Do you think it would be better if all prisons were run privately (for-profit) by government contractors?

no, some things shouldn't be motivated by profit. In the corrections system, it actively encourages harsher sentencing to boost the prison population. And it leads to judges taking bribes for filling the prison (this has happened multiple times).

The government may be less efficient but efficiency isn't the fucking point all the time.

brofist.flv

The contractors that run the private prisons lobby lawmakers for more mandatory prison sentences, because they benefit from recidivism it benefits them to not rehabilitate offenders. While capitalism works for many industries, healthcare and justice are not among them.

>should there be incentive to criminalize and inprison ppl?
no, u retard. Market should be regulated and citizens should have health care provided by government from taxes

Read these & then lets talk about how well this "muh private sector best" bullshit ALWAYS turns out:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
and
nypost.com/2014/02/23/film-details-teens-struggles-in-state-detention-in-payoff-scandal/

This.

What are PAC groups? What is lobbying?

Only retards think things like prisons, education, and healthcare should be "for-profit"

Private contractors can't be trusted to honor prisoners' human rights. The government is the better choice.

Risk of corruption is not a reason not to do something. Then address the corruption.

What difference does it make?

this is incredibly naive
the flow of new prisoners is something you can depend on in most societies, so you wouldn't even need to cause potential prisoners to be convicted
all you need to do to increase profits is retain prisoners for maximum sentences or allow/cause additional sentences to be accrued
it's very easy for a facility and its staff to game the system

I do a lot of IT work for a private juevenile prison, I've worked with government employees in doing this work. Most of the kids are hopeless anyways but I'm for switching providers every 5 years. Government run gets incredibly expensive after a while. The awarding system is bribeable but still bottom line driven. The private companies are mostly worried about bad PR.

Need some advice lads, my dad is really pushing for me to apply for this gouvernent job (uk) which does seem pretty cool, but the last step is a 9 month vetting process to get a DV clearance. I've been getting drugs and shit of the deep web for a bit which i'm pretty sure the government will know about as the spy everywhere, and i'm also on shady sites like this a lot, and I don't really want the hassle of the whole investigation just to unearth this shit. How can I tell him that i'm not gonna apply without basically admitting i'm doing shady shit online to him?

btw he's really wanting me to do this and wanted like a full explaination as to why I don't want to apply in the end, pretty gay I know but its whats going down

All prisons should be turned into extermination facilities. If you can’t abide by the rules of society, you don’t deserve to continue living. Jail - one time - and you might get a second chance. But if you’re such a useless fucktard that you are being sent to prison, you should be aborted. Soon enough, crime would drop off dramatically, and there would only be one facility left (in Indiana, of course)

>"Ciavarella disposed thousands of children to extended stays in youth detention centers for offenses as trivial as mocking an assistant principal on Myspace or trespassing in a vacant building."

jeezus!!
the political whores and their boot lickers who are always in favor of this so-called free market, privatize everything nonsense constantly use the argument that it is more "cost-effective and cheaper" to shill this type of crap as their only rationale.
it is a lie used to siphon off your tax dollars into the pockets of their corporate daddies.
just look at the use of the PMC contractors like Blackwater in the Iraq war...., the Blackwater fags literally paid 10x the annual salary that a regular military soldier got pai to do the exact same jobs.
most recently, the cost of detaining one of those Mexican beaner immigrant kids aprehended at the southern border in a US government facility is $130 per day per kid but they are paying the private detention facility operators like CCA $750 per day for the same kid.
tell me that isn't institutional corruption on an epic scale.

Private prisons have no accountability and is moving backwards when the rest of the world is moving forwards.

>gubmint bad for all things
>corporation good for all things
>MY corporation that is
the absolute state of brainwashed repubniggers and lolbertarians

Attached: 1563644299830[1].png (876x1024, 384K)

Because private prisons are by and large lawless and brutal.

So if Trump comes up with a law that sends YOU to prison, you're ok with being "exterminated?"

In one scenario, you have a private-owned prison, say they exploit their prisoners. It is a private corporation and you have no course of action.
Scenario two, the government owns the prison, and you do have accountability, being that it is publicly owned.

u see?

inb4 govt has no accountability

i think america would be better if we sent all the niggers back to africa,all the spics back to mexico.and all the jews back to israel

We should send you back to your momma's pussy

So do prison guard unions. Should we ban prison guard unions?

what a lameass retarded argument
see
----> then kys user

what a retarded lameass person
see
----> for what an argument looks like
then sodomize yourself with a spatula user

meanwhile the state of democrats

>fuck police and the goverment

also

>goverment,give me more welfare

You have to go back

Attached: reddit spacing.png (866x475, 78K)

i like how people always tell me i have "reddit spacing"but this is just the way i usually type.not that it matters,reddit and Yea Forums have the exact same cesspool of a community

no they don't
go back to the other cesspool

>I'm wrong
just say it

You're wrong.
And you need to go back.

I can't. My mom blocked it.

>I

>am

>always

>a

>moron

>.

kek

>goverment,give me more welfare
so just to be clear, you would support eliminating welfare by requiring businesses paid living wage?

>living wage

how about the retards get a better education and a higher paying job instead? there are living wages already out there.flipping burgers isnt a job you make a living off of

not that it matters,americans are lazy sacks of shit who dont want to work for a living.this was made clear by all the socialist left wing morons they support

t. brainlet

>how about the retards get a better education and a higher paying job instead?
So that's a "no." You continue to support massive government subsidization of private sector labor. We have a wrap here.

You sound like a lazy fuck to me. Why aren't you being deported?

because im white,dumbass.go back to your overtaxed liberal state and whine about why high school dropouts cant make a living flipping burgers

whatever libtard,maybe if you supported the working class to begin with id bother with you.now go back to sitting on welfare like the lazy parasite you will always be

Most people we're talking about are white. You sound lazy. Why are you somehow exempt from your own retarded logic?
Why do you think you deserve to live in this country?

You were asked a simple question. You answered exactly as predicted.

Living wages would offset welfare to the point of where it would no longer be needed. But you had to take a shit on that too didn't you?

There's not a political party in the whole of America that supports the working class.

You address the corruption by cutting off the corrupted limb i.e. getting rid of the for profit prisons that create the corruption, you dumb fuck. Not trying to treat the corruption.

Attached: This guy gets it.jpg (400x568, 38K)

The Democrats just passed a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage increase. Don't tell me that doesn't help working people you fucking robot.

you cant reform niggers. its a waste of both parties time. prison should be to serve a punishment only, not reform

It doesnt, please read 1 single book on economics.

Sound like Gulag to me

Attached: f54_166 (1).jpg (1008x1341, 75K)

It doesn't really. Just increasing minimum wage isn't supporting the working class.

It does, shithead. People earn more money.
>economics
by some privileged fuck who wants to eliminate a minimum wage altogether. I've read that shit. It's called "feudalism."

>because I say so

lol

OK so we're back to "I support massive federal subsidies on labor."
Good. We can move on.

This.

>People earn more money.
You are actually retarded. Never mind reading a book on economic, it would serve no purpose for you.

Gulag wasn't for profit. Was for fun!

What proof do you have that the original claim is true?

Yeah, like whatever.

>private prisons that outperform public ones should no doubt be allowed to continue

That's an awesome idea, user. Too bad no such prison exists.

The comparison with schools is interesting but is fallacious at its core. Reason being, there's one major qualifier for schools that doesn't exist with prisons

>parents pay for their kids to go to private schoos, whereas the government pays for the private prisons

With schools, the beneficiaries of the work they do (the kids) is directly correlated to the source of their funding (the parents), and whether the schools continue to RECEIVE that funding is directly proportional to the quality of the product they produce (ie: how educated the kids are in the eyes of the parents).

No such animal exists with the prison system. The government pays the private prisons directly, and since there is no direct correlation between the source of the prison's funding and the beneficiaries of the work they do (the prisoners), there is simultaneously a lot less incentive to produce good work (ie: reformed prisoners) as well as a huge temptation to let whatever quality in the work that DOES still exist slowly deteriorate. Meaning, without the accountability that direct gov't oversight provides, it's really easy for corruption to not only exist but prosper.

Therefore, between the lack of oversight & any direct connection between the source of a prison's funding and their charges and the ample potential for corruption, private prisons are an interesting idea on paper but unfortunately are incompatible in practice with a successful business model.

For that reason, it is disingenuous to point to private schools compared to public schools as a justification for private prisons. Sorry.

he's clearly got nothing in his toolkit other than /pol/meme & MIGAtard talking soundbyte points.
any further discussion with him is totally pointless.

This.

It really doesn't. Menial workers are just going to price themselves directly out of the market thanks to economically illiterate idiots.
Also how do you think this helps small to medium sized businesses you idiot. It really doesn't, for corporatism it just pushes forward automation and for smaller ventures it means less employees and smaller working hours.

So you basically want people to earn whatever a company wants. Which could be nothing.
>shitcago economics
lol

I've got user's word. Which is shit here.

100% of all private prisons should be completely abolished. the mere fact that our criminal justice system is used as a profit making machine is abhorrent. The criminal justice system is a burden to society... and it should be because the second you view it as profitable, you start making laws to incarcerate people for no other reason than for profit... (Cough cough marijuana)

I know but I love to enrage them with the truth, that massive govt subsidies are what we get
when we refuse to make companies pay living wages. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars and they're OK with this.

Attached: gervase1.gif (320x240, 826K)

You're retarded.

>you idiot.
Yes. Let's pay people less. Brilliant idea.

Bring back mandatory chain gang duty and public hangings for Class Y felonies. Put the punishment back in "crime and punishment". Sure, there's a lot of people who will cry about "muh civil liberties" but if you're in an actual prison, chances are you got there by violating someone else's. Fucking sucks, but that's the whole point. I worked in the prison system for a couple years - trust me when I say I haven't ever met an innocent man there. I'm not saying there aren't some innocents that fall through the cracks, but it's rare, and that's an issue you take up with the lawmakers and court systems, Not the facility provided to accommodate them.

>but what about drug crimes, you moron; most state prisoners and county jail inmates are incarcerated for drug crimes

This is an entirely separate issue. Time to decide why an addict is in prison to begin with. That's using up our diminishing resources by providing them with 3 hots and a cot, cable tv, hygiene items and free health care for the indigent. What crystal-blooded Methican American wouldn't enjoy that free ride? Let them keep killing themselves and the problem solves itself for much less in taxpayer contributions. What if they steal, assault or kill to get that fix? Refer to the very first sentence of this post.

Attached: FB_IMG_1557709073767.jpg (480x277, 19K)

>it just pushes forward automation
Good. I'm glad you brought that up.

Automation ultimately means people will not have to work, which means they would get UBI or a dividend.

Attached: images[1].png (537x94, 3K)

Not the user you were replying to, but you said
>maybe if you supported the working class
in indirect response to the other guy saying
>you would support eliminating welfare by requiring businesses paid living wage

I have a newsflash for you:
>insisting businesses pay a living wage
=
>supporting the working class

"Were you born a slimy, disgusting puke piece of shit? Or did you have to WORK on it?"

Attached: R. Lee Ermey.jpg (618x412, 57K)

No.
Conflict of interest.
Right, because bribing judges totally isn't a thing.

>which means they would get UBI or a dividend.
So your're okay exploiting the robot proletariat?
The future is cyber and red.

Attached: red_robot.jpg (280x231, 20K)

So even the possibility of corporate corruption is bad enough to throw out the idea, even though we have regulatory standards and laws administered by the government to keep it in check. But government corruption is fine, even though it's the government that writes and enforces the rules and standards they have to abide by?

i'll break down for you real simple.

>raise minimum wage
>effectively making it cheaper in the long run for companies to invest in automation for non-skilled menial jobs

Forcing companies to pay you a wage that you, being an unskilled retard, clearly aren't worth is going to make them look for more cost effective alternatives. Learn a fucking skill you brainlet.

It's funny that retards like you think all business is the same, some companies are perfectly healthy and yet barely cover their running costs.

>me sweep floor
>owner of family business
>business = money
>give me more money

Or back to the Jungle only with technology.
Your choice user.

Attached: 51i13OyQ1EL._SX346_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (348x499, 27K)

There already is mandatory labor, just not on "chain gangs" anymore, technically.
Read about UNICOR:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries

UBI just means mass inflation. If everyone gets $1000 a month whather they are working or not, you're going to be almost as poor as you were before because that $1000 isn't going to get you very far.

No we should just kill niggers.

Prisons are a result of years and years of gay sons who don't want to do any work so they take the easy way out.

Checked

I'll take the death of all meatbags

Attached: 5434911.54673bbdbef08.jpg (404x316, 149K)

Gay sons are niggers?
>the more you know!

>So even the possibility of corporate corruption is bad enough to throw out the idea
When you are literally incentivizing it, yes. The corporate goal of earning profit does not align with the public goal of reforming criminals. It's like putting a child in a room with a loaded gun and thinking it's fine because you check up on him every few minutes.
>But government corruption is fine
It's not fine, but government doesn't have the same conflict of interest.

Ok fine, I'll accept your right wing retard economic view, as long as you accept the fact that your retarded 19th (18th) Century economic view makes it necessary for govt to step in and waste your tax dollars subsidizing wages. I'm glad we're clear that this is what's happening.

Attached: V53KOI5RLABESNBRYR5RZGIF7Q.jpg (800x960, 247K)

$1000 without the tax on automation would actually mean close to living wages for people not working user.

Attached: images[1].jpg (320x158, 12K)

Is that NOT the case?

Attached: stu_making_chocolate_pudding_at_4_am_by_bumpylegoman02_dbir2u3-pre.png (708x1129, 173K)

capitalist scum will never do efficient job of rehabilitating prisoners, as the more fucked the namtes are the longer they stay and are more likely to re-offend

It's not no. Privately run prisons exist, but most are state run.

>right wing

okay you lose me here, i'm for a mixed economy. Going to far either way is bad.

Do you know what inflation is?

No, government has a more severe conflict of interest: They write and enforce that apply to them.

There is a conflict of interest in prisons, but there's a massive conflict of interest when it comes to insurance companies as well -- to minimize costs, they have every financial incentive in the world not to pay out. But except for the problems around catastrophic risk that are caused by the government subsidizing disasters, it's a largely functional industry, because of a strong regulatory framework and compartmentalization. Prisons aren't this exceptional outlier.

Forget about reforming the criminals...., how about the massively increased cost:
Also...., when profit is is incentivised by incarceration, then the corruption always happens:
Every time.

i'd support that because i am a law abiding citizen

>and enforce the rules

For sure. And its a goddamn good start. Many many inmates and prisoners I've dealt with (about 80%) are repeat offenders who take advantage of the free ride. They'll never stay out of lock-up because they're more at home there.

>It's time to make prisons, private or public ran, a place that criminals fear returning to.

Plenty of industries have solved that problem.

And yet you keep quoting outdated economic tripe that only benefits the rich.
>mixed economy
you mean "subsidized"

Attached: images[2].jpg (275x183, 9K)

Let me guess, you believe in the claptrap called modern economics?

Of course not.
The incentive will be to imprison as many people as possible and to keep them imprisoned as long as possible.
The justice system should be about justice, not making money.

Actually their use is quite prevalent in the Federal prrison system too.
I speak from experience.
Busted for dealing weed a few years ago...., but Ima gud boi now.

It doesn't matter what I believe. You were asked if you preferred a solution to stop government corporate welfare and you doubled down on "muh rugged individualism" crap.

Attached: 34bfs7[2].jpg (750x500, 149K)

>only benefits the rich
literally what. i cannot even the stupid you say.

yeah gonna have to pull the plug on you here commie scum. I'm pro food on table, we will never see eye to eye.

wat???

>They write and enforce the rules that apply to them.
This isn't a conflict of interest.
>there's a massive conflict of interest when it comes to insurance companies as well -- to minimize costs, they have every financial incentive in the world not to pay out
Except they have to compete with other insurance companies, so if they try to not pay out too often they will develop a bad reputation and lose customers. Private prisons don't have this check to keep things in balance.

No, I didn't. I'm a different user. Answer the question.

Your system allows for all of the money to go to a very small percentage of the population, user. This is well-documened.
>commie scum
nope. Green New Deal. It's actually just left of center.

you have to work in the framework of the societal and economic system you live in retard.

Go live is some smelly hippie commune.

>gonna have to run away
>run away
LOLLL

I remember when I got a raise a few months ago the price of everything in my town went up because of muh inflation.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that there is a fundamental difference between 'industries' that are benefited by privatization and those that are harmed by it. Anyone who thinks that everything should be privatized or that everything should be run by the state is a buffoon.

fuck no
america has it fucking right, they lock everyone they need to lock, it is so smooth

this is what the prisons look in brazil btw, the government can't afford shit, imagine being locked in this shit 24/7 smelling ass and smoke, it is hell on earth
there are thousands of convicted people who should also be there but are roaming freely right now

Attached: pr-1483374470.jpg (650x365, 54K)

That's actually a pretty damning incitement of the government running anything, because you're suggesting millions of consumers voting with their wallets are more efficient at reacting to corruption than the government, which is supposedly beholden to the people.

I believe the top earners need to be taxed 70%, that we need to tax Wall Street and give the Middle Class incentives to be taxed at slightly higher rates to fund the Green New Deal, user. That is "modern economics."

Attached: images[2].jpg (310x163, 12K)

>you're suggesting millions of consumers voting with their wallets are more efficient at reacting to corruption than the government
I've suggested no such thing. I've merely stated that this check exists for insurance companies and does not exist for private prisons.

>green new deal

literally socialism with a shit tonnes of racism thrown in for good measure, disguised as an environmental deal.

>green new deal
>green new deal

>mfw

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 61K)

Attached: fuckoff.jpg (582x437, 115K)

Maybe you should know what the Green New Deal is before you criticize it. Read it for yourself instead of having cable or radio personalities tell you what it is.

No we don't. You support governments that restrict that system to where only the richest enjoy its benefits. Democratic Socialists support Industrial Democracy.

Attached: 71r60iovPFL[1].jpg (907x1360, 182K)

>literally triggered
>racism
let me guess, it's "anti-white?"

Attached: 0001-001.gif (250x230, 927K)

>Anyone who thinks that everything should be privatized or that everything should be run by the state is a buffoon.
Fucking this!!!!
I am getting so sick of the simplistic, absolutist, black & white, /political/economic/philosophical "genius" world view bullshit being spouted here on Yea Forums & /pol/ all the time.
It is all 12yo. little boy tier thinking in its informed & realistic sophistication...., at best.

I can't. My mom's teaching me how to read though.

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said in May. A reporter for The Washington Post Magazine was at a meeting with Mr. Chakrabarti for a profile piece released last week.

“We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Mr. Chakrabarti said.

reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-aoc-chief-of-staff-admits-goal-of-green-new-deal-is-reshaping-american-economy-1760620/

>lets destroy the civil aviation industry

how to completely destroy a nation with one simple document.

you didn't read it did you.

Attached: 12451093_web1_Ocasio.jpg (512x341, 20K)

The only thing I have a hard time understanding is how you're using a specific argument to make all these specious and general claims in an attempt to sound like a dick. The government is highly inefficient at most things, the market is far better at distributing capital and via creative destruction shutting down things that don't work. Government tend to persist despite overwhelming evidence of failure, grow and self-perpetuate themselves, and insulate themselves from checks and balances. There are things that only governments can do, like provide a regulatory framework, a few basic services, fundamental investment or research, and dealing with externalities. But in most other cases,it's a matter of untangling the incentives and allowing markets to work.

But incentives matter. It's

You realize the poster you supported is exactly the type of retard you're trying to critcize, right? Because he was the one who made those claims, I sure as fuck didn't.

Well yeah. Part of why we have climate change issues is because of irresponsible labor practices, and impoverished communities where environmental regulation is only necessary because of bad corporate behavior.

you know that thing kids do when they think that hurting someone who hurt them is the answer?

You know that story of the two villagers constantly killing villiagers out of revenge in a never ending cycle.

hate just creates more hate. it's simple shit we teach kids.

For profit prisons have been cutting costs by simply shredding all of their inmates medical request forms. Now multiple for profit prisons across the US have become breeding grounds for MRSA. 3 inmates in a privately owned female prison have lost their life to it this year a lone and a 4th had her right breast rot off and she almost died.

>lets destroy the civil aviation industry
Think about it. Which of our technologies is the most polluting, and on a daily basis.
It's not about eliminating air travel. it's about reducing it by using other transportation for local and regional use, like bullet trains.

is this pro or anti the GND?

Attached: giphy[1].gif (480x270, 929K)

Politics Server!!! Feel free to join!
discord gg KjKZgd3

Ah, all good then. Keep studying and good luck.

without industrialisation there wouldn't be any kind of socialists. they only put obstacles in it's way.

>The only thing I have a hard time understanding is how you're using a specific argument to make all these specious and general claims in an attempt to sound like a dick.
Not what I'm doing.
>The government is highly inefficient at most things
Correct, but there are cases where we value things above efficiency. Strange as it sounds, inefficiency is even desirable in cases.
>Government tend to persist
Because they provide vital services that we wouldn't want privatized.
>a few basic services
The criminal justice system is one of those services.

Ah, so you haven't read a single word of it then. Read it, then come back and give your criticisms.

True. Factual no matter where your politics lie

Maybe not, but they decide who stays if they are corrupt, which is all of them. And since they get paid more the more people they have and the state begins to depend on them over time, you'd have to be an idiot not to realize how that could result in more incarcerations.

I agreed with a sentence...., not a "poster".
If you can't see the the individual statement that I agreed with is valid, then you are the "retard".
Feel free to retreat into your tribal, "us vs them" corner where nothing is ever fixed or gets done, though.

It was a set of ideas to increase jobs while improving the environment. If everyone is being honest, no one in either party should be against it. It supports economic and technological growth.

>Think about it. Which of our technologies is the most polluting, and on a daily basis.
Different user, but that's not a matter of "thinking about it". It's about doing the damn research, and looking at the whole picture.

For instance, which is better for the environment? Gas powered cars, or electrical? Right now, it's gas. Because most of that that electricity powering all those supposedly green cars comes from coal plants. Once you throw in transmission and storage losses, small internal combustions engines win.

Electrical cars do reduce pollution in populated areas, by moving the emissions from all the cars driving around a city to the power plants outside of it. But they only reduce emissions in a world where we've switched the power grid to low-polluting energies. And we're a long way from that. While things like solar cells have improved in the last decade or two, we still need more basic research, a hellavalot better batteries, and in the meantime we should switch to nuclear.

But yeah, just "think about it". All this was obvious from the start, right?

i'm going to "run away" from this thread now. It was fun talking to you worthless larping revolutionaries.

Someone someday is going to solve the problems you have with the world and you will still be sat there, a useless idiot.

I can't stand trump. I'm not even american. But i can't wait for him to win. Do you want to know why?

I just love seeing you overreacted like little kids. It's so entertaining. Trump 2020.

No, governments tend to persist because they become self-perpetuating. It's a known problem for massive bureaucracies since the time of the mandarins.

And I agree on criminal justice. So you have no point?

It's all workers rights user. And with automation we could be moving away from what's basically an 18th Century concept.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 105K)

You need to learn to read. Look at the poster your praised. He claimed victory by claiming his opponent was taking a completely black and white position. Except that was absolutely, 100% false. The poster you replied to was the one who made that claim, and therefore is the type of poster you're supposedly decrying.

Yet no democrats voted for the amazing "green new deal".
The democrats didn't even back it. How truly strange. can you tell me why? i'd love to know your mental gymnastics.

>fossil fuels are better for the environment
lol k

>B-B-B-But that BROWN GIRL talked about it so /pol/ told me to hate it!!!

Not talking about switching everyone over to electric vehicles, user. We need less cars, more public transportation.

>No, governments tend to persist because they become self-perpetuating.
No, governments persist because they provide vital services that we wouldn't want privatized. There is a reason people form governments in the first place and anarchies are unstable.
>And I agree on criminal justice.
So you agree that prisons, which are part of the criminal justice system, should not be privatized. Great.

>You need to learn to read
>What is projection
Show me where I "praised" a "poster".
I'll wait.

did you even read the post, you moron?

>Fucking this!!!!

You're just being deliberately obtuse.

Cars should be for long distance trips, cities should ban anything that isn't public transportation.

Openly execute those who oppose.

Not an argument.

How about we build a wall around California and Washington and send every prisoner there. Knowing I’d be forced to go there I’d never commit another crime.

I did. It was delightful watching you white-knight the fossil fuel industry with your strawman horseshit.

your mom should have openly executed you

Attached: 1563394758856.jpg (600x469, 63K)

>cities should ban anything that isn't public transportation.
I know you're trolling, but in many major cities the traffic has become uncontrollable. Charging people by the mile or banning it outright is the only way, thanks to idiots like you who have no concept of longterm planning.

I wasn't replying to an argument

there still hope, she still can. maybe she'll get fed up with taking care of him

Attached: maf.jpg (889x500, 29K)

How about we ban living within cities period. Move everyone to the Midwest. There’s thousands of square miles of empty land.

I also wasn't replying to an argument.

someday they're going to make Yea Forums illegal just to throw us in their private prisons

why wouldn't they? it makes them more money

That was just an example illustrating the point.

I generally agree on public transportation, but in the US it's essentially a dead issue politically. People like their cars, so there's no use pretending that anything less than a completely totalitarian public policy will convince them to switch. At best, we can create functional public transit networks. Too many cities have completely dysfunctional bus systems, for instance.

Another pie in the sky idea is closing cities to cars.

Agreeing with a single, objectively true statement in a post is the same as worshipping the user who posted it?
That's a funny, little thing called "common ground"...., it is how things are actually accomplished in the real world.
Are your tiny feefees hurt because I didn't agree with something thet (You) said, too?
Then go beck to your /pol/ circlejerk, where everyone will agree with you & stroke your ego, little boy.

so you would rather have coal powered electric cars?

Did you just assume my politics?
You did.
That's cute.
Go back to /pol/ yourself. You seem far more familiar with it than I.

I don't even think you know what you're posting.

discord
=======
.gg/wE4gY9
Dm Serena She Sends Nudes

at least nobody assumed your gender and/or lack of gender

>That's cute.
Fucking this!!!
Feel better now?

Yes, you actually were replying to an argument. But you didn't address any of the points.

That's cute.
Now crawl off back to /pol/

Way to take it like a man chief you really showed them

I'm an attack helicopter. My preferred pronouns are nigger/faggot/kms

Actually I wasn't. I was replying to assertions.

>People like their cars
tough shit
they're going to have to change their habits and by offering good public transportation and teaching kids in school how to bike commute is going to make a huge difference.

>they're going to have to
we dont have to do shit for you, commie

>might be true but i don't like that guy you just agreed with
>reeeeeeeee
idiot

I do actually. You made some lameass strawman argument about how everybody is all going to be driving priuses and how we're huge hypocrite pussies and how rock oil is still the way to go. I can read you like a book bastard.

No.

Yeah you actually will, as it will be the law. Oh, are you gonna go "civil war" (lol) on us over climate change like you threatened to over health care?

Attached: index.jpg (225x225, 8K)

Doesn't work that way. That's the problem with government, all these programs based on "hey, people should be doing this" followed by decades of abject failure and repeated cries of "why don't they just do this?"

>it will be the law
No it isnt lmao

Attached: Soy.png (112x112, 9K)

At least you're being somewhat honest. But assertions can be a valid component of an argument.

crybaby

This is my post How the fuck did you get
>everybody is all going to be driving priuses
If you read me like a book, that's like reading 1984 and thinking it's an instruction manual for a perfect society.

Certainly, but they aren't arguments in and of themselves and need to be justified regardless.

You just kept making assertions and repeating them yourself, you didn't justify them any further, or even tweak them to reflect the counterpoints I made

You didn't make counterpoints. You simply made contrary assertions without addressing my points. Therefore I simply repeated my original assertion.

My contrary assertions weren't just random unrelated statements, they were specifically targeted at your points. Your response was to just repeat yourself.

Actually, I didn't just repeat myself, I added in why your contrary assertion doesn't address my points.

Do you even know what it means to be a "for profit" company?
If you did you wouldn't want them to have fucking anything to do with the justice system or healthcare.

Bullet trains require massive amounts of electricity, and where do you think that comes from?
Inb4 green energy
Everyone knows solar panels and wind farms are a conspiracy. Solar panels capture heat and radiate it out, increasing global temps. This helps further the climate change agenda.
Wind farms are literally just a globetard conspiracy. They're trying to make the flat earth "spin" at those insane speeds they claim it already does.
Sad!

Nobody's gonna check those quads?!

The private sector will ALWAYS do a better and less corrupt job of administering literally ANYTHING than some governmental body or agency will.
- All prisons should be operated by for-profit corporations.
- All federal, state and local law enforcement should be contracted out to private security companies.
- All judicial proceedings should be taken away from the courts and handled by professional, corporate arbitrators.
These corporations should be paid handsomely for each and every criminal that they keep locked up, arrest or find guilty and jail in return for the valuable service that they are providing to civilized society.

If you don't agree with this, then your are a commie libshit sucking the shit out of AOC's socialist asshole.

No, you didn't. You just repeated yourself, except that one time you narrowly defined a general term in order to pretend you could claim victory that way.

Shifting the resources we have towards the greater good is just wise planning, user.
You want to relive the 1950s and you weren't even born yet.

We get too heated up in these threads. Many of us have our fleshlights standing by to deal with the seething rage and tend to miss those things.

>No, you didn't.
Yes, I did.
Original statement: Because they provide vital services that we wouldn't want privatized.
Your response.
New statement: No, governments persist because they provide vital services that we wouldn't want privatized. There is a reason people form governments in the first place and anarchies are unstable.

>The private sector will ALWAYS do a better and less corrupt job of administering literally ANYTHING than some governmental body or agency will.

source: Fox News

>the 1950's
Jesus user, they got ya good didnt they

You're just so fucking wrong.
I can't imagine what must have gone wrong in your life and education that would drive you to believe this dribble.

Fucking retards everywhere.

>(((they)))
grow up faggot

Daddy used to whup him, that's what started it. Told him to git some grease on his hands.

yea both of those examples posted by whoever make pretty good points against private prisons because of them costing more and also corrupting the system. i noticed that literally nobody ITT had any counter arguments to those posts. too bad this thread isn't at all on topic anymore kek,

No, you didn't.
>New statement: No, governments persist because they provide vital services that we wouldn't want privatized.
Exactly the same as the old statement. The only new addition is the part about anarchies are unstable, which has nothing to do with anything because we were discussing WHICH services should be part of the government and which should be private. Nobody was arguing that governments don't exist or that anarchy is the best solution. Pretending that's a valid rebuttal is called strawmanning.

t. seething kike

Attached: 1557021548528.png (500x560, 11K)

>Fucking libshits everywhere.
FTFY

Those posts are libcuck propaganda.

>Because they provide vital services that we wouldn't want privatized.
>No, governments persist because they provide vital services that we wouldn't want privatized. There is a reason people form governments in the first place and anarchies are unstable.
>Exactly the same
You're demonstrably wrong.
>The only new addition is the part about anarchies are unstable
Also that governments exist in the first place for a reason.
>which has nothing to do with anything
It directly has to do with your response, which was "governments tend to persist because they become self-perpetuating" which does not address why people continue to form governments in the first place.
>we were discussing WHICH services should be part of the government and which should be private
Except that you agreed with me that the criminal justice system should be part of the government, here: . When I pointed out that prisons are part of the criminal justice system here your response was simply a personal attack here: >Nobody was arguing that governments don't exist or that anarchy is the best solution
And I never said that you were. If anyone is strawmanning here, it's you.

Those are exactly the same arguments, except the part about anarchies. As I stated.

And the part about why governments exist has exactly nothing to do with anything we were discussing. We were talking about what belongs under the umbra of the government, not whether they exist or why. That's strawmanning.

And yes, I agreed that criminal justice is one of the essential services provided by the government. But stating that in no means that prisons can't be privately run. That's the part I alluded to earlier; you're trying to claim victory by taking a term with a broad, general meaning and defining it precisely and narrowly to pretend I supported something I never did.

>stating that in no way

>Those are exactly the same arguments, except the part about anarchies.
And the part about governments existing in the first place. If you have say "except" as a qualifier, then clearly they aren't exactly the same.
>We were talking about what belongs under the umbra of the government, not whether they exist or why.
Except you literally brought it up here with your comment: "Government tend to persist despite overwhelming evidence of failure, grow and self-perpetuate themselves, and insulate themselves from checks and balances." That is literally talking about why government exists, thus I am not strawmanning as I am responding to things you have actually said.
>I agreed that criminal justice is one of the essential services provided by the government. But stating that in no means that prisons can't be privately run.
Alright then, please define criminal justice system for me. I was under the impression that it was along the lines of:
criminal justice system (n) the system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of criminal offences.
or perhaps:
"The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions whose goals are to identify and catch unlawful individuals to inflict a form of punishment on them. Other goals include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims. The primary institutions of the criminal justice system are the police, prosecution and defense lawyers, the courts and prisons."

You did not use the exact same words.
They were still the exact same arguments, except the one I specifically called out every time I've said they're otherwise the same.
That's how the language works.

And, no, talking about how bureaucracies persist isn't talking about why governments exist in the first place. I was pointing out that ONCE THEY DO EXIST, they tend to grow. They're self-perpetuating organisms (since you're being very literal, don't take "organisms" to mean a biological organism).

And stop pretending the dispute is over a dictionary definition. It's about you redefining words at your convenience, in order to pretend other people are saying something different from what they actually stated. Saying the criminal justice system should be part of the government is not the same as saying that nothing related to criminal justice system can possibly be privatized. That's you willfully misinterpreting words, nothing more.

>They were still the exact same arguments, except the one I specifically called out every time I've said they're otherwise the same.
What's amusing about this is that I've already explained why I repeated the point that I did.
>And, no, talking about how bureaucracies persist isn't talking about why governments exist in the first place
Governments cannot exist if they don't persist. You are speaking directly to why they exist.
>And stop pretending the dispute is over a dictionary definition.
It certainly seems to be.
> It's about you redefining words at your convenience
Where have I done this?
>in order to pretend other people are saying something different from what they actually stated
I cannot read your mind, I can only respond to what you actually say.
>Saying the criminal justice system should be part of the government is not the same as saying that nothing related to criminal justice system can possibly be privatized
I mean sure. Roads are related to the criminal justice system (since you need to transport police, criminals, etc.), but I'm not claiming that you are saying that roads cannot be privatized. Prisons are not merely related to the criminal justice system though, they are part of the criminal justice system.

>What's amusing about this is that I've already explained why I repeated the point that I did.
And I explained why it wasn't a valid argument. It's not particularly amusing, more tiresome.

Persist isn't the same as exist, and stating criminal justice should be part of the government isn't the same as saying that prisons can't privatized. It's that simple. The rest is just you twisting common, readily understandable words and phrases to mean what you want them to mean, and ignoring both all the other more common ways the words are used, and the context in which they were used.

>And I explained why it wasn't a valid argument.
I mean, we agreed that we weren't making arguments at all. We were making assertions at each other.
>It's not particularly amusing, more tiresome.
Yet you're still here. I don't know why you'd be continuing this conversation that clearly isn't going to accomplish anything if you weren't amused by it.
>Persist isn't the same as exist
Correct, they are not equivalent, but a government that does not persist no longer exists. If it no longer exists, then it cannot serve the functions that it was created to serve in the first place. Therefore, why governments are created in the first place is relevant to why they persist.
>stating criminal justice should be part of the government isn't the same as saying that prisons can't privatized.
I mean you can assert that if you want, but it flies in the face of the common, standard definitions of criminal justice system.
>The rest is just you twisting common, readily understandable words and phrases to mean what you want them to mean
You still haven't shown where I've done this.
>ignoring both all the other more common ways the words are used, and the context in which they were used.
Hey I asked you to define criminal justice system, but you still haven't done that either.

>I don't know why you'd be continuing this conversation that clearly isn't going to accomplish anything if you weren't amused by it.
Because it's kind of novel. We're having the same type of semantic disputes that derail arguments in Yea Forums all the time, except we're both being fairly civil about it. And we even largely agree on what's said, and where we disagree. That's borderline unheard of.

This:
>stating criminal justice should be part of the government isn't the same as saying that prisons can't privatized.
... Is a correct statement. You're trying to impose absolute rigor n the English language, as if it were a mathematical proof. It simply doesn't work that way. This isn't a case where you're technically right, but missing the point. No, it's a case where you're fundamentally wrong, because you're applying the wrong rules. No reasonable person is going to read that statement and interpret say that it means they're totally opposed to hiring hourly laundry workers at a prison from a temp agency on the open market. It's a general statement of intent, in the vague and muddy world of public policy. If someone clarifies they don't mean the penal system, then that's what the statement means, and if you insist otherwise you're willfully misinterpreting it.

>Because it's kind of novel
Do you not find things that are novel to be amusing?
> Is a correct statement.
You can assert that if you want, but you still haven't defined criminal justice system in an effort to defend it.
>You're trying to impose absolute rigor n the English language, as if it were a mathematical proof. It simply doesn't work that way.
It does in an argument. If you do not clarify that you are using an unconventional definition and provide it, the reader is going to use the conventional definition and base their response on it.
>This isn't a case where you're technically right, but missing the point
I am though, and I've shown that I am.
>because you're applying the wrong rules
According to you perhaps.
>No reasonable person is going to read that statement and interpret say that it means they're totally opposed to hiring hourly laundry workers at a prison from a temp agency on the open market.
And I didn't say it meant that. What I did say it means is that you would be opposed to privatized prisons, as prisons are part of criminal justice system. You can support hiring private contractors to build a police station, but you can't support having the police station itself run by a private corporation and say that the criminal justice system should be part of the government.
>It's a general statement of intent
It seems like a pretty specific statement of intent.
>If someone clarifies they don't mean the penal system, then that's what the statement means, and if you insist otherwise you're willfully misinterpreting it.
Again, I've asked you a couple times now to define what the criminal justice system means to you, but you still haven't done it.

>unconventional definition
But I'm not. It's you, using a very narrow specific definition for a general term in an attempt to claim you're right. You can't do that, that's not how language works.

>Again, I've asked you a couple times now to define what the criminal justice system means to you
I stated that in the second post, and almost every post since, including the one you just quoted. It's part of explaining how you're abusing the language.

>It's you
I'm not though. When I gave my definitions I literally just typed "criminal justice system" into Google and gave the first result as well as copy-pasting the Wikipedia page.

>I stated that in the second post, and almost every post since, including the one you just quoted.
Where? Nowhere in any of your posts have you said anything along the lines of "where I define criminal justice system as X" or "criminal justice system (n): X"

I didn't phrase it like that, but its right there in plain English, repeated ad nauseum. I stated it as part of an argument, where I actually composed an argument that addressed your points. You're literally objecting because I didn't state it in the form of a dictionary definition, and that's a derailing technique. Demanding things be presented in the format you specify, instead of reading what people actually said and the context in which they said it, is just another variation on the semantic arguments you've been making. It's invalid, and as I stated before I won't cater to willful obtuseness.

tldr; version: address what I said, not the false things you're claiming I said.

>but its right there in plain English
Where? Quote it.
>You're literally objecting because I didn't state it in the form of a dictionary definition, and that's a derailing technique.
I'm objecting because you literally have not defined it. It should be trivial for you to do so.
>Demanding things be presented in the format you specify, instead of reading what people actually said and the context in which they said it
I have read and responding to what you've actually said, interpreted through the lens of common definitions as you haven't given any other definitions to use.
>It's invalid
It's not at all invalid to demand that the person you are talking to be clear about their terms. If you are not, it becomes trivial for them to change definitions at will to whatever happens to be advantageous to their position at the time.
>I stated before I won't cater to willful obtuseness.
Then the unstoppable force has met the immovable object.

I've addressed exactly what you have said.

Right here, for instance >I'm objecting because you literally have not defined it. It should be trivial for you to do so.
I have.

>It's not at all invalid to demand that the person you are talking to be clear about their terms. If you are not, it becomes trivial for them to change definitions at will to whatever happens to be advantageous to their position at the time.
I agree, but that's how you started this whole tangent. I agreed that the criminal justice system was best as part of the government, you snarked that that meant the penal system, and I objected.

What do you think that means? It should be really, really, clear even if I didn't state a dictionary definition. There's no question, no ambiguity. But ever since, you've pretended you don't know what I said. That's deliberate obtuseness.

>Right here, for instance
I don't see any definition there, sorry.
>I have.
You haven't though.
>that's how you started this whole tangent
I've been extremely clear about the definitions that I'm using.
>I agreed that the criminal justice system was best as part of the government, you snarked that that meant the penal system, and I objected.
Correct, but you haven't been able to support your objection. It's like when the lawyer in a legal drama shouts "Objection!" but then sits back down because they can't actually formulate one.
>What do you think that means?
It means that you object, but I can't discuss it in any further detail with you until you actually give a definition.
>There's no question, no ambiguity
There's no question that you disagree, but what your terminology is nothing but ambiguous.
>But ever since, you've pretended you don't know what I said.
I know what you've literally said, but I have no way to know what you apparently meant, because you won't tell me.