The Law Privately Owned Prisons

[Chief]

??? I am in favour of drug liberalisation.

But have hammered the policies of some European countries as open slather etc. I'll grant you this one - I don't recall the discussion well enough, just the general 'why would you want to try a policy that has failed in {country}' attitude applied to everything bar something you support, in which case you can always dig up a country where it hasn't failed completely and ignore countries where it has been a disaster.

Even in this case you want to ignore the US and Australian experiences and concentrate on the UK experience.

In the end, if the public system is slightly less efficient but DOESN'T result in massive miscarriages of justice I can't see the argument for the 'efficiency' of prison privatisation. You're just excluding the prisoners from your evaluation and saying cheaper is always better.

 

[medusala]

But have hammered the policies of some European countries as open slather etc.

???

IIRC there was a thread on Portugal and their liberalisation efforts where BP and I were in furious agreement.

Even in this case you want to ignore the US and Australian experiences and concentrate on the UK experience.

What Australian experience? Has there been corruption as well in that case?

In the end, if the public system is slightly less efficient but DOESN'T result in massive miscarriages of justice I can't see the argument for the 'efficiency' of prison privatisation.

Chief, I actually agree with you. As I said above the only reason for it is where there is a particularly intransigent public service union (and this applies for much of the public delivery of services).

The state is capable of delivering services well ie HK and Singapore transport systems. I am not arguing private is always better.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

The state is capable of delivering services well ie HK and Singapore transport systems. I am not arguing private is always better.

You only seem to have a problem with modern social democracies.

(This would be the concept for which hundreds of thousands of Brits and Australians fought and died in WWII. Funny how as soon they came back, they elected Labour governments who gave us stuff like the NHS etc.)

 

[bit_pattern]

???

IIRC there was a thread on Portugal and their liberalisation efforts where BP and I were in furious agreement.

Lulwut???

Did we smoke a cigarette afterward?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

But have hammered the policies of some European countries as open slather etc. I'll grant you this one - I don't recall the discussion well enough, just the general 'why would you want to try a policy that has failed in {country}' attitude applied to everything bar something you support, in which case you can always dig up a country where it hasn't failed completely and ignore countries where it has been a disaster.

Even in this case you want to ignore the US and Australian experiences and concentrate on the UK experience.

In the end, if the public system is slightly less efficient but DOESN'T result in massive miscarriages of justice I can't see the argument for the 'efficiency' of prison privatisation. You're just excluding the prisoners from your evaluation and saying cheaper is always better.

How does a prison fit into the 'massive miscarriages of justice'?

A prison is just the end of the process that gets left with the mess. I would suggest any miscarriages of justice occur well before incarceration.

 

[Wally Carter]

How does a prison fit into the 'massive miscarriages of justice'?

A prison is just the end of the process that gets left with the mess. I would suggest any miscarriages of justice occur well before incarceration.

BINGO!!

You commonly find this same mindset with people who bitch about cops, when it's politicians, or better yet, the idiots that vote for certain politicians, that are the real problem.

 

[Clay Davis]

How does a prison fit into the 'massive miscarriages of justice'?

A prison is just the end of the process that gets left with the mess. I would suggest any miscarriages of justice occur well before incarceration.

You kind of get it. A prison as a service should not have a say in the carriage of justice. But when it is given incentives by the profit motive, then it starts to influence how justice is meted out.

 

[nut]

Give it a rest! Your hero worship of Norway and its transferability is misplaced, as explained a number of times.

Well what is the purpose of Prisons??? to rehabilitate or to punish.


Just think if Gough was able to have his way in the 70's we could be in a similar position as Norway now.... but hay we have lower taxes and thats great.

Lets privatise everything because that works....

 

[Clay Davis]

Who is Gouth?

 

[nut]

A few people have told you this so many times now...
But to imply that Americas health care is completely privatised is absurd.

and where do the 50 million people who dont have cover go??? can you let them know where the Public hospitals are...

 

[nut]

Who is Gouth?

typo ... fixed now

 

[placebo]

and where do the 50 million people who dont have cover go??? can you let them know where the Public hospitals are...

The reason America's healthcare is in such a shambles is because of mass government intervention. We've had this argument before though, so go back and look on those threads as I can't be bothered having this argument again.

 

[Clay Davis]

The reason America's healthcare is in such a shambles is because of mass government intervention. We've had this argument before though, so go back and look on those threads as I can't be bothered having this argument again.

Yeah, nah. If they took it over completely it would be better.

 

[blackcat]

Meds, you are comparing a market transaction between two individuals, or one and the public hospital MD, and compulsory detention, where an individual is placed by the gov't with a private operator. Just how is this not a strawman? The private operator only comes to the dynamic because of the third party, the gov't. If your reply is that is a prison sentence (duh), and the incarcerated has no choice by definition, you ignore the voluntary transaction on the other analogy on GPs.

Remember, your world theory criticises the gov't interfering with the market, so you must see the manifest inconsistency in this argument. Even if a patient chooses the public option medical care, they are still engaging in voluntary transaction. It is a normal market transaction. The private imprisonment, is not a transaction with that dynamic.

If your argument is the gov't is the party engaging in a transaction, to be an operator or outsource that responsibility, and it is a voluntary market transaction, this is what the argument about, why this is flawed. You cannot justify it is rational, because that is the question at hold here. Why the private operation is not an appropriate option. The assumption already stands, it is a private option. You cannot justify it, it is a private option and since it is a free market transaction it has good. No, that is the argument, why it is flawed.

gees, that is a dog's breakfast. Did I really write that

In simple terms, I think meds was using circular reasoning, assuming the point in question.

 

[blackcat]

The reason America's healthcare is in such a shambles is because of mass government intervention. We've had this argument before though, so go back and look on those threads as I can't be bothered having this argument again.

so they would be cheaper sans gov't intervention?

Why do they have the most expensive system per capita, by aways, and not all are covered, and their metrics are inferior to other rich nations?

Or you want choice, and the ability to freeze oneself in carbonite like Han Solo or Walt Disney, if one has the wherewithal.

 

[medusala]

(This would be the concept for which hundreds of thousands of Brits and Australians fought and died in WWII. Funny how as soon they came back, they elected Labour governments who gave us stuff like the NHS etc.)

a) plenty of poms were conscripts
b) Australia did not have an NHS
c) Were they fighting for neo liberalism in The Falklands?

 

[medusala]

so they would be cheaper sans gov't intervention?

Certain aspects (wrt tax and employers contributions). Litigation is also a huge factor.

Why do they have the most expensive system per capita, by aways, and not all are covered, and their metrics are inferior to other rich nations?

Which metrics?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

a) plenty of poms were conscripts
b) Australia did not have an NHS
c) Were they fighting for neo liberalism in The Falklands?

Atlee won in a ****ing landslide mate. People voted for a very different Britain. They sacrificed a huge amount and wanted a return.

In the Falklands, they were, yes. Not the soldiers themselves, they were just ****wit squaddies most of who joined up because there was no jobs ... overrun by the Chinese line with the boys from the Mersey and the Thamas and Tyne

 

[medusala]

Atlee won in a ****ing landslide mate. People voted for a very different Britain. They sacrificed a huge amount and wanted a return.

That may be true but Churchill was soon back in and the nationalisation of everything was an unmitigated disaster that saw the UK go down the tubes until Thatcher came along and put those companies back in private hands.

 

[blackcat]

Which metrics?

felicitous comparison US v Canuck healthcare
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems

 

[medusala]

felicitous comparison US v Canuck healthcare
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems

Couldnt open your link. I think the US does pretty well on cancer survival rates as one example.

I also get the impression that if money is no object you will get the best treatment in the world there in numerous areas.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

That may be true but Churchill was soon back in and the nationalisation of everything was an unmitigated disaster that saw the UK go down the tubes until Thatcher came along and put those companies back in private hands.

What about those Tory governments that didn't overturn it?

 

[medusala]

What about those Tory governments that didn't overturn it?

Poor old Churchill was past it. Eden was too busy with Suez. Heath was an out and out fool (and Disco Dave reminds me of him quite a bit).

I totally agree the Conservatives have much to be ashamed of.

Just as Mal Fraser does.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

I tell you what, if the free market did operate with any kind of justice, meds would get sacked for slacking off on his boss' time and posting on BF all day!

<face of jesty thing with accompanying thumbs up>

 

[medusala]

I tell you what, if the free market did operate with any kind of justice, meds would get sacked for slacking off on his boss' time and posting on BF all day!

Self employed old chap.