Recommended Posts
Yes. I work and save money. The government issues more money through the help of the Federal Reserve Bank. Now with this increase in money, prices rise, and therefore the money I have saved is worth less (has less purchasing power). The issuance of new money is the cause of inflation. It is a transfer of wealth (and a form of taxation) primarily from people who have saved money to the people who the government gives the new money to first. Also, since most people only get any of this new money through the form of higher wages much after prices elsewhere have already gone up and while the government is issuing even more money causing even higher prices, there is a transfer of wealth from everybody to the people the government is issuing the new money to. It is simple supply and demand economics. If you increase the amount of money available to buy goods and services in the market, the prices of those goods and services will rise to reach equilibrium. As for the 16th Amendment and the income tax, all you need to do is to look at how fast your wealth can accumulate because of compound interest when the money that you save is put to work, and the money made off that money is put back to work to make even more money, all while the original money is making more money. Instead of what we have today where the government uses violence to tax your income at every step, and for every dollar in profit you keep 66% (or whatever your tax rate is), and for every dollar in losses you have, you lose 100%. Also your ability to save in the first place is limited by the rate of your taxes.
Back to the stimulus packages of today where you have the government taking money from profitable businesses to give it to unprofitable businesses to "stimulate" the economy is stupid (also violent and evil since the government collects taxes through the threat of violence). If I have two businesses, and only one is profitable, I would surely go broke if I took the money out of the profitable business to spend it on the unprofitable one. And if you don't believe that the government collects taxes through violence, just look what happens when you stop paying your taxes. They point guns at you, throw you in jail, and if you try to escape they will shoot at you. Violence is evil except in self defense. Since taxes are collected through the initiation of violence (or threat of violence) by government, the government is therefore inherently evil. If you are robbed in the street, and the mugger says to you "I'm going to give this money I'm stealing from you to charity." Do you think that justifies your mugging?
Back to the stimulus packages of today where you have the government taking money from profitable businesses to give it to unprofitable businesses to "stimulate" the economy is stupid (also violent and evil since the government collects taxes through the threat of violence). If I have two businesses, and only one is profitable, I would surely go broke if I took the money out of the profitable business to spend it on the unprofitable one. And if you don't believe that the government collects taxes through violence, just look what happens when you stop paying your taxes. They point guns at you, throw you in jail, and if you try to escape they will shoot at you. Violence is evil except in self defense. Since taxes are collected through the initiation of violence (or threat of violence) by government, the government is therefore inherently evil. If you are robbed in the street, and the mugger says to you "I'm going to give this money I'm stealing from you to charity." Do you think that justifies your mugging?
QuoteAmericans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries.
When someone intentionally writes bad checks, they are committing fraud and STEALING. Stealing is a violation of rights, and the violation of rights should not be tolerated.
billvon 2,435
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>When someone intentionally writes bad checks, they are committing
>fraud and STEALING.
And when someone speeds, they are putting other innocent people at risk of injury and death. But we don't consider that as worthy of punishment as, say, murder.
By imprisoning someone you are turning them from a productive member of society to an expensive drain on society, and providing them free training in theft and armed robbery (and introducing them to a pool of people who will help them with their criminal enterprises.) I am all for imprisonment of people who present a danger to society, and who are guilty of particularly heinous crimes. But the number of people we have in jail today is absurd.
>fraud and STEALING.
And when someone speeds, they are putting other innocent people at risk of injury and death. But we don't consider that as worthy of punishment as, say, murder.
By imprisoning someone you are turning them from a productive member of society to an expensive drain on society, and providing them free training in theft and armed robbery (and introducing them to a pool of people who will help them with their criminal enterprises.) I am all for imprisonment of people who present a danger to society, and who are guilty of particularly heinous crimes. But the number of people we have in jail today is absurd.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteAmericans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries.
When someone intentionally writes bad checks, they are committing fraud and STEALING. Stealing is a violation of rights, and the violation of rights should not be tolerated.
You're missing (or avoiding) his point. Nobody says writing bad checks or other theft crimes should not be prosecuted. Of course they should.
But compared to most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia & New Zealand, the US tends impose longer prison sentences rather than shorter ones, or more incarceration-type sentences rather than probationary-type ones, for non-violent offenses. That, and zealous prosecution of drug offenses for which most other "Western" countries would show a good deal more leniency, if prosecute at all, and that's a large part of why the US has, comparatively, such a high incarceration rate.
Yea the United States of America is not a free country. So therefore it should be obvious that there will be a high number of people in jail. People who do not belong in jail are people who have not violated the rights of other individuals. My last post was a response to the article "American Exception Millions Behind Bars" where the author puts using drugs and writing bad checks into the same category of actions. One is a violation of the rights of others, stealing by the fraudulent use of bad checks, and should be a crime. And the other is a voluntary action that, in and of itself, does not affect the rights of others, and therefore should not be a crime.
Those are some pretty big assumptions. First if someone is in jail for violating the rights of others then I would argue that they are the antithesis of productive members of society. Also, I wonder what percentage of people in jail are career criminals that are actively networking with other inmates.
Quote[billvon]By imprisoning someone you are turning them from a productive member of society to an expensive drain on society, and providing them free training in theft and armed robbery (and introducing them to a pool of people who will help them with their criminal enterprises.)
Those are some pretty big assumptions. First if someone is in jail for violating the rights of others then I would argue that they are the antithesis of productive members of society. Also, I wonder what percentage of people in jail are career criminals that are actively networking with other inmates.
billvon 2,435
> Also, I wonder what percentage of people in jail are career criminals that
> are actively networking with other inmates.
That's my point. You put someone in jail whose one crime was to write a bad check, and you turn him from a guy who made a big mistake to a guy who is forced to actively network with other inmates, many of whom are career criminals.
Take two people at random. Put one in a dorm room with a college roommate, and the other in a jail cell with a career criminal. Which one is going to be more comfortable/savvy with a life of crime after a year?
> are actively networking with other inmates.
That's my point. You put someone in jail whose one crime was to write a bad check, and you turn him from a guy who made a big mistake to a guy who is forced to actively network with other inmates, many of whom are career criminals.
Take two people at random. Put one in a dorm room with a college roommate, and the other in a jail cell with a career criminal. Which one is going to be more comfortable/savvy with a life of crime after a year?
Andy9o8 0
QuoteTake two people at random. Put one in a dorm room with a college roommate, and the other in a jail cell with a career criminal. Which one is going to be more comfortable/savvy with a life of crime after a year?
From what I remember about dorm life, a lot of 18 year olds got mighty savvy about drug offenses.
That question was meant to be facetious. I don't think it is nearly as high as Hollywood has you believe. Intentionally writing a bad check is more than a mistake. It is fraud and theft. When you are arrested Billvon, will you be making friends in jail? Sitting in your jail cell planning a life of a career criminal?
clicky
clicky
jcd11235 0
QuoteYes. I work and save money. The government issues more money through the help of the Federal Reserve Bank. Now with this increase in money, prices rise, and therefore the money I have saved is worth less (has less purchasing power).
Yes, if one keeps their savings under their mattress, inflation will take an unnecessary effect. Wiser investment strategies avoid such problems. For example, TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) are indexed to the Consumer Price Index, so their rate of return is real, not nominal.
QuoteAs for the 16th Amendment and the income tax, all you need to do is to look at how fast your wealth can accumulate because of compound interest when the money that you save is put to work, and the money made off that money is put back to work to make even more money, all while the original money is making more money. Instead of what we have today where the government uses violence to tax your income at every step, and for every dollar in profit you keep 66% (or whatever your tax rate is), and for every dollar in losses you have, you lose 100%. Also your ability to save in the first place is limited by the rate of your taxes.
Like most similar explanations, you have failed to consider the additional cost to individuals to purchase the goods and services that would not be provided by the government via tax dollars. Roads, schools, air traffic control, military forces, and countless other things aren't cheap, and would be even less so without the buying power of communities large and small with members pooling their money via taxes. It seems to be all too easy to forget that we get things back for our taxes. Without paying taxes, we would have to pay for those things as individuals, in most cases at a higher cost, since individuals lack the buying power of large groups.
QuoteIf you are robbed in the street, and the mugger says to you "I'm going to give this money I'm stealing from you to charity." Do you think that justifies your mugging?
Again, it's a faulty analogy, since taxes purchase benefits, usually for a lower price than individuals could purchase those benefits individually.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 2,435
> Intentionally writing a bad check is more than a mistake. It is fraud and theft.
So is parking in a 15 minute spot for 1 hour and leaving without anyone noticing. How many years in jail should you get for that one?
>When you are arrested Billvon, will you be making friends in jail?
>Sitting in your jail cell planning a life of a career criminal?
It is certainly safe to say that in my current life (which includes no jail) I am less likely to make friends with people in jail.
So is parking in a 15 minute spot for 1 hour and leaving without anyone noticing. How many years in jail should you get for that one?
>When you are arrested Billvon, will you be making friends in jail?
>Sitting in your jail cell planning a life of a career criminal?
It is certainly safe to say that in my current life (which includes no jail) I am less likely to make friends with people in jail.
Do you think the initiation of violence is a moral or ethical means of achieving your goals? Do you think the government is justified in collecting taxes through the threat of violence, since you say you "get things in return." Do you believe you should be able to choose how your money is spent? Do you think democracy is moral or ethical when the majority can vote away the rights of the minority?
jcd11235 0
QuoteDo you think the initiation of violence is a moral or ethical means of achieving your goals?
It depends on the goals.
With respect to the government collecting taxes at gunpoint, do you really think a system of anarchy would be less violent than the IRS?
QuoteDo you think the government is justified in collecting taxes through the threat of violence, since you say you "get things in return."
Do you really think you should receive the benefits of taxes without paying your own way? How is that different from stealing.
If you think taxes are too high, work within the system to change that, or move somewhere with lower taxes. If you stay, you're giving tacit consent to taxation. If you stay and don't pay taxes, you're stealing from and infringing on the rights of others.
QuoteDo you believe you should be able to choose how your money is spent?
No, I don't, generally. I do, however, believe that I should be allowed to vote for those who are charged with the responsibility to make such decisions.
QuoteDo you think democracy is moral or ethical when the majority can vote away the rights of the minority?
No. Nor do I believe income taxes take away anyones rights.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteIt depends on the goals.
So tell me, when do you think that the initiation of violence is morally or ethically justified?
QuoteDo you really think you should receive the benefits of taxes without paying your own way? How is that different from stealing.
No, I am opposed to the initiation of violence, and since taxes are collected through the initiation of violence, I am therefore opposed to taxation. The "benefits" that taxes pay for can be ethically paid for with user fees. If you are willing to pay for something, why do you need the government to take the money from you through the threat of violence? Also, the government ends up being a middle man in the transaction that actually increases costs through inefficient bureaucracy. Stealing would be what the government does when they force individuals to pay for things in an unproportional value to what they use or consume.
QuoteNor do I believe income taxes take away anyones rights.
So you do recognize that all individuals have the right to life, correct? And what is life? It is the time you have alive on earth, and how you spend that time, correct? And how do you support your life? You can rely on charity, beg, steal, or work and produce. Would you agree that the only productive way to support your life is to work and produce? Now if you spend your time working and producing in order to support your life, should you not also have control, i.e. ownership, of the property that you produce or work for, in order that you can support your life with said property? Now when the government takes away your property without your voluntary consent , do you see that they are actually taking away a part of your life?
*edited for clarification
Bolas 5
So you propose a pay per use system?
Easy for roads and infrastructure.
What about police, EMS, and fire? Pay per use?
"Sorry your kid was murdered, but we'll need $1000 a day to investigate, If we catch and convict someone, you can sue them for your expenses."
"Sir we can't put out your house fire as you can't pay our fees." 
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Do you think there is no incentive to pay voluntarily for the capture of murderers and other criminals in your community? Do you think the police should get paid the same whether they catch the murderer or not? Have you never heard of volunteer fire departments? Would you not be willing to voluntarily pay for fire department services if your house catches fire? Do you just want someone else to pay for it? There can easily be a voluntary type of "insurance" that you can buy for fire department or ems service that will cover the services of the fire department or ems if you call on them.
QuoteDo you think there is no incentive to pay voluntarily for the capture of murderers and other criminals in your community? Do you think the police should get paid the same whether they catch the murderer or not? Have you never heard of volunteer fire departments? Would you not be willing to voluntarily pay for fire department services if your house catches fire? Do you just want someone else to pay for it? There can easily be a voluntary type of "insurance" that you can buy for fire department or ems service that will cover the services of the fire department or ems if you call on them.
That was the system in place 200 years ago. Before municipal fire brigades, insurance companies ran their own private brigades. In the event of a fire the firemen would check for a plaque on the building to see if the building belonged to their scheme before setting about tackling the blaze!
Didn't work too well, lots of cities had uncontrollable fires because the original fire had been left to burn.
Or maybe fires burned more out of control 200 years ago because of the comparative lack of technology.
billvon 2,435
>Do you think there is no incentive to pay voluntarily for the capture of
>murderers and other criminals in your community?
No, there is no incentive for you personally to pay for the capture of murderers and other criminals in your community. There is, however, a great incentive to get other people to pay for the capture of murderers and other criminals in your community. After all, why should upstanding citizens pay for crime? Why not make the criminals pay?
>Have you never heard of volunteer fire departments?
Yes, and they are great. But if you're using them as an example of "fire departments the public does not pay for" then you don't understand how they work.
>There can easily be a voluntary type of "insurance" that you can buy for fire
>department or ems service that will cover the services of the fire department or
>ems if you call on them.
OK. So you are an EMT and a twelve year old child is struck by a car near where you are working. She doesn't have insurance. Do you just drive away?
>murderers and other criminals in your community?
No, there is no incentive for you personally to pay for the capture of murderers and other criminals in your community. There is, however, a great incentive to get other people to pay for the capture of murderers and other criminals in your community. After all, why should upstanding citizens pay for crime? Why not make the criminals pay?
>Have you never heard of volunteer fire departments?
Yes, and they are great. But if you're using them as an example of "fire departments the public does not pay for" then you don't understand how they work.
>There can easily be a voluntary type of "insurance" that you can buy for fire
>department or ems service that will cover the services of the fire department or
>ems if you call on them.
OK. So you are an EMT and a twelve year old child is struck by a car near where you are working. She doesn't have insurance. Do you just drive away?
Bolas 5
QuoteDo you think there is no incentive to pay voluntarily for the capture of murderers and other criminals in your community? Do you think the police should get paid the same whether they catch the murderer or not? Have you never heard of volunteer fire departments? Would you not be willing to voluntarily pay for fire department services if your house catches fire? Do you just want someone else to pay for it? There can easily be a voluntary type of "insurance" that you can buy for fire department or ems service that will cover the services of the fire department or ems if you call on them.
Incentive and ability are two entirely different things.
In your proposal, the person who can't pay/ doesn't have insurance the fire department's house could burn to the ground possibly with people still trapped inside.
Then if while their house is burning it catches another house on fire, what if they can't pay either? The FD company is not gonna put their fire out either even though it wasn't their fault as the first person couldn't even afford to save their own house.
This could wipe out an entire poor neighborhood on a windy day.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
billvon 2,435
>Or maybe fires burned more out of control 200 years ago because
>of the comparative lack of technology.
That's definitely one part of it. Fire codes now require sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, fire escapes etc etc.
But if we switch to your way of thinking, all those things are now optional again. A landlord could build a house made of straw, without any fire exits, and rent it out far more cheaply than other landlords could - thus cornering the market on affordable housing. At least until they all burn down. But since they were so cheap to build to begin with, they will be cheap to rebuild - and he can spend the profits thus gained on buying more land and more straw.
>of the comparative lack of technology.
That's definitely one part of it. Fire codes now require sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, fire escapes etc etc.
But if we switch to your way of thinking, all those things are now optional again. A landlord could build a house made of straw, without any fire exits, and rent it out far more cheaply than other landlords could - thus cornering the market on affordable housing. At least until they all burn down. But since they were so cheap to build to begin with, they will be cheap to rebuild - and he can spend the profits thus gained on buying more land and more straw.
Published: April 23, 2008
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.
American Exception
Millions Behind Bars
This series of articles examines commonplace aspects of the American justice system that are actually unique in the world.
Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.
Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.
The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London.
China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison. (That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China’s extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)
San Marino, with a population of about 30,000, is at the end of the long list of 218 countries compiled by the center. It has a single prisoner.
The United States comes in first, too, on a more meaningful list from the prison studies center, the one ranked in order of the incarceration rates. It has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)
The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England’s rate is 151; Germany’s is 88; and Japan’s is 63.
The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.
There is little question that the high incarceration rate here has helped drive down crime, though there is debate about how much.
Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America’s extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges — many of whom are elected, another American anomaly — yield to populist demands for tough justice.
Whatever the reason, the gap between American justice and that of the rest of the world is enormous and growing.
It used to be that Europeans came to the United States to study its prison systems. They came away impressed.
“In no country is criminal justice administered with more mildness than in the United States,” Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured American penitentiaries in 1831, wrote in “Democracy in America.”
“Far from serving as a model for the world, contemporary America is viewed with horror,” James Q. Whitman, a specialist in comparative law at Yale, wrote last year in Social Research. “Certainly there are no European governments sending delegations to learn from us about how to manage prisons.”
Prison sentences here have become “vastly harsher than in any other country to which the United States would ordinarily be compared,” Michael H. Tonry, a leading authority on crime policy, wrote in “The Handbook of Crime and Punishment.”
Indeed, said Vivien Stern, a research fellow at the prison studies center in London, the American incarceration rate has made the United States “a rogue state, a country that has made a decision not to follow what is a normal Western approach.”
The spike in American incarceration rates is quite recent. From 1925 to 1975, the rate remained stable, around 110 people in prison per 100,000 people. It shot up with the movement to get tough on crime in the late 1970s. (These numbers exclude people held in jails, as comprehensive information on prisoners held in state and local jails was not collected until relatively recently.
etc.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites