Briefing: For-Profit Prisons From Who What Why
http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/01/briefing-for-profit-prisons/
By Russ Baker on May 1, 2012
Crime is going down in America, but more Americans than ever are in prison—and more and more money is being spent and made turning this country into a giant armed camp.
At WhoWhatWhy, we know you’re busy. So we’re going to give you the key points here in bullet form (links in box at bottom):
-America’s system of detaining and monitoring “criminals” impacts more people than ever before. Including those who are either in some form of incarceration or in the parole and probation process, you’re looking at an affected population of….six million. One out of every 100 Americans is behind bars now. And every year, about 13 million Americans spend some time in jail for at least a brief spell.
-State legislators faced with dwindling revenues are eager to offload inmates to “cheap” private facilities
-The private prison industry grew 350 percent over the past fifteen years.
- Two private companies – Corrections Corporation of America and The GEO Group– dominate the private prison industry. The biggest company, Corrections Corporation of America, is offering to buy prisons from states as long as they can promise an adequate supply of prisoners to make the deal worthwhile.
-Studies show that private facilities perform badly compared to public ones on almost every metric—prevention of intra-prison violence, jail conditions, rehabilitation efforts—except reducing state budgets and adding to the corporate bottom line.
To keep their gravy train rolling, private prison companies need a few things from state and local government:
1) Lots of people arrested and convicted (often of essentially victimless crimes) and given long sentences. This most heavily impacts young black males—about one in nine of whom is in prison, many for using or selling marijuana, or, to a lesser degree, harder drugs. (Although whites have comparable drug use rates, their prosecution rates are dramatically lower.)
2) Opposition to the decriminalization of drug use, which would cut sharply into prison industry profits. (As a result, it ain’t going to happen.)
3) The continued criminalization and detention of undocumented foreigners.
With serious crime rates dropping, the US has fewer and fewer of the hardest-core (mostly male) criminals who were once prime targets for incarceration. To replace them, the private prison industry needs more young people, more women and (thanks to the immigration snatch game) more children as fodder for detention facilities.
The privatization of prisons is yet another instance of how small-government advocates are driving more and more of our lives into the hands of companies whose only objective is to turn a profit – without concern for larger social consequences. When public services like incarceration are handled as cheaply as possible, terrifying outcomes can result, including, in this case, unnecessary harm to minor offenders, the hardening of minor offenders into serious criminals, and calls for still more draconian law enforcement and punishment protocols, whose main justification is to keep those for-profit prisons filled.
How bad can it get? A private detention company in Pennsylvania bribed two judges to order youths imprisoned
http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/01/briefing-for-profit-prisons/
Read More: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/01/briefing-for-prof...
Sounds like China, "need more workers, we will arrest more people". I remember the judges receiving kickbacks, America is a nation built on fraud and graft.
Regulatory agencies are ALWAYS captured by the industries they regulate. From the very first regulations on business, the regulations were requested and written by the biggest companies in the particular industry. Again inevitable when someone has a monopoly on legalized force. What they teach you in schools about the government's "job" is all baloney--just a whitewash to keep the scam going.
Don't blame people who advocate for small government. They are just confused because they mistakenly believe that SOME government is a necessary evil instead of understanding that ALL government is evil by definition because it is nothing more than a monopoly on the legalized initiation of violence. It is only "necessary" if you believe the really crazy notion that some people are so virtuous they can be trusted with power over other people.
Normal people are perfectly capable of governing themselves through decentralized relationships based on simple principles of self-ownership and property rights. They can certainly find innovative ways to take care of the small minority of people who are not normal (like politicians and other criminals).
Politicians, Business Men, Bankers, Clergy, Police, Attorneys, are all criminals because those people contribute NOTHING to civilization while reaping all the benefits of people's productive labor.
As an anarchist, a REAL Anarchist, someone who really lives by the definition of the term, and I take linguistics very seriously as you know, the term Anarchy means absence of ANY kind of ruler!
And that's where I disagree with your theory because if we just get rid of governments, and retain landlords, management offices in buildings, security in buildings, surveillance cameras to surveil people, Corporations, Academic Institutions, Religions, we are still under rulership, the only difference is instead of a monopoly public state, we would have competing private states.
As long as the mechanics of exchange remain in place we will always be under tyranny, there will always be a need for a state system be it a monopoly state, or private competing states because an exchange based system, and monogamy are systems and social practices that can not stand on their own, they have to be enforced! That's why I advocate as you know for an economic system that does NOT have to be enforced. Hence get rid of the mechanics of exchange, and get rid of monogamy!
...
Politicians, Business Men, Bankers, Clergy, Police, Attorneys, are all criminals because those people contribute NOTHING to civilization while reaping all the benefits of people's productive labor.
As an anarchist, a REAL Anarchist, someone who really lives by the definition of the term, and I take linguistics very seriously as you know, the term Anarchy means absence of ANY kind of ruler!
And that's where I disagree with your theory because if we just get rid of governments, and retain landlords, management offices in buildings, security in buildings, surveillance cameras to surveil people, Corporations, Academic Institutions, Religions, we are still under rulership, the only difference is instead of a monopoly public state, we would have competing private states.
As long as the mechanics of exchange remain in place we will always be under tyranny, there will always be a need for a state system be it a monopoly state, or private competing states because an exchange based system, and monogamy are systems and social practices that can not stand on their own, they have to be enforced! That's why I advocate as you know for an economic system that does NOT have to be enforced. Hence get rid of the mechanics of exchange, and get rid of monogamy!
I like your contributions to my threads, they're always thought provoking, and cary a lot of truth.
I hope you understand why I am skeptical of what you advocate, for as a replacement of the current cancerous system. I believe you're genuine. I However, have a very difficult time seeing how it would be any different.
However, business men and bankers are in a different category. Corporations and banks as we know them are creatures of the state and, as such, exploiters of productive people, but not all business men and bankers are monopolistic exploiters. Without any government at all, society would still need entrepreneurs and financiers to provide the goods and services we all want and need. Unless you can personally grow all your own food and build your own shelter and create your own tools, you have to trade the products of your labor with other people. The more complex and technologically advanced the society and economy, the greater the need for both the people who can bring together resources and a monetary system (with competing currencies) that can facilitate trade between people.
I know you think technology can someday completely solve the problem of scarcity, and maybe that day will come, but un...
However, business men and bankers are in a different category. Corporations and banks as we know them are creatures of the state and, as such, exploiters of productive people, but not all business men and bankers are monopolistic exploiters. Without any government at all, society would still need entrepreneurs and financiers to provide the goods and services we all want and need. Unless you can personally grow all your own food and build your own shelter and create your own tools, you have to trade the products of your labor with other people. The more complex and technologically advanced the society and economy, the greater the need for both the people who can bring together resources and a monetary system (with competing currencies) that can facilitate trade between people.
I know you think technology can someday completely solve the problem of scarcity, and maybe that day will come, but until then, we must have ways to produce enough food and shelter and healthcare for a growing population and distribute those things in an equitable manner. It can't be done by any monopolistic organization. It has to be done through networks of decentralized and competitive organizations. The organizing principle that creates order in such a decentralized system is respect for persons and, as a corollary, respect for private property. In order for humans to thrive, we must own ourselves and the products of our labor.
What I advocate for is a TECHNOLOGICAL egalitarian economic system globally, where everyone has EQUAL access to the means of production, and distribution! The only thing that anyone should own is their own dwelling for living in, and anything they choose to have in their dwelling for their own use, and pleasure. It's the difference between exploitative property, and none exploitative property.
Who is going to build those dwellings that people "should" (are allowed to) own? Can you gather the necessary resources and build your own dwelling? If you can't, how is it non-exploitative to take that dwelling from the person who built it? Are you thinking that you can just appropriate all existing buildings and never have to build more?
The biggest question is how are you going to "change the economic system we operate under?" Our present economic system is forced on us by government violence. Are you going to use violence to change it? What I advocate is opting out of the present system as much as possible without incurring the violence of the state and developing competi...
Who is going to build those dwellings that people "should" (are allowed to) own? Can you gather the necessary resources and build your own dwelling? If you can't, how is it non-exploitative to take that dwelling from the person who built it? Are you thinking that you can just appropriate all existing buildings and never have to build more?
The biggest question is how are you going to "change the economic system we operate under?" Our present economic system is forced on us by government violence. Are you going to use violence to change it? What I advocate is opting out of the present system as much as possible without incurring the violence of the state and developing competing economic systems that will replace the government's system when it collapses from lack of legitimacy, as it inevitably must.
I think you have every right to try to live in that communal society you fantasize, as long as you don't infringe on the property of people who developed and/or created the property. Property rights (including self-ownership) is the only principle that creates order in society. Without respect for property rights, civil society is impossible. The only alternative social organization is exploitation by violence, which is what we have now and have had through most of history.
Back to my point, a technological egalitarian economy would work the same as the primitive ones except nobody would be living primitive, so to answer you question about housing, again everything is open source! Housing is built for the benefit of all, not to exploit anyone same as anything else people produce in society. Those building the housing will benefit off all the other things being produced in society because they will have equal access to all resources just as everyone will have equal access to housing.
Egalitarianism does NOT EVER involve coercion, force, violence of any kind because in an egalitarian system, THAT'S NOT NEEDED! People willingly participate in society happily and they know that their occupation they partake in is benefitin...
Back to my point, a technological egalitarian economy would work the same as the primitive ones except nobody would be living primitive, so to answer you question about housing, again everything is open source! Housing is built for the benefit of all, not to exploit anyone same as anything else people produce in society. Those building the housing will benefit off all the other things being produced in society because they will have equal access to all resources just as everyone will have equal access to housing.
Egalitarianism does NOT EVER involve coercion, force, violence of any kind because in an egalitarian system, THAT'S NOT NEEDED! People willingly participate in society happily and they know that their occupation they partake in is benefiting their community, and making a meaningful difference for society, and themselves personally.
The concept of ownership would be a thing of the past in the economic system I advocate for because you would be able to go into an apartment complex if you're looking for a dwelling, find an available unit, put your name on the door, and live there as long as you want, no management office, no lease, no landlord no for of rulership or rationing, or regulation in the equation. See the difference with what I'm talking about Joyce?! I'm talking about a system that would not involve a state system under any circumstances! Everything is open source, equal access to the means of production, equal access to food, housing, medical, to all resources, again read the definition of the term egalitarian if you don't understand it.
I'l close by saying this, Think Star Trek, that's another good example of what I advocate for. In Start The mechanics of exchange did NOT exist on the Enterprise! Everything was open sources, Captain Picard did NOT have better living quarters than anyone else on the Enterprise, and he in no way ruled over the Enterprise, he was a leader, and respected as a leader, there's a difference between a leader, and a ruler. Everyone on the Enterprise lived well, no jobs, no welfare, because there was no monetary, barter, or any other cancerous economic system in place, the mechanics of exchange DID NOT exist!
Star Trek was one of my all time favorite shows growing up because it depicts a good example of what something worthy of being called civilization would look like, I hope someday soon we can get there.
As to your argument about human nature, people need to get over the idea that one is more valuable than another. People are not equal in abilities, you have no argument from me there, however, ability does NOT entitle one to have great resources than others, ability does NOT entitle one to have a mansion like what those celebrities in California have, that is a waste of land, and very unsustainable. We need to get over that line of thinking.
In the system I advocate for people would contribute their talents because it benefits the humans species, and realizing that benefiting the species benefits themselves, and their children, they would be glad to do it. I would be happy to contribute my talents for the benefit of all of civilization because I know that benefit will come back to me, and I know my contribution will make life better for all humans current, and future ones, and that's the line of thinking we need to be on, all of us.
If we're serous about making a better world for all humans than part of that, a very critical part is to make all resou...
As to your argument about human nature, people need to get over the idea that one is more valuable than another. People are not equal in abilities, you have no argument from me there, however, ability does NOT entitle one to have great resources than others, ability does NOT entitle one to have a mansion like what those celebrities in California have, that is a waste of land, and very unsustainable. We need to get over that line of thinking.
In the system I advocate for people would contribute their talents because it benefits the humans species, and realizing that benefiting the species benefits themselves, and their children, they would be glad to do it. I would be happy to contribute my talents for the benefit of all of civilization because I know that benefit will come back to me, and I know my contribution will make life better for all humans current, and future ones, and that's the line of thinking we need to be on, all of us.
If we're serous about making a better world for all humans than part of that, a very critical part is to make all resources equally accessible to all WITHOUT a price! Just as they do in the primitive egalitarian societies, again the concept is the same, only difference is one lacks technology.
As to your claim about the primitive egalitarian societies warring with each other, I have heard that argument from others, and am very skeptical of it because the people who make that argument only cite historians as a reference, and I give little to NO regard to what historians write because the overwhelming majority of them are statists, and they're coming from a very bias position.
As to admins, I stand behind firmly my position, in a sane economic system, there would JUST BE THE SITES, and not a damn thing else, NO ADMINS, no form of rulership on or off the internet! No landlords, no management offices, no beauracracies of any kind, no business men, no police, judges, attorneys, bankers, all occupations people participate in would be occupations THAT ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO CIVILIZATION!
I'm thinking about your comment about people suddenly turning to angels, and it's an interesting comment. As you know, I don't buy the human nature argument because humans science has show are a very adaptable species, humans behavior does vary depending on what type of economic system one is operating under, and there have been lots of studies from Dr. Matte, Dr. Saulpaulski and other that show this. See an egalitarian system REWARDS altruism, and cooperation, where as a cancerous economic system like the one we have now rewards corrupt behavior.
Another note about contributing one's labor, and talent for free. I have been doing the job of a lobbyist here in Minnesota full time for free! That's a a job that one normally would in the monetary system get paid $1,000 per day for.
I will be writing an article about this, and you will see my article on this site, I will do a thread based on my article.
The Vikings, Minnesota's NFL Team has been petitioning the politicians in St. Paul for half a billion dollars in CORPORATE WELFARE, and I along with my partner Dave, Tom Prichard, Tom Goldstein, and numerous other activists from around Minnesota have been working voluntarily doing the work of paid lobbyists in St. Paul in an effort to prevent the politicians from Taxing the public for this NFL team. That is NOT right for the public to be taxed for the benefit of the billionaire owner of the NFL team, and the players who are overpaid for nothing more than throwing a pigskin ball in their air.
Long story short, we lost, the Vikings won, they got their corporate welfare.
We fought the good fight, we lost, hey, at least we can all say we tried. And NONE of us, not myself, Dave, Tom Goldstein, Tom Prichard, the volunteer nurse who testified at the legislative hearings about how this will impact free clinics in Minnesota, not a single one of us in the core group of activists working in opposition to this got paid a damn penny, and we were all doing the work of paid lobbyists, working actually more hours out of the day on this issue than a lot of paid lobbyists including the paid lobbyists for the Vikings!
Now I want you to think about this Joyce, (To be clear I'm not trying to take all the credit for this, I wasn't the only activist working in opposition to this), Myself, Dave, Tom Prichard, Tom Goldstein, and all the other dedicated activists worked together on this issue because we do not want to see the public in Minnesota being taxed to pay for this STUPID DAMN facility the Vikings want AT THE PUBLIC'S EXPENSE in Downtown Minneapolis that will ONLY be used by them (NFL teams ONLY play 10 games per season at home, unless the team goes to the playoffs than maybe 12, or 13), and the other 355 days of the calendar that building will be sitting empty wasting land, and the public will be taxed to cover the operating costs of the damn building, electricity, security, etc!
We're not asking for anything from anybody in return, we did this for the sake of fellow inhabitants of Minnesota. Do you still believe that it's human nature to only work for one's society upon a contract for something in return?! I can assure you, that's not the case for myself, and all the other hard working dedicated activist who I had the great pleasure of fighting this good fight with!
On another note, It almost brings tears that we lost, because this is not like loosing a a card game or something, this is going to have a devastating impact on people in Minnesota especially poor, and middle class people! We're all going to be taxed over half a billion dollars for the construction of this stupid facility in Downtown Minneapolis For The NFL team, and guess what, THE PUBLIC OF MINNESOTA IS GOING TO GET NOOOO BENFIT OUT OF THAT DAMN BUILDING!!! Including people who go to the games BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE OUTRAGEOUS TICKET PRICES OF $150.00 and UP while the scum bag billionaire owner of the team gets to reap all of the monetary benefits AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC!!!
Can you tell I'm mad?! You damn right I'm mad!! In a time when the indigent population in Minneapolis, and around the state is growing, 1 in 4 children is on foodstamps, infrastructures are crumbling, and these damn politicians in St. Paul have the damn audacity to tax the public what will probably amount to over a billion dollars for the Vikings to get a fancy play pen in Downtown Minneapolis for free! At the Public's Expense!! Despite the fact that 68% of the public in Minnesota IS AGAINST public funding for the Vikings!
I'd like to round the owner of the Vikings, The overpaid players, and those damn Politicians in St. Paul who voted in favor of this madness, and hang them all from the IDS Tower!
If you don't like someone's content, DON'T READ IT! DON'T HAVE THEM ON YOUR FRIEND LIST! SIMPLE AS THAT! That's how things would work in a free society! People WOULD BE SELF MANAGING, and PEOPLE WOULD DEAL WITH EACH OTHER AS ADULTS, not children who need regulating by their parents!
As to your question about people who don't want to contribute. In a primitive egalitarian society that kind of issue never arises because again in that economic model the only time someone would not want to contribute is in the event they get injured and become incapable of contributing labor. People in the primitive egalitarian societies are very active. They know that their labor benefits not only themselves, but all of their society, so they are glad to contribute their labor to keep society running smoothly, and those are societies without technology so they have to spend all of their time just gathering food, and maintaining their mud huts.
The system we have in place now around the world (the ...
If you don't like someone's content, DON'T READ IT! DON'T HAVE THEM ON YOUR FRIEND LIST! SIMPLE AS THAT! That's how things would work in a free society! People WOULD BE SELF MANAGING, and PEOPLE WOULD DEAL WITH EACH OTHER AS ADULTS, not children who need regulating by their parents!
As to your question about people who don't want to contribute. In a primitive egalitarian society that kind of issue never arises because again in that economic model the only time someone would not want to contribute is in the event they get injured and become incapable of contributing labor. People in the primitive egalitarian societies are very active. They know that their labor benefits not only themselves, but all of their society, so they are glad to contribute their labor to keep society running smoothly, and those are societies without technology so they have to spend all of their time just gathering food, and maintaining their mud huts.
The system we have in place now around the world (the system you advocate would be no different with the exception of the fact that there would be no monopoly state, instead competing states within a given geographical boundary) Creates laziness because people are being forced to labor some boss, and are getting no benefit, and they know that their labor DOES NOT BENEFIT SOCIETY!
Further, don't start in about poor people being lazy Joyce! (Incase that is where you were going!) Poor people in this cancerous economic system are the hardest working people! While getting NOTHING not even enough to live on in exchange for their labor!
I have come to the conclusion I have because of studying anthropology, NOT history, again I give little to no regards to historians! And having studies anthropology, study all aspect of human evolution, studied different economic systems that have been in place, and seeing that the most successful societies are NOT technological societies, are actually the PRIMITIVE societies that ARE EGALITARIAN, those societies date back upwards of 100,000 years according to anthropologists who study those societies, and that's while living PRIMITIVE, there is no doubt in my mind that a TECHNOLOGICAL EGALITARIAN economy would excel humans like you could not imagine because there would be NOTHING holding back TRUE scientific development.
See you claim to be against Force Joyce, however you have yet to show me exactly how the system you advocate for would NOT involve force! That what I want to know! How would the system you advocate for since it is a state system just without a monopoly state, not involve people having to participate in occupations that serve no relevant purpose to society when your system just like the one in place now would be a A CLASS BASED SYSTEM! There would be hierarchies. You're telling me that people would not have to submit to a boss, I have a very difficult time believing that. Again, if you have to go through me to get housing, food, or anything else you need to live, or improve, or enhance your life, YOU ARE NOT FREE, because I am the resource owner, you have live by my rules, you have to labor for me or starve to death, or be without a place to sleep at night!
Egalitarian means absolute equality, equal access to the means of production, and to all resources. That's the opposite archy which means class based, or hierarchy I should say.
The reason I use the term egalitarian all the time is because that is what I believe in, only a class less system will prevent the species from going extinct, and create a successful species long into the future, that is the type of system where people are motivated to create, invent, study, research, or any other way they want to contribute to society.
I go back to Star Trek, on The Enterprise there was no laziness like you're worrying, they were very motivated, and productive people on the Enterprise, and that was totally classless! Everybody on the Enterprise had EQUAL access to all the resources of the Enterprise, Captain Picard was NEVER living lavishly at the expense of the rest of the crew of the Enterprise, and I firmly believe that is how a technological egalitarian economy will work in real life.
There is a place for leaders just as Captain Picard was a leader on The Enterprise, there is NO place for rulers! Not in anything worthy of being called civilization!
Don't take it personal Joyce, I have communicated with others who think just like you, who advocate for what you advocate for, and I pose the same challenging questions to them, so far nobody has been able to tell me how anarchy monetarism which NOT anarchy by the definition of the term (anarchy is without rulers OF ANY KIND!) would be different from any other monetary system or any other system based on the mechanics of exchange, any other class based system.
I appreciate the fact that you do want to see a stateless system, I am just not convinced based on going by definitions of terms, I take linguistics very seriously, based on study and observations, that the system you advocate for, and others like stefan Molynoux, Jacob Spinney, and others would be a stateless system because it's a class based system like any other, and I don't see how it is possible to have a class based economic system without having a state of some kind to ENFORCE THAT be it a monopoly state over a given geographical area as we have now, or a series of competing states within a given geographical area which is what you, Jacob Spinney, and Stefan Molynoux are advocating.
See again, I am very big on linguistics, and any kind of class based economic system can never by definition of the term be a free world, and that's something we need to wrap our heads around, any kind of economi...
See again, I am very big on linguistics, and any kind of class based economic system can never by definition of the term be a free world, and that's something we need to wrap our heads around, any kind of economic system based on any kind of rulership can by definition never be a free world.
I don't knock people yourself, Stefan Molynoux, Jacob Spinney, and others, I just happen to think you all are misguided, NOT ill intent, those are 2 different things. As you probably think I'm misguided based on your point of reference.
My point of reference is simply what works versus what does not work, I believe in approaching scientifically, NOT based on anyone's opinion INCLUDING MY OWN, observation of the environment, and what the environment tells us.
My warning to any of you who are thinking of chiming in here, who might be folks who disagree with me, or Joyce don't insult her intelligence, and if you disagree with me, fine, just DON'T bring up Russia, and don't use the term communism with me! If you do I will reach through this computer and break your damn fingers for making such idiotic arguments!
I have a list of terms in the encyclopedias that if I had my way would be permanently removed from the encyclopedias and among my list are the terms communism, capitalism, and socialism because those terms do NOT meet merit standards to be in the encyclopedias, and to be used in the communication language, they are NOT describing different systems, they're merely different terms for the same system!
Norway, America, and Cuba ARE ALL CLASS BASED SOCIETIES! Norway, America, and Cuba ALL have the same attributes of ANY state system! G...
My warning to any of you who are thinking of chiming in here, who might be folks who disagree with me, or Joyce don't insult her intelligence, and if you disagree with me, fine, just DON'T bring up Russia, and don't use the term communism with me! If you do I will reach through this computer and break your damn fingers for making such idiotic arguments!
I have a list of terms in the encyclopedias that if I had my way would be permanently removed from the encyclopedias and among my list are the terms communism, capitalism, and socialism because those terms do NOT meet merit standards to be in the encyclopedias, and to be used in the communication language, they are NOT describing different systems, they're merely different terms for the same system!
Norway, America, and Cuba ARE ALL CLASS BASED SOCIETIES! Norway, America, and Cuba ALL have the same attributes of ANY state system! Get? I hope you people do!
I suggest you folks read the definition of the terms egalitarian, and anarchy, and class in an encyclopedia, and those are terms I support because they do meet merit standards to be used in the communication language, what I advocate for is a CLASS LESS economic system, a system FREE of rulers, NO RULERS OF ANY KIND! No Bosses of any kind! I am against governments Bosses, and Private Bosses! The only way Russia Differed from other state system is instead of private bosses like in the UK or America, they had Government Bosses! In fact you people who believe in statism, and class SHOULD BE PROUD of the job Russia was doing up until the 1990's! They did a very good job fooling the public into thinking because instead of in the name of a corporation living lavishly at the expense of the public, they did in the name of the state entirely, it was brilliant!
The point is, if you have an argument to present against me, or Joyce, MAKE IT AN INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT!
First of all, if you select an apartment for yourself, you would be free to have locks on the door if you want, nothing would stop you from doing so.
Let's say you don't have locks on your entrance door, there is no scarcity in housing so there would be no reason to anyone to try to take your dwelling from you, they can easily get their own, nothing stoping them because they just like you are not being subjected to any form of debt or servitude, they are not having to endure being subjected to a job, or welfare, they have the same access to housing as ...
First of all, if you select an apartment for yourself, you would be free to have locks on the door if you want, nothing would stop you from doing so.
Let's say you don't have locks on your entrance door, there is no scarcity in housing so there would be no reason to anyone to try to take your dwelling from you, they can easily get their own, nothing stoping them because they just like you are not being subjected to any form of debt or servitude, they are not having to endure being subjected to a job, or welfare, they have the same access to housing as you.
There's no scarcity in food, so there would be no reason for anyone to take food from you, there would be nothing provoking that kind of behavior, again the objective in an egalitarian system is always to prevent scarcity because scarcity is what leads to social problems like you're describing.
As far as someone defecating on your floor, well in a technological advanced system that would be no problem to clean, and sanitize at all, further, that would be someone who needs to be examined by social scientists to figure out what's causing him to engage in that behavior, and I can assure you that would be considered very unusual behavior a real civilization which I hope we can accomplish, and very aberrant.
Instead of police, and judges, or any other state like attributes, security, etc, there would be social scientists to deal with aberrant behavior on the very seldom occasion that it does occur, they would temporarily isolate the person, and study them to figure if there's a chemical imbalance in their brain, or what the case is to help that person, and come up with formulas deal with that in the future, or prevent it.
Aberrant behavior like you're describing would be a very seldom occurrence if ever in a class less society I truly believe that, because there would be nothing in the environment causing neuroses. See the human population now is full of people suffering from neuroses because of the hostile nature of the social environment.
The only question for me is between the Zeitgeist Movement, The Anarchy Movements, and The movement of folks like yourself and what you advocate for which way will things go, right now it's hard to predict. It could go either way. My preference is what the Zeitgeist Movement advocates for, my second choice is the Anarchy Movements, the true anarchy movements, the ones that are actually consistent with the definition of the term.
If we do end up with what you advocate for, my hope is that in the new system, there would be nothing preventing me from starting up a technological egalitarian community within the system, and my community would be able to peacefully co exist with the system, no aggression from any of the anarchomonetariasts. I can assure you there would be no aggression from the folks in my community.
If a technological egalitarian community would be ...
The only question for me is between the Zeitgeist Movement, The Anarchy Movements, and The movement of folks like yourself and what you advocate for which way will things go, right now it's hard to predict. It could go either way. My preference is what the Zeitgeist Movement advocates for, my second choice is the Anarchy Movements, the true anarchy movements, the ones that are actually consistent with the definition of the term.
If we do end up with what you advocate for, my hope is that in the new system, there would be nothing preventing me from starting up a technological egalitarian community within the system, and my community would be able to peacefully co exist with the system, no aggression from any of the anarchomonetariasts. I can assure you there would be no aggression from the folks in my community.
If a technological egalitarian community would be allowed to peacefully co exist within the decentralized class based system without threats, or aggression from the outside, I could live with that, and we'll just which is the more successful system, I'm very confident mine will be, and will serve as a shining example for others outside my reservation (for lack of a better term) to aspire to.
The Anarchy Movements, if I understand what you are referring to, are violent movements that believe in breaking Macy's windows as a strategy for change. I call that vandalism and violence, which are just as evil as the governments those so-called anarchists want to overthrow. Violence NEVER works. It just replaces some violent rulers with other violent rulers.
Stefan Molyneux is a friend of mine. I hired him to be Master of Ceremonies at my annual festival, Libertopia (libertopia.org). I don't know Jacob Spinney, but he calls himself a voluntaryist, so I imagine he agrees with Stef and me. What we advocate is not a "system." It is simply the principle that all interactions between people should be peaceful and voluntary. That happens to mean "no rulers" because there can be no peaceful or voluntary interactions between people who claim a territorial monopoly of force over the inhabitants of the territory and the people they treat as slaves.
Under the principle of voluntaryism, ...
The Anarchy Movements, if I understand what you are referring to, are violent movements that believe in breaking Macy's windows as a strategy for change. I call that vandalism and violence, which are just as evil as the governments those so-called anarchists want to overthrow. Violence NEVER works. It just replaces some violent rulers with other violent rulers.
Stefan Molyneux is a friend of mine. I hired him to be Master of Ceremonies at my annual festival, Libertopia (libertopia.org). I don't know Jacob Spinney, but he calls himself a voluntaryist, so I imagine he agrees with Stef and me. What we advocate is not a "system." It is simply the principle that all interactions between people should be peaceful and voluntary. That happens to mean "no rulers" because there can be no peaceful or voluntary interactions between people who claim a territorial monopoly of force over the inhabitants of the territory and the people they treat as slaves.
Under the principle of voluntaryism, we who believe in the organizing principle of property rights would have no dispute or conflict with your technological egalitarian community as long as you didn't initiate force against us or our property, which you say you wouldn't. I'm reasonably sure the Zeitgeist Movement or the Venus Project, for all their rejection of property rights, wouldn't initiate force against us. I can't say the same for the "Anarchist Movements" since they believe in violence against private property.
What you need to understand is that voluntaryists welcome innovation and experimentation with different social systems. We believe that competition among different social forms will lead to the eventual discovery of the best ways for humans to interact with each other, as long as there is no violence or coercion involved in the competition for finding the best systems.
In your system if we end up with that, I'm sure everyone will be able to adapt to it, and figure out how to work within it the best way they can for their own benefit, and for their friends, family, and community, and civilization.
While almost everyone argued that slavery was a natural part of human existence and that there was no way it could ever be abolished because it had existed since the beginning of history, the abolitionists said it was immoral and had to go. Within a few decades every western nation except the US had peacefully abolished slavery. Can you imagine arguing FOR the morality of white people owning black people these days? The evil of chattel slavery is now so unquestioned that statists claim the War of Northern Agression was fought to abolish slavery when it was actually the War for Southern Independence. Lincoln freed a race in order to enslave a nation, and the tyranny of the US government has been growing ever since.
We are like those abolitionists, saying that the coercive state, with its territorial monopoly on legalized violence, is a form of slavery. The inhabitants of the territory are treated like chattel to be exploited by the rulers. ...
While almost everyone argued that slavery was a natural part of human existence and that there was no way it could ever be abolished because it had existed since the beginning of history, the abolitionists said it was immoral and had to go. Within a few decades every western nation except the US had peacefully abolished slavery. Can you imagine arguing FOR the morality of white people owning black people these days? The evil of chattel slavery is now so unquestioned that statists claim the War of Northern Agression was fought to abolish slavery when it was actually the War for Southern Independence. Lincoln freed a race in order to enslave a nation, and the tyranny of the US government has been growing ever since.
We are like those abolitionists, saying that the coercive state, with its territorial monopoly on legalized violence, is a form of slavery. The inhabitants of the territory are treated like chattel to be exploited by the rulers. The only difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of "democracy" is the scam that claims we rule ourselves because, every few years, we are allowed to "vote" which of two masters we prefer.
Stefan believes violence and coercion are so engrained in our cultue we can't be free until we raise a generation of children who know only peaceful parenting, which means being respected for their personhood rather than being trained like animals with rewards and punishments.
Personally, I think it will happen like the end of chattel slavery did. As more and more people awaken to the truth of government slavery, there will be a tipping point where very quickly the idea of a coercive state will be just as ridiculous as the idea that white people should own black people.
My question to you Joyce is, how can we be sure that there would be no barrier to entry, and once one is able obtain entry, one will not be interred with?
I'l élaborante on my question.
Apple, and Microsoft enjoy a monopoly, or a more accurate term would probably be duolopy. They dominate computer system production, and anyone who tries to get into the computer business will be immediately shut out because government regulations regarding computer system favor Apple, and Microsoft, there's so many different license you have to have for software writing, and hardware producing, that it makes literally impossible for anyone other than Microsoft, and Apple to be involved in computer systems producing, which means that someone who can produce a better computer system than Apple, and Microsoft doesn't have a chance because they either will not have the monetary resources to start their operation, or if they do, Apple, and Microsoft have the ability to squeeze them out, and the governments backing them up.
Now Apple, and...
My question to you Joyce is, how can we be sure that there would be no barrier to entry, and once one is able obtain entry, one will not be interred with?
I'l élaborante on my question.
Apple, and Microsoft enjoy a monopoly, or a more accurate term would probably be duolopy. They dominate computer system production, and anyone who tries to get into the computer business will be immediately shut out because government regulations regarding computer system favor Apple, and Microsoft, there's so many different license you have to have for software writing, and hardware producing, that it makes literally impossible for anyone other than Microsoft, and Apple to be involved in computer systems producing, which means that someone who can produce a better computer system than Apple, and Microsoft doesn't have a chance because they either will not have the monetary resources to start their operation, or if they do, Apple, and Microsoft have the ability to squeeze them out, and the governments backing them up.
Now Apple, and Microsoft are only one example of this type of monopoly as you're aware, so I'm not telling you anything new.
Now I understand Joyce that in theory, in the system you advocate for, there would be no barrier to entry because there would be no monopoly state with the ability to implement, and enforce that for the benefit of corporations like Apple, and Microsoft, in fact in theory it would be impossible for corporations to exist because there would be no central government for them to register with, and lobby for regulations to give them the ability to shut other producers out.
I won't necessarily argue with that, I can see potential for that panning out in reality.
However, what I do wonder about is this:
Let's say I am able to produce a better computer system than Apple, and Microsoft, and the system I have come up with is so technically advanced that once produced for the public, it's guaranteed to put Apple, and Microsoft OUT OF BUSINESS because that's just how advanced the system I'm producing is. A system that is comprised of universal enclosures, easily upgradable, so if a better logic board comes available, one would be able to just replace that part instead of replacing the whole system, a computer system that one could potentially get beneficial use of for their whole lifetime.
How can you assure me as a computer producer producing this highly advanced computer system that the public loves, that Apple, and Microsoft will not be able to in other kinds of ways squeeze me out? Because I can assure Joyce, Apple, and Microsoft though they in theory could not prevent me from entering the computer market, they would damn sure have a motive for shutting me down once I'm in the market, and my system is in production.
So what safeguards would there be to prevent Apple and Microsoft from let's say hiring a private defense service to bomb my office, and my production facility, and software lab, and or executing all of my software engineers, programmers, hardware engineers, production people, etc to prevent me from being able to make my computer system available to the public?
I hope I presented my question in an understandable manner, let me know if you need clarification.
Second, Apple has been gaining ground on Microsoft because it has become more innovative over the years while Microsoft has gotten lazy since it started depending on the government for favors. In a free market, the innovative company always gains market share over the company that thinks it can rest on its laurels.
Third, Apple didn't have to and wouldn't have thought to bomb Microsoft's offices to gain the market share it did. That would be even more true in a free market. Companies can't tax their customers or force them to buy. That is why they can't afford war...
Second, Apple has been gaining ground on Microsoft because it has become more innovative over the years while Microsoft has gotten lazy since it started depending on the government for favors. In a free market, the innovative company always gains market share over the company that thinks it can rest on its laurels.
Third, Apple didn't have to and wouldn't have thought to bomb Microsoft's offices to gain the market share it did. That would be even more true in a free market. Companies can't tax their customers or force them to buy. That is why they can't afford wars between each other. The profit margins just aren't high enough. If you raise your prices so you can pay for bombs and assassinations, you lose customers.
Fourth, in a free society based on the principle of private property, if Microsoft or Apple was stupid enough to attack your new company, there would be all kinds of defensive actions you could take. You wouldn't have to wait around for the police to take reports and pretend to go after the perpetrators because they have a monopoly on "law enforcement." Just publicizing the truth about what they tried to do to you would cost them customers, but you could do a lot more. You could defend your property. You could sue Microsoft and/or Apple for the damage they did in a legal system that is truly based on justice because it would have no government lawyers or judges.
Fifth, the older companies would always have an advantage because they have built a customer base, so you couldn't put them out of business immediately, no matter how great your product was. It would make a lot more sense for them to come up with their own new technology rather than risking getting caught doing something violent and immoral. That is the normal way for older companies to respond to new innovative companies when they don't have a government to use force on their behalf.
I am staunchly opposed to those 3 things because of the absolutely crazy kinds of things they lead to. Patenting prevents beneficial technology from reaching the public of the potential of putting corporations out of business, and governments as well for example Aeroponic Agriculture, Governments, and Food Producing Corporations would never allow that to be implemented because it would take away a lot of government's power, and put food corporations out of business.
Trademarking, No need to elaborate on that, I'm sure you see how off the wall that is.
Copyrighting leads to such unbelievable things happening, that's I'm sure you'll agree are NOT reconcilable at all, like AOL for example having a copyright on the tune happy birthday.
The argument those who believe in copyright make in favor of it is one who creates artwork, or music, or a book or what have you should be able to control duplication, and distribution of that because they labored to create that work. Even if we are to accept that argument, for me when I look the unbelievable cra...
I am staunchly opposed to those 3 things because of the absolutely crazy kinds of things they lead to. Patenting prevents beneficial technology from reaching the public of the potential of putting corporations out of business, and governments as well for example Aeroponic Agriculture, Governments, and Food Producing Corporations would never allow that to be implemented because it would take away a lot of government's power, and put food corporations out of business.
Trademarking, No need to elaborate on that, I'm sure you see how off the wall that is.
Copyrighting leads to such unbelievable things happening, that's I'm sure you'll agree are NOT reconcilable at all, like AOL for example having a copyright on the tune happy birthday.
The argument those who believe in copyright make in favor of it is one who creates artwork, or music, or a book or what have you should be able to control duplication, and distribution of that because they labored to create that work. Even if we are to accept that argument, for me when I look the unbelievable crazy kinds of things that copyright leads to like the AOL example which I'l elaborate on, how on Earth can we justify having that kind of system in place?
AOL (Unfortunately I have them as my email provider, and I'm not happy about that.) has get this Joyce, A COPYRIGHT ON THE TUNE HAPPY BIRTHDAY! That's a tune that has been around for many centuries!! Nobody on AOL's staff went through any mentally exhausting work to write that, that's a tune that predates anyone alive today damn it! I would love to know what damn politicians or government regulators AOL paid off to get that copyright! My Gosh!
And the reason I say that's a problem, and Joyce I'm sure you'll agree is because, for example, I am an independent journalist, if I'm interviewing someone in a public place for a story, and there's a group of people within range of my recorder that I use to record my interview, it's a professional audio recorder, that group of people is singing happy birthday to their relative, or friend or whoever, now I'm in a position where I have to edit out that part of the interview because of the potential for AOL filing a civil action case against me for copyright infringement ON SOMETHING THEY SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET A COPYRIGHT ON!
Even if you're someone who believes in copyright, you must acknowledge that there is a serous very serous problem here when a corporation or individual can obtain a copyright on something like the tune Happy Birthday, a tune which predates ANYBODY ALIVE TODAY! And be able to charge for the use of that tune in a recording!
That's why a lot of movies if they have a birthday scene in the movie, they have another tune they use because they don't want to increase their production cost of making the movie by having to pay AOL a user fee.
The only reason I have AOL as my email provider is because when Netscape went out of business, AOL took over their email service, and and grandfathered all existing Netscape users in so we didn't have to change our email addresses thankfully. I've had the same email address for too long, so the though of having to change my email address is very daunting, however, if I could keep my email address, and ditch AOL, I would! I do try to minimize my support of this system as much as I am able to.
Stefan Molyneux gives away his videos, and books, great, I give him credit for that, so Does Peter Joseph, the founder of Zeitgeist. That is a good way to do it.
Going back to Star Trek, there was no landlords, no management offices, no surveillance cameras surveilling people on The Enterprise, no regulation of people, their system was based on regulating RESOURCES same as any egalitarian system, NOT regulating people. If we were living on the Enterprise right now (I often dream about living on The Enterprise!) and communicating via this website, THERE WOULD BE NO ADMIN ON THIS WEBSITE! No form of rulership would exist!
That brings me to my inquiry about your system you advocate for. How would your system that you advocate which will ONLY take governments out of the equation, and leave corporations, landlords, security in buildings, admins on the internet, all other forms of rulership, tyrants, would be left in place because you want to keep the mechanics of exchange in place, you just simply want to get rid of governments that's the only thing that would be different.
I hope I have explained clearly for you how my system I advocate for WOULD NOT involve any form of coercion, force, violence just as NO egalitar...
Going back to Star Trek, there was no landlords, no management offices, no surveillance cameras surveilling people on The Enterprise, no regulation of people, their system was based on regulating RESOURCES same as any egalitarian system, NOT regulating people. If we were living on the Enterprise right now (I often dream about living on The Enterprise!) and communicating via this website, THERE WOULD BE NO ADMIN ON THIS WEBSITE! No form of rulership would exist!
That brings me to my inquiry about your system you advocate for. How would your system that you advocate which will ONLY take governments out of the equation, and leave corporations, landlords, security in buildings, admins on the internet, all other forms of rulership, tyrants, would be left in place because you want to keep the mechanics of exchange in place, you just simply want to get rid of governments that's the only thing that would be different.
I hope I have explained clearly for you how my system I advocate for WOULD NOT involve any form of coercion, force, violence just as NO egalitarian system does.
How would your system you advocate for be that much different from the cancerous system in place now, how would your system be FREE of force, violence, coercion, when the structure is left in place with the ONLY difference being governments are no longer in the equation, all other ATTRIBUTES of this cancerous economic system would be left in place!
Joyce Can you understand why I look at what you advocate for with EXTREME skepticism?! Now explain how there would be autonomy for individuals when all of the attributes would be the same as the cancerous with the only difference being there would no longer be a monopoly state, that would be replaced by competing states. How would it be possible for anyone outside of the ruler class to be autonomous, to have freedom of movement, access to the things they need to live, and live healthy, you talk about self ownership, self management, how would that be possible under the system you advocate for, when THAT'S NEVER BEEN POSSIBLE UNDER ANY STATE SYSTEM?! And what you advocate for is a State System just comprised of competing states instead of monopoly states that have exclusive jurisdiction over a given geographical area.
If you have to go through me to get the things you need to live, how are you free? How are you able to be self managing, autonomous?! How would you have control over your time?