Objectivist Prisons

Questions about Objectivism
21

By that logic, no one is responsible fro their actions, as long as they are acting to punish a criminal and they announced it ahead of time.

In fact, we are responsible for our actions, and their consequences. Enacting justice just happens to be an action that is moral, and has a moral consequence: a “state of justice”. If you wish to decide whether your island idea would deliver justice, you need to look carefully at what its consequences are, and whether you desire them. The reason why I support the existence of prisons, in principle, is because I support what happens in them (in principle): criminals are justly punished. That’s what “taking responsibility for those consequences” means. Do you support and consider justice what happens on your island? (I’d say it’ barely possible to imagine what would happen)

The justice I care about is the justice offered up to those who do not violate rights, I really don’t care what the criminal considers just. Government’s function is to protect rights from those who would deny them. My method is more effective in doing that as it eliminates the possibility of release and repeat offences.

My method also leaves no question just what sort of choice is being made by the criminal or what the consequences are. No one is going to hold their hand and try to rehabilitate them, and prison wouldn’t be being locked up 23.5 hours of the day where boredom is the only hardship. They wouldn’t be fed and clothed and given every other thing they need, like cable TV and movie night it would be hell, and in my opinion it ought to be.

I’d also make sure that people outside knew exactly what sort of hell waited for them if they decided to violate another persons rights.

Is it a brutal solution? Yes, but not for the people who are relying on the government to protect them and those are the people that matter.

22

The justice I care about is the justice offered up to those who do not violate rights

Yes, but the title of the thread says Objectivist Prisons. What justice you care about is irrelevant, what matters is that Objectivism holds the following:

Every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly. (Ayn Rand)

No, sending someone who stole from a supermarket to be tortured by psychopats on an island is not passing objective judgement on them, so your solution is not an Objectivist one. Post it on your blog, don’t impose it on people looking to understand Objectivism.

23

<delete>

24

What about a sort of penal colony. Lock criminals (who in an Oist society would have had to employ either force or fraud to end up there) up on some remote island/piece of land where the guards are there only to ensure that no one gets out before their term is up. Other than that, it is a place where there are no rules, compete and utter anarchy a real dog eat dog existence.

That would offer a stark difference to anyone contemplating crime. If you do the crime you go to a place where everyone will disrespect your rights as much as you disrespected the rights of your victims. You live by the sword, you die by the sword, or more correctly disallow rights, be disenfranchised of your own rights.

This makes the commission of any crime a decision with tangible repercussions ones that could far outweigh both the infraction and any possible reward of the criminal action. It also shows that all rights violations are essentially the same, they all come back to the right to life, and that in the end is what a criminal could sacrifice for any crime.

While this sounds good in theory wrongful convictions make this problematic.

Innocent people being wrongfully convicted is too frequent an occurance for this to be moral.

25

Every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly. (Ayn Rand)

And each man would be judged and treated as a rights violator.

“In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” (Ayn Rand)

don’t impose it on people

Such is my power… :rolleyes:

QuoVadis; you are correct, that is a problem.

26

There’s only one way to find out. Maybe in fact all of the ills of society can be traced back the the fact that drugs are illegal.

I don’t think that was called for…

As far as I understand a person can be imprisoned in the United States for things such as inside trading.

Since drug (trade) crimes - when and if discriminated from violence - amount to a numerous % of i.e. California prisons, I pointed that as the heavier issue. When talking about Prisons you can’t ignore the elephant in the room.

Similarly, tax violations occur more frequently when taxes are too high, In an “Objectivist Culture” this would not be the case at all and I’m wondering how many people, such as Martha Steward, would not have been prosecuted at all.

Inside Trading of a biochemist may however be the most elegant example.

Criminalization of Poverty (euphemism) accounts for most inmates.

The point being: In a more rational and capitalist culture less people would need to be imprisoned.

But another problem would instead come up: indebted serfdom.

Many economists point out that Capitalism was first possible when debts were not punished or rather re payed with prison or serfdom. It inevitably relies on optimistic speculation, it violates the rules of having and eating the cake.

In an completely contractual society people could legally sell themselves to slavery, or their organs, - as it already happens - but again, contractually.

The problem might not be the rise of a situation that already exists, but the painful truth and transparency which represents the cost of a free society.

It is to be noted that the curtain that protects people from the harsh truth (of the illegal yet not coercive in nature, world) works as an instrument for the enemies of Capitalism and Freedom.

27

I don’t think that was called for…

As far as I understand a person can be imprisoned in the United States for things such as inside trading.

First, I am serious that the insane war on drugs has taken a major toll on civilization. Second, I don’t believe that “insider trading” is punishable by jail time. Check 15 USC 2b and see if you find anything. Besides, “insider trading” isn’t an ill of society.

Anyhow, the fact that Martha Stewart was imprisoned for lying in a matter that shouldn’t have been investigated does not change the fact that such crimes account for a negligible portion of the prison population. And that was the question asked.

28

First, I am serious that the insane war on drugs has taken a major toll on civilization. Second, I don’t believe that “insider trading” is punishable by jail time. Check 15 USC 2b and see if you find anything. Besides, “insider trading” isn’t an ill of society.

Anyhow, the fact that Martha Stewart was imprisoned for lying in a matter that shouldn’t have been investigated does not change the fact that such crimes account for a negligible portion of the prison population. And that was the question asked.

And that’s the reason I chose drugs instead. I was raising the point that Objectivist Prisons would not really be such a problem, but others that correlate would arise as in any purely contractual society.

I guess the question is:

Would an indebted person could be forced to re-pay his debt in slavery or through organs, etc? That sounds pretty contractual, but it contradicts the Sanctity of the human body. Although that might be Humanism more than Objectivism.

29

I was raising the point that Objectivist Prisons would not really be such a problem, but others that correlate would arise as in any purely contractual society.

A “purely contractual society” doesn’t sound like something that describes Capitalism. But I can’t know for sure, since I don’t know what you mean by it.

Would an indebted person could be forced to re-pay his debt in slavery or through organs, etc? That sounds pretty contractual, but it contradicts the Sanctity of the human body. Although that might be Humanism more than Objectivism.

It sounds contractual, but Objectivism does not hold contracts to be the fundemental building block of Politics.

No, contracts that require slavery or death would not be legal, in a Capitalist society, as described by Objectivism. Individual rights (which are the opposite of slavery, and the “right” to another man’s life) are a much more fundamental concept, than contracts, in Objectivism.

30

A “purely contractual society” doesn’t sound like something that describes Capitalism. But I can’t know for sure, since I don’t know what you mean by it.

It sounds contractual, but Objectivism does not hold contracts to be the fundemental building block of Politics.

No, contracts that require slavery or death would not be legal, in a Capitalist society, as described by Objectivism. Individual rights (which are the opposite of slavery, and the “right” to another man’s life) are a much more fundamental concept, than contracts, in Objectivism.

Thanks. Hm, you are right, Objectivism doesn’t describe politics that way (Libertarians do sometimes). But then I’ll have to ask what would happen to a heavily indebted person within an Objectivist-led culture? risk taken by the lender?

31

Thanks. Hm, you are right, Objectivism doesn’t describe politics that way (Libertarians do sometimes). But then I’ll have to ask what would happen to a heavily indebted person within an Objectivist-led culture? risk taken by the lender?

It depends. If the recipient of the loan knew he won’t have the money to pay up, and actively deceived the lender, then that’s fraud.

But if that’s not the case, sure, too bad for the lender. (but very few lenders would just throw money around even to the extent that happens now, where the government acts as a safety net for lenders and borrowers who exercise poor judgment)

P.S. Libertarians who suggest jailtime for people who go bankrupt are insane. The last thing people need is a government that punishes risk taking with prison. Can you imagine what that would do to pretty much everyone in the market, except the very rich, knowing that 0% risk of failure is almost an impossibility if you start a business (or even just buy a house) without a huge inheritance as a safety net?

32

Would an indebted person could be forced to re-pay his debt in slavery or through organs, etc?

The legal system would have some regulated means of requiring a person to perform on his agreements while still allowing him to exist qua man. It is possible that an obligation would simply go unpaid, e.g. if he negligently causes a million dollars worth of damage and pays it down at the rate of $5,000 a year, then most of the debt will be extinguished at his death.

33

My question about objectivism regarding prisons:

Would the government own the prisons, or would they be privately owned?

Ayn Rand said there should be a monopoly on force, and I think prisons qualify as force.

34

Rand also said that a government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control. It does not follow from that that every person who brings about the use of force at the direction of the government must be an employee of the government, nor does it mean that every agency which does so must be an arm of the government. There is nothing improper about the government contracting out certain jobs, as long as the government still maintains control over those acting as agents of the government. Essentially, a bounty hunter becomes an extension of the government when he is doing his job, but he has the right to make a profit off of his work.

The question really should be, what facts would properly lead to a government hiring agents to perform its function?

35

The question really should be, what facts would properly lead to a government hiring agents to perform its function?

I think agents should be restricted to functions that do not involve making official judgments. Caring for an already convicted prisoners, or capturing bail jumpers and the already convicted are both valid tasks for contracting out. Being a judge and possibly a police officer would not be.

36

I think agents should be restricted to functions that do not involve making official judgments.

I agree: it seems to me that the crucial dividing line is between “making an independent judgment to use force” versus “implementing a government decision to use force”.