Those who are capable of killing others just because they have access to a shovel are beyond hope. The other 99% will have no problem farming. And in return they can earn some pay, obtain more privileges, maybe get out of jail earlier, learn some farming skills, and be a bit more rehabilitated when leaving jail. Nothing like this is easy but it's doable...and there's no excuse why we don't grow more food locally...
How do you mean? Prison labour [usually] costs less than regular workers, therefore the regular workers will be put out of work because they're not needed.
I think you over estimate the other 99%. Our local jail had to do away with a lot of the trustee jobs because nobody would sign up to do them. They would rather sleep their time away than work for $9/hr
If we're talking about food production, isn't that the labour currently being performed by illegal aliens?
How long can someone sleep without eating? We have an opportunity to perform an experiment using our prison system. We could try two different methods, one based on individualism and the other on collectivism. 1. Individualism - These prisons would allow each individual to perform labour and earn prison dollars used to purchase their needs and wants. 2. Collectivism - These prisons would allow to perform labour, pooling the earnings to be distributed equally among all to be used to purchase their needs/wants. Each prison would run as a society, and perhaps even allow for trading between other prisons.
Experimenting on people is taboo because some college punk wore reflective lens sunglasses in the early 70's at Stanford.
Life and progress in general is a perpetual experiment. Perhaps if the inmates of each prison were allowed to vote on the system under which they would be kept, a collectivist or an individualist type society? Maybe even allow them to form a government within the prison, like a local government with the Warden and guards assimilated to a State government with the BOP as the Federal entity.
Some is, some isn't. But prison labour is often subsidised by the state, so either you keep illegal aliens, which don't cost the government much (depending on how they react to them) and don't cost the employer much, or you have prison labour (which is paid for by the state via taxes) or you have neither and have proper workers (but food prices go up due to their wages).
Well, the 'cost' of our prison system is paid for by the taxpayers. What I'm saying is that the cost of running our prison system should be borne partially, if not completely upon those who are incarcerated. Being convicted of a crime, the resulting imprisonment should not result in being provided a tax payer paid vacation or any other form of reward. While this thread is titled "Better welfare systems", prison is just another form of welfare and I remember a bitter winter in Atlanta one year resulting in an increase in crime by homeless persons who were committing crimes in order to spend the winter in a more comfortable environment and being fed. Perhaps eliminating welfare and replacing it with a workfare system, with the primary objective being to make the need of government provided, taxpayer funded assistance less desirable. Working one or two days a week and refusing a full time job when offered because it would reduce or eliminate government assistance should no longer be a choice. No labour should result in a life of abject poverty unless another private sector individual wishes to pick up the cost, leaving government to provide some help to those who are able and willing to help themselves get on their feet.
It may have escaped you, but the vast majority of those who end up in prison are not wealthy. It isn't though, and pretty much never has been. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's a reward from - unless you seem to think having all your freedoms restricted is a reward? Workfare results in the same problem as prison labour, it's cheaper than regular workers. The only way to have both workfare and maintain the current employment rate is for the government to directly (and almost entirely) fund, and thus create, work programs - an iconic an example of this being Reichsarbeitsdienst.
sync:sync 1. Persons are incarcerated as a result of being convicted of committing a crime. 2. All valuables are removed when they enter prison, hence they have no wealth at all. 3. There is a cost to housing and feeding those who are imprisoned., currently borne by the taxpayers. sync:sync 4. The suggestion is to create jobs which would allow those imprisoned to produce their needs, food being a prime example. The labours performed could be remunerated by wages being paid with prison dollars, their own monetary system which could be distributed individually based upon the labour performed or distributed equally in a collective fashion regardless of any labour being performed. Leave that to be determined by the prisoners. 5. That results in two distinct possibilities, one each would have what they earned individually to spend on the food produced and prepared by them and the other prisoners or two they would each have an equal share of the total amount of prison dollars to spend on the food produced and prepared. 6. In addition to food production, other jobs could be introduced which might result in consumption from outside the prison in real dollars with the prisoners earning prison dollars to be spent inside while the real dollars would be put to use reducing the cost to taxpayers in maintaining and operating the prison. 7. Perhaps those prison dollars could even later be converted into real dollars upon being released from prison. sync:sync:sync ALL you freedoms? Free housing, food, medical care, gymnasium equipment, TV, library, heating and air, clothing, etc. Then it should serve as an inducement to find a regular job, paying more. Workfare jobs should be those which are less desirable and more difficult to find willing employees. Read the response above, and all the work should be that which is necessary, but difficult to find willing law abiding employees. And this is Constitutional in accordance with the 13th Amendment.
>Supports the state seizing private property Your point being? There's a cost to preventing crime as well as punishing and rehabilitating criminals In essence you want to convert prisons into socialist communes You're still forgetting that this would still cost the state a lot of money, given the irrigation, seeds, land and need of those trained in horticulture will have to be fronted by the taxpayer as even if you stole all of the prisoners' wealth, the costs would still be too much. So the costs would still come from the state WELL YOU CAN'T PUNISH PEOPLE WITHOUT HAVING SOMEWHERE TO PUT THEM You seem not be able to distinguish between 'freedoms' and 'free'. They are not free to eat/cook what they want, they're not free to wear what they want, they're not free to live where they want; prison is a punishment which strips you of your freedoms. Also, I see you don't value rehabilitation in the slightest then Are you actually reading my posts? It will be harder to get work because prison labour will have replaced many unskilled professions
Not needed for what? Regular workers are not farming today and providing food to food banks and the needy. Prisoners would not be taking jobs from anyone...
When I was a kid if I was to tell my father I was going to sleep instead of doing chores there would have been hell to pay! It's not about signing up...it's mandatory...
I'm a farmer and hire labor all the time and it's actually rare to run into illegals. Most of them have family here, kids born here, and green cards, all of which 'were' considered legal prior to 45. I would be curious to know what percentage of migrant farm workers in the US are actually illegal?
Okay, I think there's some miscommunication between us, now tell me, what do you want? how will it work? and who will fund it?
Well I am trying to create a civil dialogue, which is why I presented those questions; it is you, sir, that is letting down the side.
No, simply placing it in storage until they are released. "3. There is a cost to housing and feeding those who are imprisoned., currently borne by the taxpayers." The cost of living while imprisoned should be borne by the labours of the imprisoned as it 'should be' for those who are not imprisoned. And while you may view incarceration as being punishment for having committed a crime, part of rehabilitation should include learning to be a productive member of society. Not at all, just societies which within the rules of the Federal BOP, and the rules of the individual prison, inmates could by a democratic process choose to live based on a set of rules they would agree to, collectively, or individually. I'm sure that initially some of the costs would remain borne by the taxpayers, but considering the current average costs per inmate, I think it would be less and gradually over time become nearly self sustaining, or perhaps even produce a net profit for government. Yes, incarceration is meant to be a punishment for breaking our laws. Rehabilitation implies integration/reintegration into society. So, in essence it would result in prisons confine lawbreakers to live within a society which would operate quite similar to the society into which they are expected to live within lawfully once their time has been served. Yes, shouldn't that be obvious when I post something disagreeing with your post? Prison labour as I've suggested would primarily be to produce the needs and wants of those imprisoned, and possibly a trade between different prisons. I'm not suggesting growing wheat to be sold on the world market, or automobiles to compete with Honda, Ford, or other anything like that. They would become gated (and locked) societies, simply more self sufficient and productive for their own needs than they currently are, and preparing them for what they will face in the societies they hope to reenter.
I felt this needed answered by itself. The way I distinguish and apply the two words, freedom and free in discussion, is freedom implies being allowed to do something without restraint while free in the adverb form implies the acquisition of something without cost. If I use the word 'free' as an adjective or verb, the additional words of the sentence should make clear its use is more synonymous to the word freedom. For example, "After serving a lengthy sentence John once again became free(no longer restrained), leaving behind the gates wearing a free(provided by someone at no cost) suit." While I would probably have wrote, "After serving a lengthy sentence John once again gained his freedom(no longer restrained), leaving behind the gates wearing a free(provided by someone at no cost) suit."
My being born disabled and due to a lack of health care then getting too unfit to be employed is MY fault? I did everything society asked of me went to school, graduated with a High School Diploma after a lot of effort. Worked and due to disability often **** jobs that paid the minimum wage or less when I had to work off the books to work at all. I was a Busker, did some jobs for great pay but were hardly legal and often didn't work for long periods of illness. I get help from the government now and appreciate it but its hardly without proving I can't be employed lawfully and this was determined by a panel of experts without a judge so they are sure I'm not ever going to be employed or get better. What more do people want from disabled people sometimes life isn't fair and we need help. I'd rather be a cripple here than in a poor country.
