the sentencing of non-violent offenders i.e:pot smokers,shoplifting,driving under a suspended license etc etc.we may reduce the prison population but we create the new problem of unemployment.and there are communities (especially in texas,florida and alabama) who are totally reliant on these federal prisons.lose a prison and the community is basically wiped out.

so while i find the prison industrial complex reprehensible in its efforts to fill its cells by way of lobbying legislature to enact stricter laws,how do you take away a families ability to pay its bills?
see what im saying?
no easy answer.

then i think dilemma is an apt word.
let me clarify:
the institution of prisons in america being run by private corporations seeks only to get bigger,which means more funding and hence..more inmates.this will lead to incarcerations based on laws lobbied by the prison system which will translate to more jailable offenses.
this will not bode well for american society,nor for someone who finds themselves facing longer and longer prison terms.
on the other hand it will create more and more fairly decent jobs.the infrastructure that supports these institutions is massive.from the janitors to food service,linens,landscaping etc etc.

now if we decrease the sentencing of non-violent offenders i.e:pot smokers,shoplifting,driving under a suspended license etc etc.we may reduce the prison population but we create the new problem of unemployment.and there are communities (especially in texas,florida and alabama) who are totally reliant on these federal prisons.lose a prison and the community is basically wiped out.

so while i find the prison industrial complex reprehensible in its efforts to fill its cells by way of lobbying legislature to enact stricter laws,how do you take away a families ability to pay its bills?
see what im saying?
no easy answer.

>> ^blankfist:
"he lives in a paranoid little bubble the requires him to be armed with deadly weapons to feel safe"

If owning a weapon means you're paranoid, then what do you think having a police force says about everyone?

It's entirely different levels from having a police force who you can call on to uphold the laws of the land when need be vs. always carrying a loaded, deadly weapon with you.

"taxes go towards all the necessary services and infrastructure you wish for in a civilized society"
Like war, maintaining hegemony, prison industrial complex, etc.? Compulsory taxation is indentured servitude. It doesn't matter if you agree with how the stolen money is to be spent. Some probably think we should steal more from people to pay for more wars.

I did say that you can disagree with how it's spent, that's hardly the point. The idea is that you lobby and protest and vote in people that spend the money in a way that you think will better the country, not just remove all money going to the government.


And, infrastructure is a good point. But it's paid for voluntarily by all of us who buy gasoline. The more you drive, the more you fill up your tank, and therefore the more you pay for infrastructure. Voluntary taxation isn't theft and it's very moral.
Except that the fuel tax starts going away as you increase bio cars, especially if they are ones that are electric and are charged from your house that's powered by solar panels. Sure, they are a stupendously tiny minority at the moment, and for the time being they deserve to not have to pay for the roads for all the good they're doing, but once more and more cars stop needing petrol, you start losing that money stream and it needs to come from somewhere.

And what about public transport? You can say that the cost to run it should be entirely in the price of the tickets, but to run a GOOD public transport system is almost impossible to do at a profit or breaking even, so you need to provide more money into, which everyone should give to as it's a benefit to all. (less pollution, less congestion etc.) It's a case where the people who don't use the service ALSO benefit from those that do, so they should foot up some of the bill also.

Also, the whole idea of voluntary taxation falls over when you get to social security. As the very time you NEED it is when you're not in a position TO pay for it. Hence everyone should pay a little to ensure that if they DO need it, it's there. Just having any service be 'user pays' just doesn't work


"Gee, where were THESE people when the billions of dollars were/are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan."
I agree. There seemed to be less outrage over going to war and the trillions in bailouts.

Agreed

"he lives in a paranoid little bubble the requires him to be armed with deadly weapons to feel safe"

If owning a weapon means you're paranoid, then what do you think having a police force says about everyone?


"taxes go towards all the necessary services and infrastructure you wish for in a civilized society"

Like war, maintaining hegemony, prison industrial complex, etc.? Compulsory taxation is indentured servitude. It doesn't matter if you agree with how the stolen money is to be spent. Some probably think we should steal more from people to pay for more wars.

And, infrastructure is a good point. But it's paid for voluntarily by all of us who buy gasoline. The more you drive, the more you fill up your tank, and therefore the more you pay for infrastructure. Voluntary taxation isn't theft and it's very moral.


"Gee, where were THESE people when the billions of dollars were/are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan."

I agree. There seemed to be less outrage over going to war and the trillions in bailouts.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'texas, police, cop, stealing, prison, industrial, complex, criminal' to 'tenaha, texas, police, cop, stealing, prison, industrial, complex, criminal' - edited by kronosposeidon

The U.S. judicial system is broken. The U.S.A. incarcerates more people than any nation per capita, surpassing China and The Soviet Union. The onset of all anti-drug laws in this country stem from racism and profit; i.e opium in California and marijuana in the deep South.
Nixon made drugs Public Enemy #1 in an effort to hoodwink the population from focusing on Vietnam. The 80s saw a drastic increase in resources to combat a ghost problem. Minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws ushered in the prison-industrial complex nation we live in today. Fortunately, minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws are unraveling.
The waste of money to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders is staggering and shameful. Something must be done hastily.

As with the military industrial complex and its drive for profits, which is a contributing factor in our occupation of Iraq, the prison industrial complex cannot afford to have drugs legalized.