I thought he was just a crook (like these judges). Silly me.
Right. Individuals are always supposed to follow the law, whether they are from government (Blagojevich) or the private sector. But you’re neglecting the institutional aspect of the argument.
Sure, it’s possible for both government officials and private businesspeople to undertake corrupt or criminal behavior, and that such corrupt and criminal behavior subverts the proper workings of the system. But it seemed to me that Little Nemo’s initial argument about libertarianism was not about corruption and criminality, per se, but was about the way that libertarian notions of privatization tend to place in direct conflict the capitalist profit-motive and society’s needs. That is, by privatizing something like prisons and the justice system, you create an industry that has a vested financial interest in increasing levels of crime, while the societal impetus behind creating prisons and the justice system in the first place is to reduce or prevent crime.
For example, say you were the CEO of a privatized prison corporation, and the federal and state governments of the United States suddenly decided to decriminalize drugs, and to release all prisoners convicted for non-violent drug offenses. Even if it was largely agreed that this move would be to the benefit of society, responsibility to your shareholders would probably require that you oppose the measure because it would dramatically reduce the number of prisoners coming through your system, and thus reduce your profits.
Corporations are profit-seeking entities, by nature. And in seeking profit, they look to exploit the market, and to do everything possible to increase their income while reducing their expenses. For the most part that works out fine. But in a case where increasing your income might mean advocating policies that pace more people in the correctional system, and where reducing expenses might mean cutting back on legally-prescribed prison food and amenities (something we’ve seen at another privately-run prison, in a recent thread), or even giving prisoners inadequate health care (something we’ve discussed on this board in the past), there’s a direct conflict between the corporation’s private profit motive, and the societal goals for the institutions that it oversees.
I realize that privatized prisons are not the only industry where this conflict of interest between social good and private profit exists, but it’s a case where people’s very lives and fundamental freedoms are at stake, and there should not be even the *appearance *of private profit and public policy being at war in such situations.
ETA:
Of course, a lot of these problems could probably be solved or avoid by writing strong enough laws, and by having a rigorous enough oversight and regulation system, but the people who advocate private prisons are often some of the same people who press for reduced government spending in areas of regulation and oversight as well.
Two points:
First, yes, private firms are supposed to obey the law. But I choose not to take your handwaving that when children and youth are incarcerated involuntarily in a private facility, their rights, welfare, rehabilitation, etc., are being adequately protected, unless you can show definitive evidence that this is in fact being ensured on an ongoing, hourly basis. Because that is not just, “We’re expecting that the bread delivery company is performing proper maintenance on their delivery vans, and we’ll arrest and fine anyone who drives one that’s unsafe on the public highways” – this is a company, in business to make a profit, that is charged with effecting changed behavior in our youth, our future. And your laissez faire theories don’t hold much water as against the evidence of failure to adequately protect the rights, not only of the children, but of the public who pays taxes in expectation that a judicial and correctional system will be doing their jobs properly.
Second, I am annoyed but unsurprised that, out of a post responding to you and making several points I thought valid, and ending with a request, you selected one point to nitpick as your sole response to me. It’s par for the course with excusing every excess of the late Bush administration with the “But Clinton lied under oath” comeback, and the equating of liberal idaeals to a laxidaisical attitude toward values you hold, or at least claim to hold, while never substantively answering discussion points or questions.
When I was younger, I used to think the Republican Party had some valid points to make that I could support. I’ve now seen adequate evidence of your moral bankruptcy to disuade me from that view.
ETA: Mhendo’s last post speaks for me as well.
I did not say anyone was being adequately protected here. I was just pointing out, correctly, that government had failed these vulnerable people in a pretty basic way. So for people to stand up and say that government has a role here because of its record as a powerful and disinterested voice - well, that’s absurd. Absurd.
Not to deny government’s proper and necessary role here, certainly, but let’s face facts - these kids were failed by two judges. Judges in Pennsylvania at many levels are elected officials - a quick check shows that both of these men were Democrats. Democrats as well as Republicans have engaged in contracting and outsourcing work - in the federal government this grew at a rapid pace during the Clinton years.
But this particular incident is supposed to point out the shortcomings of libertarianism? Where did that ever enter into it?
Now, a valid point can be made that this points out the danger of contracting out prison operations or of corruption in general - but turning this into an anti-libertarian screed is foolish.
But how do we separate out the danger of contracting out prison operations with the libertarian argument that the ONLY economic system that is compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market system?
Do we say that libertarianism is great, EXCEPT when it comes to contracting out prisons to private companies?
Looks like Powell and the two judges were thick as thieves: http://www.standardspeaker.com/articles/2009/02/13/news/hz_standspeak.20090213.a.pg1.hz13_pleawcat_s1.2302387_top4.txt
This is not the free market system: business is being handed out by government fiat, hardly the kind of thing libertarians are enthusiastic about.
Government can’t do everything: at some point, it’s going to have to purchase goods and/or services from the private sector. At that point, there is going to be some risk of corruption. However, using a case of breathtaking government corruption as an occasion to pick on free market advocates is pretty ridiculous.
Any lawerly types know what the max is that they could have received, and what sentencing guidelines in that area would have to say about consecutive rather than concurrent sentences per count?
Maybe I’m a hard-ass as far as pinko liberal wusses go, but I really don’t think that either of those two should ever see the light of day again.
Agree. It was by two individuals, who had been given a position of trust and power. They violated that trust and abused that power. This has nothing to do with Libertarians, Socialists, Republicans, Democrats, or the Bullmoose Party. No one of any party would say it was OK. One of the main principles of our government is that no one man have unlimited power, that everyone has to answer to somebody. I would hope our government would have a healthy interest in making sure it stays that way.
Personally, I think the 4 years and no pension that someone mentioned is not enough. Not for the damage they caused out of malicious personal greed.
In any system that dared call itself libertarian, teenagers wouldn’t be locked up for trivial offenses.
My heart breaks for the kids who will never get those days, months and years of their lives back- just so those judges could line their pockets.
I wonder what effect the artibrary and excessive punishment will have on the recidivism rate?
My point was that by making prisons a private business you’ve created a situation where people have a profit motive for sending people to prison. My position is that some services like prisons and police and schools and hospitals and regulatory agencies should be financially disinterested - they should not be subject to considerations of profit when they make their decisions.
As for Blagojevich, he was not representing the State of Illinois when he was looking for bribes. He was representing Rod Blagojevich. Illinois wasn’t committing any crimes; Rod Blagojevich was.
That’s not much of a distinction as things go, I’m afraid - Blagojevich wouldn’t have had anything to sell unless he was in office, right? Same with these judges.
As for the prison contract - this shit is getting way deeper:
Pittsburgh DA Zappala’s Brother Owns Juvenile Centers In Case:
Draft audit nixes juvie funds:
Here’s the story for when Powell bowed out of the operation - it sheds light on how it got approved:
In Pennsylvania, county supervisor elections in most counties are run by both parties fielding two candidates and the top three getting elected. The majority supervisors essentially set the agenda and the minority supervisor in theory can keep them honest. Skrepenak and Vonderheid ran a unified ticket at the time - they were Democrats. So is District Attorney Stephen Zappala. So is his brother and their father. So is Mayor Marsicano. And while Pennsylvania politics has amply demonstrated over the years that Republicans can be guilty of similar breathtaking corruption, this particular case is a big Democratic circle-jerk.
(I remember Zappala Senior for a strange incident a few years back - one of his fellow justices, Rolf Larsen, was impeached because he basically went nuts in office. Along with allegations that he hid psychiatric treatment and engaged in improper ex parte communications, he also accused Zappala and Justice Ralph Cappy of tapping his phone and trying to run him down with a car. Link.)
If someone were to write this up for a soap opera script, it would be rejected as not believable. But that’s Pennsylvania government in action.
Incidentally, just so you get a nice complete picture, Greg Skrepenak is a local hero - a football star who grew up in Wilkes-Barre and then played pro for the Raiders and the Carolina Panthers. He returned to Luzerne County after his pro career ended and got involved in politics.
Stephen Zappala Jr. was recently angling for an administration position - probably U.S. attorney. This might not be good for his chances.
The NY Times article makes clear that this situation had nothing to do with libertarianism or any other political philosophy.
This particular juvie system did not switch to privately-run prisons as a political decision. Instead, the two corrupt judges themselves ordered the closing of the county-run detention center – for the very purpose of facilitating their bribery scheme!
This was a thoroughly criminal scheme from beginning to end.
This STILL shows though, why certain government functions should never be turned over to private business. The very fact that private companies that profit by incarcerating juveniles are even able to exist in the first place is the question.
Sure the judges shut down the county-run centers. The point is though, that private company centers have no place in this system.
This case clearly still points out a flaw in hard-core libertarianism, which thinks that as much government business as possible should be turned over to a free enterprise system. Well when we look at the prison system, my answer to that would be “no”. This is because of cases like this, where individual greed by people running a private business is a motivating factor.
Dilbert’s Pointy-Haired Boss deciding if people should go to prison or not:
:eek:
'Nuff said.
My god, what sick fucks. 
So we can look to the government run prisons, then, and find that they are a model of rectitude and prudence, right?
Oops, guess not:
This story was from last year, in Monroe County, adjacent to Luzerne County in Pennsylvania. So we can keep trying to blame this on libertarianism, or we can go the simpler route and blame a political culture in Pennsylvania particularly conducive to corruption. Fellow posters from there or familiar with politics there will likely back me up here.