Hacker News Reader

Comment by everyone | Hacker News Reader

You're right, is it a logical outcome. Its inevitable if you let market forces dictate everything. There is a such a strong anti-government 'libertarian' streak to US domestic policy, that is essentially anarchism though. Which quickly defaults to oligarchy / despotism. One of the primary purposes of nations and governments is (or ought to be anyway) to protect the poor and powerless from the excesses of the rich and powerful, to level the playing field somewhat and ensure some modicum of fairness. Those in the US should look to extremely well run countries like Denmark with more socialist governments and strong legislation protecting its citizens. That is how a country ought to be.

View on HN

I know of very few libertarians who support private prisons. The private prison movement is definitely part of the crony capitalism/fascism trend here that most libertarians hate with a passion.

Don't believe me? Check out this discussion on /r/Libertarian, featuring comments from many /r/Libertarian habitues:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/rn2re/what_do_...

As a rule of thumb, if a "capitalist" business depends on the largesse of and/or connections/bribes to the government, it's not really engaging in capitalism, at least not the capitalism that the libertarians I know promote.

I think many people who disdain libertarianism view it as a more extreme version of free market conservatism. But the two are in fact very different.

> As a rule of thumb, if a "capitalist" business depends on the largesse of and/or connections/bribes to the government, it's not really engaging in capitalism, at least not the capitalism that the libertarians I know promote.

That is why I don't think Libertarianism is viable. It is just as a nice fantasy ideology, much like Communism is. It looks good on paper, if you remove lots complications -- such as how the real world works.

They keep talking how they believe Libertarianism would be great if just government stayed away. Communism is just like that, it is perfect, if everyone just worked consciously, without cutting corners and so on.

In the real world, the shortest and quickest way to make a profit and rise to the top is regulatory capture and lobbying. For a mere couple of million it is possibly to buy state and federal legislators. It is just stupidly profitable to promise executive position to those in regulatory agencies after they quit. How many revolving doors there are between FCC and Verizon, or FDA and drug companies and so on...

It takes a bit of rhetorical agility to blame "Government officials fining the poor and imprisoning them when they fail to pay" on libertarians.

It does but I think there is some connection to the line of thinking employed by libertarians and those who champion free market principles. At the base of such philosophies, in the United States, is the notion of every man for himself.

I've noticed over the years such people ridicule things like "It takes a Village" and other notions of community involvement. We've gotten to a point where a Vice Presidential candidate laughed at the notion of paying taxes as patriotic whilst her son was in the military receiving his training, equipment, and pay from taxes. Taxes are labeled theft by many on the far right. The political climate is such that raising taxes is automatically considered bad and hence municipalities resort to non-taxation means of raising money. When that happens the poor get targeted as they are an easy target. It's expensive being poor in the U.S.

Well a lot of it because the prison system in the US is often privatised and run for profit, as is the parole company in the article. Everyone (including the local government) is incentivised to fleece the poor and there is nothing to protect them. Things that would solve this (based on other countries that dont suffer from these issues)

1. Tax corporations and rich people more. Then the local government wont be reduced to fleecing the poor, also it would make the government stronger relative to large corporations and reduce their clout and lobbying power.

2. Dont let private corporations run prisons for profit. (I dont think I need to explain why)

3. Provide stronger legislation protecting the poor and services such as legal advice to make preying upon them less lucrative.

> 1. Tax corporations and rich people more. Then the local government wont be reduced to fleecing the poor, also it would make the government stronger relative to large corporations and reduce their clout and lobbying power.

Government is a lot like any other entity. It will grow as big as it can. Even if you tax corporations and rich people more, the math for government promises still doesn't work out, government will still fleece the poor.

And now we've come full circle on how libertarianism is co-opted into arguing that it isn't the Government's role to protect the poor.

What definition of 'often' are you using? 84% of Federal prisoners and 94% of state prisoners are in public "non-profit" prisons. [1] I don't know what percentage of probation services are conducted by private organizations, a quick search showed it's only done in 10 states, so not a majority. It also seems to be a symptom of mass incarceration - didn't really start to increase until early 90s.

1- Most corporate and income taxes aren't at the state or local level. Cities that find themselves trying to increase taxes too high find themselves in situations like my city (Baltimore) or Detroit, etc - a taxbase that flees to counties with lower rates, and the very people we're trying to help trapped in what are now sprawling cities that lack the ability to maintain their infrastructure and institutions. I would consider taxing 'correctly' an unsolved problem, especially at the local level where they have to actually convince businesses and individuals to stay in their area.

2- I'm not necessarily in favor of 'for profit' prisons but I don't believe the opponents have either a) established the connection between private prisons and increasing incarceration rates, or b) shown that states without private prisons are more willing to decrease prison populations. It's not clear to me that the voting population has required significant convincing to stay 'tough on crime'.

3- Sure and of course we continue to overburden public defenders resulting in what ought to be considered unconstitutionally deficient 'access' to legal counsel.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/privatization...

>It's not clear to me that the voting population has required significant convincing to stay 'tough on crime'.

That's the key. Ultimately it's the public which decides how tough sentencing is. People who are trying to blame shadowy capitalists or (laughably) libertarians are really barking up the wrong tree. We have a whole bunch of people in jail because the public wants them there.

> It takes a bit of rhetorical agility to blame "Government officials fining the poor and imprisoning them when they fail to pay" on libertarians.

Not that far fetched. Libertarians here is probably used loosely, I think it is supposed to mean free market capitalists.

I guess many Republicans and (conservatives in general) will identify themselves as being for free markets, for trickle down economics, for "small government" etc. It sounds good paper, sure. But that is just PR, in reality they are just "pro-power". In America it is easy to get power and a good solid following by saying you identify with those concepts. (Read it is easy to get a lot of poor people to vote against their own interests by invoking those concepts, it would be stupid not to use that tool!).

Later on while in power, it is easy to say in power by again applying those principle. Talk about "Wealth-fare queens", "cheap handouts", "not poor but lazy" and so on, to justify pretty much all the thing done to the poor in this country, got school programs,

Again the PR spiel is "free market capitalism", "small government" in reality that is used to pray on the poor for fun and profit.

There's a pretty direct line between libertarian political ideology and government officials who subscribe to it privatizing portions of the justice system and pushing for police departments to be self funding. Seems to me like a rhetorical klutz could get there easily.

Perhaps a 'republican' or conservative political ideology?

Certainly there aren't many (if any?) self-identified libertarians at any level local/state/federal of our government. And it's not particularly libertarian to maintain the same punishment structure while handing out government contracts to well connected profiteers?

Are the poor treated better by the criminal justice system in states with no privatized justice systems and strong correctional officer unions?

>There is a such a strong anti-government 'libertarian' streak to US domestic policy, that is essentially anarchism though.

This is patent nonsense. "Anti-government" libertarian types (who aren't actually anti-government, by the way) have no interest in throwing masses of people in jail. Only 10% of the prison population is housed in a private prison - if the libertarians were in charge they'd all go broke.

No, the problem is the big government people who want to incarcerate everyone who spits on the sidewalk - the very antithesis of a libertarian.

>>One of the primary purposes of nations and governments is (or ought to be anyway) to protect the poor and powerless from the excesses of the rich and powerful

That is not the primary purpose of government at all, nor should it be I would argue. Government primary purpose is to be the enforcer of laws and rules ( as well as the entity responsible for the maintenance of the existing code of law).

Shouldn't the laws and rules allow for fair opportunities for all? If the laws overwhelmingly favour the rich and the government is primarily concerned with maintaining those laws then you have a tyrannical, unjust government.

I suggest the following amendment to your statement:

Government primary purpose is to be the enforcer of laws and rules in the pursuit of fairness.

You need to look no further then America's bail system to see that our justice system favours the rich.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com