Not really. The basic rule of economics is that you have to give something in order to get something. Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison.
What you're talking about is really a disproportion between amount of work they make (and value they produce) and the total amount of pay they receive for delivering that value.
> Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison.
Their freedom to negotiate has been taken away, therefore they do not have any choices.
> What you're talking about is really a disproportion between amount of work they make (and value they produce) and the total amount of pay they receive for delivering that value.
That depends on the situation but is ultimately un-important.
"Basic rules of economics" have no place inside prison walls.
> That depends on the situation but is ultimately un-important
It actually is very important because this is exactly what distinguishes between labour slavery and ordinary paid work.
Economic rules is not something that one can decide whether it applies or not. It's like telling that mathematical axioms don't apply in prison - sure, you can make people believe that 2 + 2 = 5 but this is nothing more than just rejecting the reality.
In ordinary paid work both sides have consideration and freedom. In this case they don't so you can't compare it to 'ordinary work', it isn't.
That leaves 'forced labor' as the only other option if you feel that letting people starve to death is a viable alternative (as you did in your earlier comment).
>if you feel that letting people starve to death is a viable alternative (as you did in your earlier comment)
isn't it how this works in principle for folks that are not imprisoned? (And no, I don't think this a viable alternative, although - nice job what you did here - well played).
Just so you are aware, individual states have the right to prevent forced labor. For example, CO prevented forced labor in its constitution in the last election by a voter initiative.
> It actually is very important because this is exactly what distinguishes between labour slavery and ordinary paid work.
"Ordinary paid work" that pays less than a dollar an hour. And if you don't go you are put in solitary, instead of just being fired. That means you don't see any other people. Ever. If they really don't like you they can put you on the loaf, too. Look that up. And that "opportunity" for "ordinary paid work" only exists in prison: you also aren't handling jail, where the Thirteenth doesn't apply because the inmate has not yet been convicted. So now everybody in jail starves under your final solution, before they can be convicted by their peers, all in the name of economic purity.
I have to say, as a former inmate, watching ostensibly well-off people who've never seen the inside of a drunk tank talk about "reality" like this just bugs me. It's just such a lack of perspective, which is fine, but there's also a lack of awareness that it's there and it's dehumanizing to see people speak about inmates like this. You're arguing basic economics and applying it to the incarcerated human condition as if inmates are a line item of cattle in Excel. (Ask me what comes out of the hole when someone gets repeatedly stabbed with a sharpened toothbrush and what color it is. Hint: not red. That's reality.)
> Inmates should be given a choice of working and making money so they can pay for their living or do nothing and starve to death - just like any other member of the society outside of prison.
Do you believe the work prisoners do pay for their incarceration costs?
Are you jealous that people whose freedom and agency are taken away are fed and housed by the state?
No, I'm not jealous - there is no need for personal remarks here. I'm just pointing out that it's not fair to the rest of the society. State will only be able to feed and house inmates, if it forcibly takes money from members of that society in the form of taxes. In order to give to someone, you have to take from someone else - it's that simple.
Yeah, because feeding and housing drug dealers for the money taken forcibly from an average Joe who works 12h a day to provide to his family is totally fair.
> the society pays money to the government and in return have prisons. Society benefits from said prisons.
This is very naive way of looking at it.
> you should be aiming for the massive imbalance of wealth
Wow, it didn't take much time before someone had to drag this into discussion about penitentiary system.
Why? The concept of prison is literally society funding a project to keep undesirable crime out of said society. That's fundamentally and exactly what it is. Calling that naive is like saying water being able to drown you is a naive position to hold.
I suggest visiting a lawless nation to observe what paying for prison does.
> Yeah, because feeding and housing drug dealers for the money taken forcibly from an average Joe who works 12h a day to provide to his family is totally fair.
You seem to not grasp (a) how many "drug dealers" (ooo scary, want to get a beer and find out what a former one is like?) are, themselves, average joes working twelves to provide money for their family, (b) that arguing about fairness is laughable when you're taking the positions that you are (fair for who?), and (c) how many "average joes" comprise the population of, especially minimum security, corrections for crimes you'd roll your eyes at. I was in with a guy who waived his trial timeframe completion rights -- different states call this by different names, and NEVER waive it -- and was in the middle of year three of being held, pretrial, for passing a single $600 bad check. Yes, really. His name was Isaiah and he was a black electrician. Nobody gave a shit, and I'm going to assume you don't either based on how you're arguing this.
(Blah blah, bleeding heart, I know.)
That you've indicted a whole group of real people because they've ended up in corrections is the lack of perspective I was warning you about elsewhere. They are humans. Just like you. People make mistakes. You should avoid speaking about them like they're cattle and are inferior to you or "average joes." Until you truly understand that, you're way on the wrong side of this. I promise.
What you're talking about is really a disproportion between amount of work they make (and value they produce) and the total amount of pay they receive for delivering that value.