In a free and modern society, all people should have the right to every amenity convicted felons get

Great Debates
1

I’m thinking through the title statement- I’m not sure if I believe it, but I find it compelling to think about. For the sake of this thread, I’m talking about free and modern societies in general- not any specific free and modern society.

What I mean by this statement is that convicted criminals get food, a place to sleep, and basic health care. Therefore, in a free and modern society all people should have the right to (basic) food, a place to sleep, and basic health care, with no requirements to receive these things except an absence of criminal behavior. So a shiftless, lazy, unmotivated person still gets these basic things that criminals get.

Naturally this last part is pretty distasteful- why shouldn’t people have to work for a living? Morally, I think they should. But if we feed criminals on the taxpayers’ dime, why shouldn’t we feed the lazy? If we treat the illnesses and injuries of criminals on the taxpayers dime, why shouldn’t we treat the illnesses and injuries of non-criminals? If criminals get a roof over their heads on the taxpayers’ dime, why shouldn’t everyone else who needs one?

I’m taking it for granted that a free and modern society must provide these things for convicted criminals- undoubtedly some people would be happy to deny them basic health care or other things. So no need to argue that part- I’m wondering about whether, if a society feeds/houses/treats criminals, then are they logically bound to feed/house/treat all non-criminals that need these things as well?

2

Because we otherwise restrict the ability of criminals to work and thus provide those things for themselves. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with the state of things, but if we didn’t feed, house, and care for criminals, then they would die of starvation, exposure, and illness at alarmingly high rates, since only the very rich would be able to provide food, housing, and medical care for themselves while incarcerated for any serious length of time.

That’s not generally true of the shiftless and lazy. They are free to work and provide for themselves, but choose not to. And, yes, there are obviously people who are neither shiftless nor lazy but who are unable to provide for themselves. I support a safety net for those people, and I accept that such a safety net will inevitably also provide for some of the shiftless and lazy. I do think we should make an effort to weed the shiftless and lazy out of such social programs, and I don’t agree that the services we provide to criminals should necessarily be extended to all people who are not constrained in the ways we constrain criminals.

3

I think the walrus has it right.

We can’t afford to feed and house everyone. If we did, there would be nobody left to pay the taxes to support it.

The prisoner has very restricted rights. They’ve become a burden on the state, but as a society we feel it’s better to let them be a burden than to let them roam the streets. That doesn’t give everyone else the right to be a freeloader.

However, you’re free to commit a crime and hope to get locked up, if that’s what you want. For maximum benefit, be sure to carry a firearm and a lot of illegal drugs. :wink:

4

But not everyone would be lazy- I think most people would choose to do something with their lives.

5

It’s called “Communism.” It doesn’t work.

6

Is it though? Where is the cut off? If it isn’t communism to supply all citizens with free roads, or free fire protection, why is a bare minimum of free food and shelter different?

One of the classic arguments against this sort of thing involves incentives: “When you provide things to people for free, they have no incentive to work,” which may be true. But if you provide these things to criminals, aren’t you creating an incentive to commit crimes? If people are deterred from committing crimes by the threat of jail, wouldn’t they be encouraged to get better jobs, by the threat of a subsistence level prison lifestyle?

I still consider myself to be somewhat libertarian, in the sense of maximizing freedom, but I’ve come around to the safety net point of view. By removing the threat of death and starvation between jobs, you increase people’s freedom to move to more fulfilling or productive jobs, to gain skills, invent things and open businesses. It’s essentially greasing the wheels of capitalism, quite the opposite of a command economy really.

7

Not enough of one to matter. Prison is a pretty bad deal. It’s really easy to tell if people are incentivized by committing crimes. Every once in a while there will be someone who commits a crime and just waits around for the police to show up because they want the healthcare. It’s usually a semi-major news story.

In contrast, you can tell that most criminals are not incentivized by the bonus of going to jail because they tend to run away when the police approach. That is not the behavior of someone who’s committing a crime because the prospect of going to jail is compelling.

I’m not opposed to allowing people to voluntarily commit themselves to prison. It would save the (very minor) cost of the few people who do commit crimes in order to go to jail, and we could let them out whenever they decide they want to be on their own. I’m guessing that there wouldn’t be many people taking that offer.

We already have homeless shelters and food pantries. Sometimes they are full or out of food, but generally people who are starving or dying of exposure aren’t doing so because there are no resources available. It’s because they are unwilling to abide by the rules of the charity that provides them, or because they are children whose parents are horribly unfit, or something of that nature.

Healthcare’s a different issue, because it can be incredibly expensive (unlike food and shelter, which are relatively cheap). We’re making some slow progress in the direction of universal health care, but there are always going to be people who die of “preventable” illnesses. At least partly because while we may have the technology to cure very expensive ailments for some, we do not yet have the resources to cure them for all.

8

The thing isn’t so much that criminals have a right to basic housing, clothing, and food, it’s that we, as a society, have decided it’s worth it to us to lock them away, but also not wanting to be completely inhumane, we want to at least provide them with what they need to survive as part of our desite to remove them from society. I don’t think it really makes sense to define something as a right that costs the government money to provide as opposed to money to simply protecting.

The obvious major flaw is that you remove the incentive of a lot of people to work. Obviously providing that much from the government would be expensive, taxes would go up because we’ve now added a massive entitlement. So now especially marginal salaries won’t seem worth it? Why work 40 hours a week to only live a little bit better than you can live for free? So you have more and more people living for free and not wanting to work the lower end jobs. And now you’re approaching confiscatory tax rates on the middle class and wealthy, where the wealthy will do what they always do to minimize their taxes, and I think the middle class just ends up getting screwed with that massive tax burden.

9

True. My point wasn’t that we ARE incentivizing criminals, rather that we’re not. Your points are well made, and equally apply to food and shelter: How many people do you know who, once they’ve made enough money to afford three hots and a cot, say “Well, I don’t need to work anymore. I’ve got enough money now.” The existence of the middle and upper classes disputes the argument that people will stop working if you give them food.

I agree that healthcare is the important issue here. But I disagree that shelter is cheap. Last time I priced health insurance, it was a fair bit cheaper than the cheapest rent in my area. Not to mention utility bills. The difference is that people can pool their resources as roommates, but only up to a point.

However, your point that people aren’t dying of starvation out on the streets in significant numbers (and the ones who are, aren’t doing it for lack of food and shelter) is true. But people are going bankrupt and dying due to lack of healthcare every day. So yeah, I agree, first things first.

10

Another agreement with the walrus. The reason the state provides basic support for prisoners is because it has deprived them of the ability to acquire what they need for themselves. If you prevent somebody from holding a job or going to the store to buy food or renting their own apartment or going to the doctor, you take on the burden of providing these things to them.

11

I disagree. The reason I think we are bound to clothe, feed, and nurse inmates is that we have removed the possibility of them doing it for themselves. If you deprive someone of the opportunity then it seems that you need to provide them with the basics. But only the basics. Nonsense like the murderer who just got (or is about to get) gender reassignment surgery on the state’s dime is absolutely insane. Want an expensive sex change operation, but don’t have the money. Easy, just murder someone. The stupidity is colossal.

12

No, it’s not communism to provide a basic standard of living for all citizens. Pure communism forces everyone to work as hard as they can (from each according to his ability), then takes away all of what their workers produce–crops, money, whatever–to redistribute fairly among all citizens (to each according to his need). In practice, communist countries end up taking everything from their citizens while only giving back the bare minimum needed to support life (sometimes less, see: North Korea). Then, the government keeps the rest and lives like fatcats.

In the OP’s proposed system, nobody would have to work if they didn’t want to. It’s completely different from communism. People could choose to work for unnecessary goods and services like internet, television, phones, eating out, & transportation. Or they could choose to go without and make their own entertainment (or sit around all day). Or, they could choose to work only 1 day a week to pay for the couple things beyond the minimum that make them happy.

The problem is, I don’t know how sustainable this system would be. High-achievers, workaholics, and conspicuous consumers will continue doing what they do, regardless of whether there’s a baseline safety net to fall back on. But we’d have to tax the living shit out of these people to make up for the ones who don’t want to work. A lot of struggling lower-class people would just stop working (as well as people at all economic levels who just flat-out hate their jobs). Who’s going to work a shitty job they hate (or 2 jobs, or 3) when they can just stay home and spend time with their friends and family instead? The risk of going hungry or becoming homeless is a baseline motivator that gets a lot of people off their asses (including me!).

Without the worst-case scenarios of starvation/dying in the gutter, I sure as hell wouldn’t work any more than the bare minimum. I would sell the shit out of my car. No more gas to pay for, no more maintenance, no more insurance. I’d get a place within walking distance of a grocery store. I’d work a couple days a month at most, to pay for my internet connection and WoW subscription. If I wanted a rare luxury item (like a new computer), I’d work just exactly long enough to pay for it, then quit.

Demand for lots of things (like fuel and vehicles and fast food) would probably go way down, and wages would probably have to go way up. Otherwise, many jobs wouldn’t be attractive enough to motivate *anyone *to do them. So, my gut’s telling me this is probably not a very good idea for society right now. Later, perhaps… once most or all of our low-level services are automated, and our unemployment rate is high enough, this idea might become more feasible.

13

Just so you know, we do this same topic pretty much every year. If you do a little searching, you will find several threads on precisely this topic.

14

If you are going to use this line of reasoning, it can then be used to argue against any and all of our social services. Ignoring the US for a moment, every modern developed country has various programs that ultimately add up to “free food, clothing, shelter and health care.” It is true that the perceived tax rates are higher, but note that it’s perceived. In the end, all the costs are still there, we either have higher cost of health insurance to cover people who can’t pay, or we have UHC that ends up being cheaper for everyone involved.

All the same arguments for UHC can easily be applied to shelter, food, and clothing. We as a society are already paying a lot of money for a hodgepodge of shelters and services. We’d probably save a lot of money through efficiency of simply setting up a prison-style system of housing instead.

But that’s where the real problem with socialism appears. People aren’t willing to “live like criminals.” There are more than a few people on this board with prison experience, and I’ve known a few people personally that had to spend a weekend in jail. It’s 4 people to a room sleeping on bunk-beds. Prison uniforms. And horrible horrible food.

I’m pretty sure we could easily afford to have voluntary prisons for anyone that wanted. The problem is that reality gets in the way and people would demand more. Things like their own room, their own bathroom, better clothes, and obviously better food. What happens then is that we create a barrier, just like with negative tax rates. A person living in prison ends up with an effective income around $20k by the time you add up all the benefits. So some how if they want to get a job and their own place they need to earn way more than that to be better off. One generation later and we’ll have people that have never known another way of life. Two generations later and we’ll have an entire class of people entirely dependent.

All this does is highlight just how cheaply people could live if they wanted to, and how
unnecessary most social services end up being.

15

Nowhere in the OP did I read that there was a basic right to good food, a nice place to sleep, or more than basic healthcare. Basic food, an environment slightly better than shelter after a disaster, and care that is preventative or emergency (no boob jobs) would seem to fill the bill. I don’t know about the rest of you, but having that to fall back on wouldn’t affect my desire to work at all.

I’d add mental health care, since a lot of the homeless are homeless because of mental problems, not laziness.
Given the reaction here, it would seem that there would be a prediction that without these rights everyone would rush out and get jobs. Hasn’t happened that way, has it? I wouldn’t mind a bit more to keep the homeless off the streets or out of the parks. (And out of our dumpsters).

Sure prisoners don’t have the freedom to get jobs - but those on the bottom, without skills, effectively have just as few freedoms.
I’d agree to one better solution - a WPA like program which would guarantee jobs for all, jobs that make enough for food, housing, and basic healthcare. But without that, I support the OP.

16

A perfect example of wanting to help, but not too much, and then making sure to exclude things that sound unreasonable. The “no boob jobs” exclusion does little more than hurt women who just had a mastectomy.

Now we all get to slide down the slippery slope of socialism in a democracy. Obviously we can’t fund abortions, that just goes without saying. And we probably shouldn’t provide cancer treatment to people that smoke, they caused it themselves. Or anyone else that engages in reckless activities.

What evidence do you have that this would be the case? Places with shelters still have homeless in parks and dumpsters because like I said reality gets in the way. Some members of the homeless community are assholes. They drink themselves stupid, get high of the most insane stuff, and then cause problems at the shelters. At some point the shelter has to kick them out.

Eventually there will be an asshole in one of these prisons, then what? Are we allowed to kick him out? If we do we’ll have a new homeless problem, same as the old.

17

It means not everyone will stop working if you give the basics. Some people will. Like I said, I’m not that concerned with some amount of perverse incentives/parasitism if it means that people who need it are helped out. I don’t know how many people are likely to not work if they’re given the basics of food and shelter. The level of benefits required to blow off productive work clearly varies from person to person. A relatively high percentage of people who inherit massive trust funds don’t feel much of a drive to work. And there are obviously people for whom the current level of benefits provided by sleeping in parks and under bridges is sufficient. Any increase in the safety net is going to add some people at the margin. Maybe, at whatever level of safety net we decide to have, it’s few enough that it’s not a significant cost compared to the benefits of a strong safety net. But I don’t think we should ignore the issue.

Have you tried living with 4 people in a 10 foot square concrete box with a toilet in the corner? I bet the rent on that is pretty low.

True. But, again, while you can argue that having basic food and shelter is just a distribution problem (there’s plenty to go around, but some people are lacking), health care is different. There’s actually not enough health care to go around at our current levels of technology/wealth. Some people are going to die because we can’t afford to treat them. If health issues are enough to bankrupt someone, then those health issues are very expensive to treat. Right now, the way we figure out who gets the really expensive health care and who doesn’t is based on a mishmash of who has good insurance, who has money, and things like organ recipient waiting lists.

If we decide that everyone gets the same health care, we still have to have some way of figuring out who actually gets the treatment when we’re resource constrained. Maybe we have a lottery. Maybe there’s some formula that takes into account likely quality of life and persona contributions. Maybe we have a council of learned citizens who decides who’s worthy (“death panel” is an ugly politicized name for this). But there’s gotta be something. There are actually not enough kidneys to give everyone who needs a kidney to get one. When the music stops, someone dies because they don’t have a kidney.

18

As prisoners are your standard, I think you should include into the scenario the risk
of being pummeled at any moment, and the risk of being assaulted in the shower, and the risk of out right knife-ing, without intervention of “authority”. It’s no joke, one can straight up get killed in prison, while having very little recourse to avoid such a situation.
If the OP was inferring that American Criminals Have It So Good, I disagree.
If that wasn’t the inference, then I am mistook.

19

That’s not really an issue. The problem with prisons are that they’re full of criminals. You could take the population of Attica and put them on a cruise ship and they’d be fighting each other. Take a bunch of normal people and put them into a prison without any criminals around and it wouldn’t be all that bad.

20

‘…all people should have the right to every amenity convicted felons get.’

I guess I was responding to that…, in the Thread Title. It bothers me, on a fundemental level, that people who (presumably) have never worn handcuffs,
or been locked up, even for a single night, might claim that prisoners in this
country are the beneficiaries of “amenities” in any way.