thehill updates quite frequently with the days inside baseball and I find their non-opinion articles to be decent. Their opinion pieces are complete trash and really hurt their brand.
It's a right wing internet site, that sometimes shows some left ideas that are usually critical of the "left" democratic party in what seems like a cynical ploy to horseshoe theory some leftists in the country while usually interleaving that content with some content that is basically right out of the republican messaging for the day from the GOP.
This can't be true. We criticize China for prison labor. That would be like someone who beats their own children criticizing someone else for beating their own children.
The difference is that we (America) can change China and the Indo-Pacific, but not the US prison system. Something about balance of powers, executive branch balanced by whatever it wants...maybe I'm misremembering what I learned in school though.
Anyway, it's just common sense. I believe we have the tools to change things in that area of the world, but not domestically. Our hands our tied here, so how will we deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of citizens do commit crimes that lead to long sentences. If we don't jail a few hundred thousand of these people, then will it lead to problems in society or the economy? Inflation is already hard enough on the rich and poor. Around Xinjiang, we have more tools available to stop the prison labor there, like industry sanctions.
The ROI of working on Xinjiang is higher than the ROI: the conditions there are worse according to what I've read and we have more powerful tools at our disposal. So, let's keep our head clear and focused on China.
(Hopefully it's clear I don't truly believe what I wrote. It just sounds logical to me.)
>...The difference is that we (America) can change China and the Indo-Pacific, but not the US prison system.
I'm not sure how ending prison slavery abroad in a sovereign country is supposedly easier than ending it at home, especially in a country that rambles incessantly about "freedom". The fact of the matter is that much of the US population likes the system, and by focusing on China, we don't have to acknowledge that offensive fact.
Was he being sarcastic? I'm not sure. He may have been trying to sarcastically say that our political climate doesn't realistically allow this to change?
> This can't be true. We criticize China for prison labor. That would be like someone who beats their own children criticizing someone else for beating their own children.
My understanding is that the criticisms are not so much that prisoners are used for labor, but the so-called crimes that got them into prison (e.g. being a Uyghur who practices Islam in Xinjiang, criticizing the government) shouldn't be crimes at all.
". . . the government takes up to 80 percent of the pay for room and board, court costs, restitution and other fees, including the construction and maintenance of prisons."
Where is the balance between incarceration being punitive versus rehabilitative?
In the future, hopefully, but probably in the distant future. It is common to hear about people "getting what they deserve" but very uncommon to hear a hope that the criminal becomes a better member of society.
'inmates' is a more accurate descriptor. A 'slave' could refer to anyone being forced to work for no pay, whereas an inmate means that as well as a bunch of other relevant stuff.
In this case, the difference in "inmate" and "slave" is the degree of charitableness given to the US. On articles concerning China's Uighur camps, we don't see the word "inmate" being used.
I think 'slave' is overly negative usage in this case. A 'slave' implies people that were enslaved with no justification, imo. You don't normally hear POWs or inmates referred to as slaves. The fact that inmates are made to work is hardly the worst part of their punishment.
> A 'slave' implies people that were enslaved with no justification
it absolutely does not, and to suggest so is absurd. In America, black people have been enslaved with all sorts of justifications about how they were of an "inferior race", how they were "naturally" more violent and "animalistic", etc and how their enslavement was actually good for them.
Well people certainly thought so at the time. Personally I don't believe the rationalization given for modern slavery either, but apparently you do so it's a "justified" slavery.
You understand we're not just talking about putting people in jail, right? We're talking about FORCING them to work? From the article:
> The ACLU also found that more than 76 percent of incarcerated workers surveyed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics say that “they are required to work or face additional punishments such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation.”
There are a lot of gray areas around imprisoning people. I (like all other apes and probably most intelligent animals in the world) believe 'eye for an eye' is basically the embodiment of true justice. Everything else is a mix of punishment and practicality. The fact that inmates are forced to work is so low on the level of what their punishment is, that it doesn't even register in my book. I think most inmates actually like having jobs to do. From what you cited, it sounds like if they don't like it, they can just sit in solitary instead. And as far as rehabilitation goes, it seems like an essential ingredient.
It would definitely be nice to give them a decent wage, but I think this is an area where practicality matters as well- prisons cost money and man-hours. I don't know about the economics, but getting rid of for-profit prisons seems like a good idea.
Slaves often became that way by violating the customs of their native lands. In the US, the state calls people who violate codified customs "criminals."
> the original article title is misleading: it implies that the people doing involuntary labor aren't slaves.
If they're slaves, then tell me where you can buy one to own as property. Being literally owned is an important part of the definition of that word in this sense.
wow, you got me. The fact that I can't personally purchase and own one of these humans means they're not slaves. As you know, the definition of slavery definitely includes something about slaves being bought and sold in a public marketplace.
> tell me where you can buy one to own as property
The American prison slave population's value is packaged in municipal bonds.
So to answer your question, buy a lot of bonds and send labor contracts to the related prisons, a middleman called the US government will take care of the rest.
> What part of the title is misleading? the HN title fixes simply removes some inaccurate language from the original article.
The HN title is editorialized by injecting tendentious and controversial framing not present in the OP article let alone the OP title.
It's not even accurate, these practices seem far closer to "involuntary servitude" than "slavery." The term "slave," at least in the American context, implies being chattel, which none of these prisoners are.
For the record, here's the OP title:
> US prison workers produce $11B worth of goods and services for ‘little to no pay at all’
And here's the current HN post title: "US prison slaves produce $11B worth of goods and services."
Titles aren't supposed to be editorlized in general on HN. I think there are some cases where it's ok, perhaps if the title is particularly nonsensical or clickbaity.
What's wrong with the title? The original title is: "US prison workers produce $11B worth of goods and services for ‘little to no pay at all’". I'm not sure if the part of the title they left out misleads the reader.
The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, made slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional in the United States “except as punishment for crime.”
I wouldn't really consider prison labor "voluntary."
Yes, technically one could choose solitary confinement, loss of even what few privileges one has as an inmate, or never be allowed to see one's family again, but that's like putting a gun to someone's head and claiming they "voluntarily" signed a contract because they could just as well have chosen to have their brains splattered across the wall.
Plus, it is explicitly a continuation of slavery per the Thirteenth Amendment.
Nor would I. I was sarcastically making fun of the incredible brain rot on this stupid website. What's being done to these people is monstrous and the monsters who profit off of it will never know even the slightest discomfort, not to mention be appropriately punished for their behavior.
Knowing Better on YouTube produced a really good documentary answering "when was the last slave freed?" [^1]. His argument is that it didn't end until 1942, a mere 80 years ago. A big part of the reason why was the prison system and legal system, which was structured around criminalizing blackness, and using this to fulfill an economic need. Articles like this make me think perhaps 1942 may be a bit optimistic, after all, we still rely heavily on prison labour without allowing incarcerated people to earn sufficient funds to support themselves after their rehabilitation, and we're still fighting the war on drugs that started under Nixon.
That said, I'm not sure how non Americans feel about US politics being discussed here, since I rarely see news about domestic issues in other countries.
You can refuse work in prison. You will be punished, but I think it’s a little bit less harsh than slavery. The prison system does not own the inmates, they are not property, and the prison inmates do have rights. Slaves had no rights. So all this might look good for sensationalism, it’s not entirely accurate.
The embarrassment of it all is this: a study of global prison systems and their efficacy tells us what our governments should be doing. If we want to improve recidivism rates, we can look around at this world and do something better. If we want to inflict more punishment, there’s no end to the examples of inhumane torture. If we want to turn it into a profitable big-business slavery farm and factory system, we can find free-market exemplars. We, our government, need to temper the amoral economic system if we wish to avoid having slavery-adjacent for-profit businesses running amuck on our land.
65 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 95.1 ms ] threadI have an idea who they are and who are their main target, but I would be grateful for an additional POV.
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
Phil Ochs - Another Country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Ty66Z3mvk
Seems fair for a hypocrite to call out another hypocrite. Maybe by some sort of miracle a self-corrective loop can emerge.
Anyway, it's just common sense. I believe we have the tools to change things in that area of the world, but not domestically. Our hands our tied here, so how will we deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of citizens do commit crimes that lead to long sentences. If we don't jail a few hundred thousand of these people, then will it lead to problems in society or the economy? Inflation is already hard enough on the rich and poor. Around Xinjiang, we have more tools available to stop the prison labor there, like industry sanctions.
The ROI of working on Xinjiang is higher than the ROI: the conditions there are worse according to what I've read and we have more powerful tools at our disposal. So, let's keep our head clear and focused on China.
(Hopefully it's clear I don't truly believe what I wrote. It just sounds logical to me.)
I'm not sure how ending prison slavery abroad in a sovereign country is supposedly easier than ending it at home, especially in a country that rambles incessantly about "freedom". The fact of the matter is that much of the US population likes the system, and by focusing on China, we don't have to acknowledge that offensive fact.
The biggest criticism for China is the reasons people are put into prison labor programs.
My understanding is that the criticisms are not so much that prisoners are used for labor, but the so-called crimes that got them into prison (e.g. being a Uyghur who practices Islam in Xinjiang, criticizing the government) shouldn't be crimes at all.
Where is the balance between incarceration being punitive versus rehabilitative?
Some animals are more equal.
it absolutely does not, and to suggest so is absurd. In America, black people have been enslaved with all sorts of justifications about how they were of an "inferior race", how they were "naturally" more violent and "animalistic", etc and how their enslavement was actually good for them.
> The ACLU also found that more than 76 percent of incarcerated workers surveyed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics say that “they are required to work or face additional punishments such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation.”
It would definitely be nice to give them a decent wage, but I think this is an area where practicality matters as well- prisons cost money and man-hours. I don't know about the economics, but getting rid of for-profit prisons seems like a good idea.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
If they're slaves, then tell me where you can buy one to own as property. Being literally owned is an important part of the definition of that word in this sense.
Just buy a judge or two.
Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html
The American prison slave population's value is packaged in municipal bonds.
So to answer your question, buy a lot of bonds and send labor contracts to the related prisons, a middleman called the US government will take care of the rest.
The HN title is editorialized by injecting tendentious and controversial framing not present in the OP article let alone the OP title.
It's not even accurate, these practices seem far closer to "involuntary servitude" than "slavery." The term "slave," at least in the American context, implies being chattel, which none of these prisoners are.
For the record, here's the OP title:
> US prison workers produce $11B worth of goods and services for ‘little to no pay at all’
And here's the current HN post title: "US prison slaves produce $11B worth of goods and services."
The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, made slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional in the United States “except as punishment for crime.”
Yes, technically one could choose solitary confinement, loss of even what few privileges one has as an inmate, or never be allowed to see one's family again, but that's like putting a gun to someone's head and claiming they "voluntarily" signed a contract because they could just as well have chosen to have their brains splattered across the wall.
Plus, it is explicitly a continuation of slavery per the Thirteenth Amendment.
That said, I'm not sure how non Americans feel about US politics being discussed here, since I rarely see news about domestic issues in other countries.
[^1]: https://youtu.be/j4kI2h3iotA
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31783508