Hacker News Reader

Comment by stirfrykitty | Hacker News Reader

Nothing at all wrong with using prison labor for something related to supporting the public, particularly a school. Taxpayer money keeps them locked up and by dint of this, we should get return on investment.

Here in Texas, prison labor is widely used, widely supported, and widely liked. At my last job, we used prison labor often (move furniture, mow lawns, warehouse work). The only prisoners in Texas allowed to be out working around the public are low-grade, non-violent prisoners who also have less than 6 months to go on their sentence. Texas has many programs designed to help prisoners re-enter the market as useful people: farm, mechanical, electronic, etc.

Paying a debt to society should involve doing something for society, not just sitting a cell for 23 hours a day. Texas prisons demand every able-bodied prisoner work. They raise their own chickens, cows, horses, and garden food. If you refuse to work, you go into segregation. Fair enough.

View on HN

> If you refuse to work, you go into segregation.

I find this repugnant at best. A society that uses prisoners as a slave labor force is a society that always has a need for prisoners. Keeping prisoners should be fundamentally unprofitable for society, so that there is always a clear incentive to reduce recidivism rates and to decriminalize acts that don't actually hurt people.

I agree. And on top of that, it takes jobs away from people who are not in prison, and gives it to people who likely can't negotiate a fair pay.

Since you asked, complaining about getting downvoted tends to acquire more downvotes.

I would also suggest not simply sharing your opinion and stating it as fact, this site lives on productive discourse. You simply posting your opinion doesnt benefit anyone. What answer would you have expected, except people agreeing or disagreeing with you? Your edit sounds rather similar.

You might want to take a look into the community guidelines.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It destroys intellectual curiosity, which the site exists for.

Thank you for your civil reply. Nothing political or ideological in stating that prison labor for the public good is a good thing. It is. That's a fact. Prisoners owe the public for their malfeasance, hence their serving time to pay back society for breaking the social compact.

I will say, however, that this site appears and acts disproportionately left in its operation. And while I am a very far right ultra-traditionalist, I can happily exist around others with differing opinions. Notice, if you will, that I never vote anyone down. People are entitled to opinions. The left seems militantly opposed to any viewpoint that challenges their narrative. Voltaire applies...

You are using the word "fact" where its patently obvious that "opinion" is the correct word, after your mistake was already explained to you.

> prison labor for the public good is a good thing.

is an opinion.

> Prisoners owe the public

is an opinion

> for their malfeasance,

is an opinion

> breaking the social compact

opinion or debatable fact.

> I am a very far right ultra-traditionalist,

Yes, slavery is traditionalist.

Here are some facts you might find enlightening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_(film)

Slavery was a democrat policy. Fact. And I'm not a Republican--they are too liberal and too soft. I've always been opposed to slavery. Just because some prisons and policies have been wrong doesn't mean prison labor is wrong.

Just because I'm a traditionalist doesn't in the slightest equal support for slavery. I'm a traditionalist in that I'm a strict constructionist as regards the Constitution, natural marriage (man/woman), pro-military/pro-conscription (or equal civil service), low-tax, small government.

I'm OK with your thoughts, opinions, and ideas. They don't offend me. I'm not a snowflake, soft, or easily offended. I thrive in challenging environments, but I loathe how others cannot accept my opinion when I accept theirs. I work with all manner of people, and I disagree with most of them, but I never get bent out of shape over the fact that some of them voice things that I find disheartening or abjectly stupid. I just smile and let them go about their merry way.

Slavery was a Constitutional policy. Article 1, Section 9 contains:

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

It had nothing to do with the Democratic party or the Republican party.

If your linking of slavery with the Democratic party is somehow connected to Lincoln being a Republican, so of course the Republicans freed the slaves, then I'd suggest reading about the presidencies of FDR, LBJ, a bit regarding Nicon's "Southern Strategy", and Clinton. The geographic south of the U.S. was conservative Democratic prior to them, and shifted to conservative Republican. The parties changed. The people in place (for the most part) didn't.

> but I loathe how others cannot accept my opinion when I accept theirs.

Your belief that gays should not allowed to marry illustrates that you believe some people are Less Than bases on things out of their control (their sexuality, in this case).

To hold this opinion is not a problem. To defend it, or espouse it, however, you have no choice but to step forward and say "gays are not as much People as me." That's an attack on someone's humanity, and totally unacceptable, totally untenable.

People being upset with you for attacking someone's very worth as a human isn't them being snowflakes, it's them fully rejecting a prejudiced person, and showing them the door.

>Slavery was a democrat policy. Fact

When fact always gets trotted out (along with "Abe Lincoln was Republican"), the fact that the Republicans/Democrats were essentially opposite parties compared to now is always omitted.

Does the prison labor cost the company as much as normal labor would cost or is this a subsidy that drives down wages for all workers in that region who do the same sort of work?

> we should get return on investment.

What's the return on giving a job that would have gone to outside workers to an inmate instead?

This point of view seems ignorant of history and human nature. For example, after slavery was abolished in the south, prison wardens realized they could just rent out their prisoners to former slave owners to make some extra cash. In support of this, the state governments came up with all kinds of nonsense like truancy laws so they could put black people in jail for any reason, even being unemployed. They just made them slaves again, legally.

Using prisoners for profit means there is profit in imprisoning more people.

>Texas prisons demand every able-bodied prisoner work.

i wonder whether the Texas penalty code says "... punishable by N years in prison" or "... punishable by N years of slave labor" and whether the latter would pass the muster of constitutionality.

It would be constitutional to literally mandate slavery. Section 1 of the 13th Amendment [1]:

> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

> Is this site so far left there are no conservatives?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

Reply on news.ycombinator.com