Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They support the premise until taken to its logical conclusions in that people should be free to use their property in any way they see fit so long as it does not infringe on the use of anybody else's property. Aggression must be implemented, by both liberals and conservatives, to deny property rights."[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.
What do you thnk?
Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com
In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.
And liberals totally support that premise. But it is the laissez-faire side of libertarians that is the problem.
The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
They support the premise until taken to its logical conclusions in that people should be free to use their property in any way they see fit so long as it does not infringe on the use of anybody else's property. Aggression must be implemented, by both liberals and conservatives, to deny property rights."[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.
What do you thnk?
Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com
In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.
And liberals totally support that premise. But it is the laissez-faire side of libertarians that is the problem.
The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.They support the premise until taken to its logical conclusions in that people should be free to use their property in any way they see fit so long as it does not infringe on the use of anybody else's property. Aggression must be implemented, by both liberals and conservatives, to deny property rights."[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.
What do you thnk?
Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com
In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.
And liberals totally support that premise. But it is the laissez-faire side of libertarians that is the problem.
The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
I surmise you don't know where that line is.
Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.They support the premise until taken to its logical conclusions in that people should be free to use their property in any way they see fit so long as it does not infringe on the use of anybody else's property. Aggression must be implemented, by both liberals and conservatives, to deny property rights."[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.
What do you thnk?
Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com
In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.
And liberals totally support that premise. But it is the laissez-faire side of libertarians that is the problem.
The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
I surmise you don't know where that line is.
Where the law violates property rights the law is aggression.Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.They support the premise until taken to its logical conclusions in that people should be free to use their property in any way they see fit so long as it does not infringe on the use of anybody else's property. Aggression must be implemented, by both liberals and conservatives, to deny property rights."[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."
Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com
In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.
And liberals totally support that premise. But it is the laissez-faire side of libertarians that is the problem.
The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
I surmise you don't know where that line is.
I suspect you are confusing aggression with something else, like the law. Property rights are not open-ended: never have been nor should they be.
Where the law violates property rights the law is aggression.Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.They support the premise until taken to its logical conclusions in that people should be free to use their property in any way they see fit so long as it does not infringe on the use of anybody else's property. Aggression must be implemented, by both liberals and conservatives, to deny property rights.And liberals totally support that premise. But it is the laissez-faire side of libertarians that is the problem.
The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
I surmise you don't know where that line is.
I suspect you are confusing aggression with something else, like the law. Property rights are not open-ended: never have been nor should they be.
You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.Where the law violates property rights the law is aggression.Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.They support the premise until taken to its logical conclusions in that people should be free to use their property in any way they see fit so long as it does not infringe on the use of anybody else's property. Aggression must be implemented, by both liberals and conservatives, to deny property rights.
I surmise you don't know where that line is.
I suspect you are confusing aggression with something else, like the law. Property rights are not open-ended: never have been nor should they be.
Give me examples? Almost all property laws are local ordinances.
You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.Where the law violates property rights the law is aggression.Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.I surmise you don't know where that line is.
I suspect you are confusing aggression with something else, like the law. Property rights are not open-ended: never have been nor should they be.
Give me examples? Almost all property laws are local ordinances.
There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.Where the law violates property rights the law is aggression.Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.
I suspect you are confusing aggression with something else, like the law. Property rights are not open-ended: never have been nor should they be.
Give me examples? Almost all property laws are local ordinances.
You are half right. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in our history. It has created a prison/industrial complex. And the 'privatization' of that industry is where laissez-faire is cancerous.
But smoking in a restaurant is a violation of employee rights and patron rights. Everyone has the right to breath air without deadly carcinogens. And before you come back with "they can go elsewhere", if someone needs to light up a cigarette, they can go outside.
"[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."
Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com
In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.
Well minarchist libertarians are not opposed to all taxation, so, in my opinion, they are saying that some level of aggression is necessary. They simply draw a line saying only so much aggression is allowable. Some of them may not even see certain levels or forms of taxation as aggression at all. I would disagree with them in that case, but it might be best to get their input."[L]ibertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."
Six Myths About Libertarianism 8211 LewRockwell.com
In other words, the foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. I suppose you can call that a dogma if you like.
I've always wondered how a libertarian government would get the taxes it needs to exist in light of the non-aggression principle. Strongly worded notes?
There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.Where the law violates property rights the law is aggression.I suspect you are confusing aggression with something else, like the law. Property rights are not open-ended: never have been nor should they be.
Give me examples? Almost all property laws are local ordinances.
You are half right. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in our history. It has created a prison/industrial complex. And the 'privatization' of that industry is where laissez-faire is cancerous.
But smoking in a restaurant is a violation of employee rights and patron rights. Everyone has the right to breath air without deadly carcinogens. And before you come back with "they can go elsewhere", if someone needs to light up a cigarette, they can go outside.
The issue of smoking is, simply put, nobody's say but the property owner's. If I own a restaurant and don't want people smoking in it, as I wouldn't, then you're right to say that they can go outside. If, however, I decide the opposite, then yes, indeed my employees can choose to work elsewhere and customers opposed to smoking can go elsewhere. If they lose enough business they'll change their policy, but it's their right to decide.
"Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.Where the law violates property rights the law is aggression.
Give me examples? Almost all property laws are local ordinances.
You are half right. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in our history. It has created a prison/industrial complex. And the 'privatization' of that industry is where laissez-faire is cancerous.
But smoking in a restaurant is a violation of employee rights and patron rights. Everyone has the right to breath air without deadly carcinogens. And before you come back with "they can go elsewhere", if someone needs to light up a cigarette, they can go outside.
The issue of smoking is, simply put, nobody's say but the property owner's. If I own a restaurant and don't want people smoking in it, as I wouldn't, then you're right to say that they can go outside. If, however, I decide the opposite, then yes, indeed my employees can choose to work elsewhere and customers opposed to smoking can go elsewhere. If they lose enough business they'll change their policy, but it's their right to decide.
There should be ZERO financial incentive to lock someone up. Do you understand that concept? There should be ZERO chance of that EVER being a factor. Do you understand that concept??
What floors me about you folks who call yourself 'libertarians' is that you have little understanding of human foible and no use for the biggest defender of civil liberties in America...the ACLU.
The current incarceration rate deprives record numbers of individuals of their liberty, disproportionately affects people of color, and has at best a minimal effect on public safety. Meanwhile, the crippling cost of imprisoning increasing numbers of Americans saddles government budgets with rising debt and exacerbates the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation.
Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.
And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.
more
You have every right to decide if people can smoke in your private home. Restaurants are PUBLIC facilities and PUBLIC workplaces. They fall under PUBLIC laws.
"Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.Give me examples? Almost all property laws are local ordinances.
You are half right. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in our history. It has created a prison/industrial complex. And the 'privatization' of that industry is where laissez-faire is cancerous.
But smoking in a restaurant is a violation of employee rights and patron rights. Everyone has the right to breath air without deadly carcinogens. And before you come back with "they can go elsewhere", if someone needs to light up a cigarette, they can go outside.
The issue of smoking is, simply put, nobody's say but the property owner's. If I own a restaurant and don't want people smoking in it, as I wouldn't, then you're right to say that they can go outside. If, however, I decide the opposite, then yes, indeed my employees can choose to work elsewhere and customers opposed to smoking can go elsewhere. If they lose enough business they'll change their policy, but it's their right to decide.
There should be ZERO financial incentive to lock someone up. Do you understand that concept? There should be ZERO chance of that EVER being a factor. Do you understand that concept??
What floors me about you folks who call yourself 'libertarians' is that you have little understanding of human foible and no use for the biggest defender of civil liberties in America...the ACLU.
The current incarceration rate deprives record numbers of individuals of their liberty, disproportionately affects people of color, and has at best a minimal effect on public safety. Meanwhile, the crippling cost of imprisoning increasing numbers of Americans saddles government budgets with rising debt and exacerbates the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation.
Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.
And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.
more
You have every right to decide if people can smoke in your private home. Restaurants are PUBLIC facilities and PUBLIC workplaces. They fall under PUBLIC laws.
Restaurants are private property.
"Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.
You are half right. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in our history. It has created a prison/industrial complex. And the 'privatization' of that industry is where laissez-faire is cancerous.
But smoking in a restaurant is a violation of employee rights and patron rights. Everyone has the right to breath air without deadly carcinogens. And before you come back with "they can go elsewhere", if someone needs to light up a cigarette, they can go outside.
The issue of smoking is, simply put, nobody's say but the property owner's. If I own a restaurant and don't want people smoking in it, as I wouldn't, then you're right to say that they can go outside. If, however, I decide the opposite, then yes, indeed my employees can choose to work elsewhere and customers opposed to smoking can go elsewhere. If they lose enough business they'll change their policy, but it's their right to decide.
There should be ZERO financial incentive to lock someone up. Do you understand that concept? There should be ZERO chance of that EVER being a factor. Do you understand that concept??
What floors me about you folks who call yourself 'libertarians' is that you have little understanding of human foible and no use for the biggest defender of civil liberties in America...the ACLU.
The current incarceration rate deprives record numbers of individuals of their liberty, disproportionately affects people of color, and has at best a minimal effect on public safety. Meanwhile, the crippling cost of imprisoning increasing numbers of Americans saddles government budgets with rising debt and exacerbates the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation.
Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.
And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.
more
You have every right to decide if people can smoke in your private home. Restaurants are PUBLIC facilities and PUBLIC workplaces. They fall under PUBLIC laws.
Restaurants are private property.
Non sequitur. Prisons are a necessary part of any civil society to protect the population. And government of We the People is the ONLY entity that should be involved in incarceration. There needs to be ZERO monetary incentive to incarcerate a human being. As a matter of fact, a monetary incentive NOT to incarcerate a human being is paramount to liberty and freedom. Prisons should only be filled with people who are a threat to society, not filled with people who do not pose that threat. Do we really need private entities lobbying for more people to fill their prisons Kevin? THINK man. You ARE defending this malfeasance of the marketplace.
Libertarians are NOT really interested in protecting liberty. That immediately goes out the window when laissez-faire principals come into play. They are more interested in protecting laissez-faire and corporations over We, the People. THAT is why you won't defend the ACLU.
Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons
For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.
As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.
Restaurants are public places and fall under public laws that ensure protection of the general public and ensure workplace protection. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises?
So while you deride "private" prisons, you accept that government prisons are necessary. Yet, as I keep pointing out, "private" prisons are government prisons. All that has happened is that the government has contracted out the services to some corporatist entity."Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.
You are half right. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in our history. It has created a prison/industrial complex. And the 'privatization' of that industry is where laissez-faire is cancerous.
But smoking in a restaurant is a violation of employee rights and patron rights. Everyone has the right to breath air without deadly carcinogens. And before you come back with "they can go elsewhere", if someone needs to light up a cigarette, they can go outside.
The issue of smoking is, simply put, nobody's say but the property owner's. If I own a restaurant and don't want people smoking in it, as I wouldn't, then you're right to say that they can go outside. If, however, I decide the opposite, then yes, indeed my employees can choose to work elsewhere and customers opposed to smoking can go elsewhere. If they lose enough business they'll change their policy, but it's their right to decide.
There should be ZERO financial incentive to lock someone up. Do you understand that concept? There should be ZERO chance of that EVER being a factor. Do you understand that concept??
What floors me about you folks who call yourself 'libertarians' is that you have little understanding of human foible and no use for the biggest defender of civil liberties in America...the ACLU.
The current incarceration rate deprives record numbers of individuals of their liberty, disproportionately affects people of color, and has at best a minimal effect on public safety. Meanwhile, the crippling cost of imprisoning increasing numbers of Americans saddles government budgets with rising debt and exacerbates the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation.
Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.
And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.
more
You have every right to decide if people can smoke in your private home. Restaurants are PUBLIC facilities and PUBLIC workplaces. They fall under PUBLIC laws.
Restaurants are private property.
Non sequitur. Prisons are a necessary part of any civil society to protect the population. And government of We the People is the ONLY entity that should be involved in incarceration. There needs to be ZERO monetary incentive to incarcerate a human being. As a matter of fact, a monetary incentive NOT to incarcerate a human being is paramount to liberty and freedom. Prisons should only be filled with people who are a threat to society, not filled with people who do not pose that threat. Do we really need private entities lobbying for more people to fill their prisons Kevin? THINK man. You ARE defending this malfeasance of the marketplace.
Libertarians are NOT really interested in protecting liberty. That immediately goes out the window when laissez-faire principals come into play. They are more interested in protecting laissez-faire and corporations over We, the People. THAT is why you won't defend the ACLU.
Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons
For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.
As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.
Restaurants are public places and fall under public laws that ensure protection of the general public and ensure workplace protection. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises?
https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdfThe term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.
