Basic income as a human right

Post Reply New Topic

What is wrong with forced labor for convicts? I'm not talking about forcing those not physically able to do things. I'm talking about making able bodied men work for a living. You have to work for a living in the free world, so why should convicts get a free ride when they can do the same inside?

Also, I've noticed that a lot of people who have such a sentimental view of those in prison don't actually know a lot of people who end up there. No offense, but many people tend to feel that criminals are all victims of circumstance and that isn't usually true. While it is true that poorer people and addicted people tend to commit more crimes, along with crazy people, that doesn't mean that they should just be pitied and helped rather than punished. I know a lot of guys who ended up in prison and it's really not like many people think. I'm extremely familiar with the criminal element and mindset and coddling them isn't going to help. Neither is harsh punishment, but honestly there isn't a lot that is going to change most of these guys. They aren't all some nice stand up guy who has been unfairly treated or dealt a bad hand in life.

Why should the taxpayer shoulder all the burden for the convicts when they can go to work and make some money for the prison to feed and shelter them? Trust me, those guys would get out there and hustle up some money in the free world so why not make them do it inside?

They aren't some poor downtrodden wretches that need to be coddled, they are regular people who have gotten caught doing what they wanted to do and knew the consequences. We can't run the world like it's a nursery school for overly sensitive preschoolers. The world is a hard place and no amount of ideals will change that.

Also, most guys inside would rather be put to work than just sit in a cell. I've heard many complaints about not being able to be on a job inside. If working wasn't a perk in there then why is it taken away as punishment? If the guy really doesn't want to do the work he will find a way to get out of it. If he can't get out of it because of a physical reason then he will just fight on the job so they don't let him work.

Don't get the idea that we should treat prisoners like mental patients. That doesn't do anybody any good.

I know you mean well and you want to help everybody, but sometimes you are just too nice and you view the world as different from what it is because you are so sympathetic to others. That isn't bad and it's not an insult to you at all. I love you dearly and wish more people were as considerate as you are, but being that way only gets you disappointed in others many times. You are extremely empathic and see the good in most people, and you want the best for everybody and you see everyone through the lens of how you wish they were. I'm sure it's very hard for you to believe that others are so different from you when it comes to their feelings, values, ethics, etc., but most are and especially criminals. This doesn't mean I think criminals are scum and deserve mistreatment. Not at all. In fact a good number of my friends are criminals and they are nice folks who I'd like to see have good lives. I'm also a liberal, but not as liberal as you about some issues. I've had discussions with many of the criminals I know about some of the social programs in place to "rehabilitate" them and most of the time those programs are laughed at and they play lip service to whatever they are supposed to do when participating in them. While there are criminals who do want to change and can and will change if given the opportunity, the ones I know are not interested in doing that at all.

I say we need to put those guys to work when they are locked up. It won't change who they are or what they will do when they get out, but they can damn sure work for their supper just like everybody has to do.

I'm all for having the prisoners work if at all possible, to contribute to making their victims more whole.

This thread now needs a "Incarceration-Rates in America" video...

Yup, more people in Prison in America, THAN EVEN ALL OF THE COMMUNIST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED! !!

and things will get MUCH worse. think about all those closed-down military bases, to what uses they could be put. FEMA camps. in the coming decades i believe there will be a tremendously large "surplus population" that will be dealt with somewhat brutally.

I totally agree with one problem.

What about if the poor breed and breed and breed and breed. If every citizens get money, those who get more money are those who breed more children.

If every population gets money, then the poorest immigrants will be the one coming to your country.

It's the same issue with welfare but more explicit.

With a few exceptions, even the poor understand that, apart from the delivery usually being paid for by others, continued care and feeding is entirely up to them. And, if they don't pony up for those expenses, they can in most jurisdictions, be charged and/or arrested for child endangerment; so, gone are the heady days (and nights) of non-stop partying. By the second or third child, they get it.

Prison reform is another thing I'm very interested in... and, unfortunately it's probably an area that will be easy to find a job in once I graduate.

For profit prisons and prison factories are a REALLY bad idea. We already tend to imprison marginalized people (poor people, addicts, the mentally ill) simply because it's the easiest way to deal with them.

If we turn prisoners into a source of free labor, that would just further pervert the system.

However, I think we do need to strongly encourage work within prisons. On the outside, ex-cons will need to know how to go to work everyday and hold down a job if they're going to be successful.

The idea of prison as punishment is wrong and counterproductive. Currently, American prisons mostly serve as a sort of Crime College where we send people in as delinquents and they come out as hardened criminals.

We need to avoid sending people to prison whenever possible. When we do have to send them there, we need to REFORM them, educate them, and teach them how to function in society--not punish them and make them better criminals. The latter is just plain stupid and a waste of effort and resources.

Well, it would cost more to give EVERYONE $10,000.00/year, but we really shouldn't do that.

Even bastions of conservatism like Utah have discovered that it's cheaper to provide 'housing first' to homeless people than to provide aid on condition of sobriety, etc. because street people consume so much more in emergency medical services, jail space and the like.

On average, street people consume $60,000.00/year in public resources, but we can house/support them for $20-$30,000.00/year (that's the price for those that are EXTREMELY mentally ill. Less impaired people are cheaper).

A system where we encouraged work of some sort and had a minimum income level of $10,000.00 could work, and it would be cheaper than what we do now.

It would really just be an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit system that we already have. The subsidy could be phased out in such a way that it wouldn't provide a disincentive to work.

OK, so if you are just talking about bums and not everybody else or people who are already working you will still have a problem. Lets say you get the off the street and give them a place to live in of their own and simply request that they stay sober, then you give them ten grand. Assuming they don't blow it all on drugs and booze, what is the motivation to actually get a job and go to work? They probably won't make much more then what the government is giving them to begin with, so why go to work when you can get the exact same thing and stay home in your govt provided house?

Before you start accusing me of being coldhearted, let me say that I am not. I'm for the entitlement programs and I think we need them and I've used them in the past and at the moment we get food stamps, which helps us actually buy more than just ramen noodles and hamburger helper. With just my husbands salary we barely make ends meet and here in this town there are no jobs so I really can't just go to work. I also cannot move to an area where there is more work because we would never find a house this size or this nice for 165k. It's paid for, I'm not getting under a mortgage at this stage of life. Most of my friends are on some kind of assistance as well, so I know for a fact that it's needed and many couldn't get by without it. However, I also know many people who could work but don't because they wouldn't get a whole lot more than they already get from the govt. I know several people who just fake to get SSI. Before you say it, no I'm not turning anybody in. I'm a lot of things, but I'm no rat. I am very, very familiar with lots of people who are on those programs and while there are some who dislike being on them at all and their goal is to get off them, most either don't care one way or the other or they actually figure out how to scam the govt and how to get more than what they already do get. You wouldn't believe the lengths that some people I know go through to do this. It's as much work as a job lol. Again, it's not everybody, but it's a little less than half.

So, I know what I'm talking about when I tell you what would happen around here if that program ever fell out of the sky to us. It's sad, but it's true. Yes, there are many people who would use it correctly, just as there are many who do use the programs in existence now correctly, but I wouldn't say it's over about 60% of people on them. Not all of the 40% are scamming but they are certainly satisfied with getting by how they can on the government's dime. I'd say about 20% scam.

Because I'm basing my opinions on my experiences with people who are on the dole as it is (as I am as well with food stamps) I can say with a good bit of certainty that many people who want programs like this ten grand a year thing, tend to romanticize these folks and think of them in a completely different way than how the majority of them actually are. It's a sad fact but it is a fact.

Doing something like this is really just throwing money away. It would help a few but overall it would just be party time for most and it would be just like March and April when everybody gets their taxes back. If you have no idea what I'm talking about concerning that, then you probably have no way of really understanding how something like this would play out.

No, you misunderstood me. WE DO NOT house people on condition that they stay sober. WE HOUSE THEM IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DRUNKS.

I know this might sound counter intuitive, if not totally crazy, but there's about twenty years of research that says this approach is the cheapest and best way to deal with chronic homelessness.

If you'd care to see for yourself check out these websites.
https://pathwaystohousing.org/

This program uses a scattered-site approach where homeless people get apartments within the community.

http://www.desc.org/

This program actually runs its own apartment complexes full of actively using addicts.

The thing is, many of these people don't get sober or get a job, because most of them are profoundly mentally ill. However, they still present less of a burden on society in these housing first programs because they show up in emergency rooms much less often, and apartments are much cheaper than prison cells.

Even if you don't care about the humanitarian aspects of this approach, the fact that it is so much cheaper compels even the most hardened hearts.

Make no mistake, this is not a theory. This is a proven, evidence based approach.

Housing First Salt Lake City






Okay, you're right about how a lot of people would just settle for the $10,000.00... but that's okay.

If those people are willing to merely subsist on that money, let them. They'll still be spending that money in the economy and it will still help to stimulate more economic activity.

Also, in the system I'm thinking of, we wouldn't even begin to phase out the $10,000.00 subsidy until, say, your family reaches 200% poverty and then the phase out would be extremely gradual and not totally gone until your family reached 400% poverty level.

If you do that, it would still be worth someone's while to work even at a sh***y job... And it would be cheaper to administer than all the programs we have now.

It can't be cheaper than not giving them anything at all. The only expenses you'd incur would be weapons, ammo and training to defend yourself from anyone trying to break into your property or rob you in desperation as they starve to death. And, once the bulk of that desperate population is dead, the problem would be solved for good, and crime would not only decrease again, but probably stay below its current level.

You copped that right off the Libertarian Party website, didn't you?

"Desperate population"? I call them "the 'entitled' zombies". And, we all know what happens to zombies in the end.

Topical:

yah, their stomachs rupture explosively after 3 days of infection

how is your gun going to save you from your house having flaming bottles of liquor thrown at it?
how will it save you against roaming mobs of people who've not eaten for a week and outnumber the rounds in your mag? that's ignoring the disease and such that would accompany such a sorry state of affairs.

Last edited by Fugu on 02 Jul 2015, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

why not just fire up the ovens? or would that cost too much money? [irony]