The Official Gary Johnson Thread

[hblask 1]

Privatization of jails...How would they be funded? If the taxpayer still gets hit for the bill, wouldn't that make this a questionable act, in terms of administration and governance of all levels (municipal, state, federal) of law enforcement? Is privatization of law enformcement agencies next? What happens when these private law agencies begin to get more power legislated to them?

Again, out of all his positions, I'm not sure why this one keeps coming up. I've seen dozens of his speeches and interviews, and I've never seen him mention once, not ever. Yet about 80% of the criticism toward him starts with it. It makes no sense, I'm starting to think it's some kind of organized thing. I'm going to start complaining about Obama's tie-color policies, it makes about as much sense. Seriously, with all his other outside-the-box solutions, this is the one that gets people's attention? WTF?Anyway, the way privatization works is that private companies bid to meet certain specifications. The lowest bidder that can demonstrate compliance wins. There have been cases where the govt-run prisons have won. The problems you guys keep harping on are just as big of a problem when public sector unions run these things, so I'm not sure why the word "privatization" is so scary. If a private version screws up, you kick them out and replace them. If the public sector version screws up, too bad, you're stuck with them. So there are basically no new problems that are not inherent with the use of govt force in the first place, and for every problem it is less of a problem with privatization.

[vbnautilus 48]

1. Obviously there are WAY WAY more users of legal opiates that pot smokers in the US. I mean, it's not close.

Do you have data for this or its just a hunch? I really don't know the answer, but I'm pretty sure you're just making something up and then pretending to be very sure about it. According to NIDA, in 2008 the percentage of 12th graders who had smoked pot in their lifetime was 43%. This website says that 1 in 7 teens admits to using opiates (prescription opiates). 1 in 7 is 14%. Surely there are many ways to measure this, but you are definitely exaggerating if you think its not even close. The data I just cited could be interpreted as: there are obviously WAY WAY more users of marijuana than legal opiates in the US, and its not even close.

5. HOW THE **** IS IT THE DRUG COMPANIES FAULT THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING A PRESCRIPTION FOR A DRUG?!!?

It would be pretty naive to think that the drug companies which profit off the distribution of these medications have no interest in which ones are legal. I do find it very interesting that the most addictive substances we know of are the ones that have legal forms available for someone to profit from (e.g. opiates, tobacco) while the most benign and socially positive drugs which are not addictive (e.g. marijuana, psilocybin) are illegal. There is definitely more to be earned from a drug that people cannot stop themselves from ingesting.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

According to NIDA, in 2008 the percentage of 12th graders who had smoked pot in their lifetime was 43%. This website says that 1 in 7 teens admits to using opiates (prescription opiates). 1 in 7 is 14%.

You seem to have dropped the "ab" in front of "using." That makes for a big difference when comparing to "had smoked in their lifetime."Note: I'm not saying either you or brv are right in the big picture; I have no idea.

[vbnautilus 48]

You seem to have dropped the "ab" in front of "using." That makes for a big difference when comparing to "had smoked in their lifetime."Note: I'm not saying either you or brv are right in the big picture; I have no idea.

I don't put those links in my post so that people will actually click on them. My experience with these anti drug types is that to them use = abuse. For instance, all the marijuana smokers would be considered "drug abusers". Just click on the NIDA link (*ahem* National Institute on Drug Abuse) -- they give this bias away instantly on their marijuana fact sheet: "How is Marijuana Abused?" with no definition of abuse other than -- smoking it. I guess we'd have to see how they worded their question to the kids about the opiates. I doubt they are able to tell who has a script for legitimate vs. illegitimate purposes, or who got a script legitimately but abuses it, so I have no idea how they would distinguish between "use" and "abuse".

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I guess we'd have to see how they worded their question to the kids about the opiates.

Yeah, that's actually why I clicked on the link. Have you ever smoked pot in your lifetime is pretty clear, but I was wondering what they meant by "using."Proper wording of the question is something I struggle with in the important work I do.

[hblask 1]

Here's why the complaints about private prisons are bogus.TL;DL: the same perverse incentives exist, but public ones are harder to get rid of.

[Balloon guy 158]

Here's why the complaints about private prisons are bogus.TL;DL: the same perverse incentives exist, but public ones are harder to get rid of.

Yea I have always wondered how man has not removed the entire practice of accounting forecasting and management needs that are in place in public and private sectors.If you spend less than allotted to you, then your budget next year will be reduced.If you have x number of employees, then you are in need of a manager, and if you have x number of managers, then you are in need of a supervisor.Both of these practices just create waste out of thin air.They create waste.

[SilentSnow 1]

Irony- Hblask supporting a Republican candidate who would be by far the most popular Republican among liberals. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/...ting_republican

[ShakeZuma 585]

Irony- Hblask supporting a Republican candidate who would be by far the most popular Republican among liberals. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/...ting_republican

have you ever actually read any of hblask's posts? those positions are his (and the vast majority of "republicans" on this site's, save for bg obv) views down to a 't'.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

have you ever actually read any of hblask's posts?

Have you ever actually read any of SilentSnow's posts?

[Balloon guy 158]

have you ever actually read any of hblask's posts? those positions are his (and the vast majority of "republicans" on this site's, save for bg obv) views down to a 't'.

Commies

[iZuma 764]

Have you ever actually read any of SilentSnow's posts?

oh yeah. hadn't had my coffee yet I guess.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ever notice that there are basically two things politically.Social issuesFiscal issuesNow the dems are liberals on social and liberal on fiscal, meaning they want to do whatever they want and have no responsibility for the consequences.Republicans are conservative on social and conservative on fiscal, meaning they feel actions have consequences.Now some republicans want the entire republican party to become liberal social and conservative fiscal.But hardly any democrats want the entire party to become conservative fiscally, while staying liberal socially.The correct thing is for the people that want to split the liberal social outlooks to become a third party, taking some from each party.But the truth is that a third party that is conservative fiscal, and liberal social, will mostly take from the republican party only. Which means a democrat win.Why do you think democrats don't want to join this third party that supports all their liberal social causes, just does a better job with the money?I'll tell you why, democrats/ liberals are brainwashed sheep who think you can make anything permissible in society as long as the government is there to DEAL WITH THE RESULTS.They need the government to pay for unwed black mothers on welfare, which is the result of their inner city programs of the past.They need to have abortions legal and paid for with tax dollars for poor people because they want to de-stigmatize free sex and the results.They need to take God out of society to allow them to feel less conviction for their actions.They need the government to be huge. And for that they need to tax tax tax.That is why the democrat party will always be: big government is better than business. And you guys who go third party, are putting those people in charge.

[mrdannyg 274]

Their financial interest can only be realized if government is too big and doing too much. So once again, the so-called problems of leftist big-government agenda are being blamed on free markets.Basically, he was going by his experience in NM, where it worked perfectly. Now, admittedly, he was an exceptionally good governor, so under someone incompetent, e.g. Obama, it's possible it wouldn't work as well. Which brings us back to Johnson's philosophy: let the govt do as little as possible so that after people like Johnson leave office, people like Obama can't destroy the country.There are two problems with this complaint against him: first, this is such a tiny part of his total policy picture that it would be like picking on Obama for the color of his tie. Second, he's the guy who would immediately cut the prison population in half, so complaining that in certain circumstances, where corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude, you could end up with a few extra prisoners, seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

I'd be interested in you going into more detail on this. I don't venture into this forum much, but people seem to respect you. And this posts seems crazy, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.1) I assume the private prisons would receive their revenue from government funding. If not, just a quick explanation on how they get funded will answer this question. If not - as Cane points out, the prisons will be incentivized to keep prisoners in for as long as possible. More time = more funding. I have no idea how that interest can only be realized if the government is too big. Almost the opposite - a 'bigger' government would have more supervising of the prison stays, meaning the length of stays would be more closely aligned with the law, and not financial interest. Unless you mean a 'big' government in terms of smaller police forces...? I hope you're not pretending it would require "corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude" to lengthen prison stays. It's the free market. Stays would get longer if the people who were profiting from longer stays were a significant part of the decision. How much they would get longer is a fair question, but there's no doubt they would.2) How would he cut the prison population in half? This may have been discussed elsewhere, but my time is just slightly too valuable to read Mercury's political posts. For this one, a quick answer will amend my ignorance. I can raise any further questions if I have them.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'd be interested in you going into more detail on this. I don't venture into this forum much, but people seem to respect you. And this posts seems crazy, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.1) I assume the private prisons would receive their revenue from government funding. If not, just a quick explanation on how they get funded will answer this question. If not - as Cane points out, the prisons will be incentivized to keep prisoners in for as long as possible. More time = more funding. I have no idea how that interest can only be realized if the government is too big. Almost the opposite - a 'bigger' government would have more supervising of the prison stays, meaning the length of stays would be more closely aligned with the law, and not financial interest. Unless you mean a 'big' government in terms of smaller police forces...? I hope you're not pretending it would require "corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude" to lengthen prison stays. It's the free market. Stays would get longer if the people who were profiting from longer stays were a significant part of the decision. How much they would get longer is a fair question, but there's no doubt they would.2) How would he cut the prison population in half? This may have been discussed elsewhere, but my time is just slightly too valuable to read Mercury's political posts. For this one, a quick answer will amend my ignorance. I can raise any further questions if I have them.

I'll let Henry answer #1 (because I would like to hear what he has to say).#2 is easy, Gary Johnson believes in a complete revamp of how we handle drug crime----under his drug policies we would be putting far, far less people in jail for drug crimes.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Jumping into the conversation in the middle...how do private prisons make money by keeping prisoners longer? I don't understand the financial model here.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Jumping into the conversation in the middle...how do private prisons make money by keeping prisoners longer? I don't understand the financial model here.

Prison Football League...but only the good players stay longer.

[CaneBrain 95]

Jumping into the conversation in the middle...how do private prisons make money by keeping prisoners longer? I don't understand the financial model here.

The more prisoners you have and the longer they stay----the more money you can bill. Isn't that really obvious?

[hblask 1]

I'd be interested in you going into more detail on this. I don't venture into this forum much, but people seem to respect you. And this posts seems crazy, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.1) I assume the private prisons would receive their revenue from government funding. If not, just a quick explanation on how they get funded will answer this question. If not - as Cane points out, the prisons will be incentivized to keep prisoners in for as long as possible. More time = more funding. I have no idea how that interest can only be realized if the government is too big. Almost the opposite - a 'bigger' government would have more supervising of the prison stays, meaning the length of stays would be more closely aligned with the law, and not financial interest. Unless you mean a 'big' government in terms of smaller police forces...? I hope you're not pretending it would require "corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude" to lengthen prison stays. It's the free market. Stays would get longer if the people who were profiting from longer stays were a significant part of the decision. How much they would get longer is a fair question, but there's no doubt they would.2) How would he cut the prison population in half? This may have been discussed elsewhere, but my time is just slightly too valuable to read Mercury's political posts. For this one, a quick answer will amend my ignorance. I can raise any further questions if I have them.

1. Think "contracted prisons" if that sounds better. The courts would still be the same, the police would be the same, just the people who own the prison buildings would have contracts to perform duty X -- "keep prisoners fed and clothed with no escapes". The primary incentive of the private prison is to not piss off anyone with power, including voters. That's a pretty powerful incentive. Government-run prisons, on the other hand, are generally run by public-sector unions, who are among the most corrupt organizations in the country, and would have no problem throwing an innocent person in jail if it meant filling union coffers.There have been some reports of private prisons colluding with judges to sentence relatively innocent people to long stays, but it is no worse than the corrupt judges colluding with unions. When people go to jail for victimless crimes, this is much more likely to happen, so it is big government that is a cause; the collusion among judges and prisons, whether public or private, is the symptom.2. As Cane said, but instantly cutting the prison population in half by treating drug abuse for what it is -- a medical issue -- rather than a criminal issue.

[mrdannyg 274]

I'll let Henry answer #1 (because I would like to hear what he has to say).#2 is easy, Gary Johnson believes in a complete revamp of how we handle drug crime----under his drug policies we would be putting far, far less people in jail for drug crimes.

Thanks. Is half a reasonable estimate? I know drug crimes are crazy-high, but didn't think they made up that high of a percentage. I do like the general idea though, will have to look into it.

Jumping into the conversation in the middle...how do private prisons make money by keeping prisoners longer? I don't understand the financial model here.

I'd love to see a real financial model, but I'm with Cane. I'm sure it would boil down to x dollars per prisoner per day.

[hblask 1]

The more prisoners you have and the longer they stay----the more money you can bill. Isn't that really obvious?

Yeah, I guess they'd get paid so much per prisoner per year or something. But again, this is an issue common to both public and private prisons, and is only an issue if judges and prosecutors are corrupt. It's not like prisons are allowed to go and drag people off the street and take them to jail.

[hblask 1]

Thanks. Is half a reasonable estimate? I know drug crimes are crazy-high, but didn't think they made up that high of a percentage. I do like the general idea though, will have to look into it.

I'm pretty sure it's about half of the prison population that is in for non-violent drug crimes.That may be slightly misleading because of people who did violent drug crimes pleading down to a lesser charge, but even if it's a third that's way way way too high.

[mrdannyg 274]

1. Think "contracted prisons" if that sounds better. The courts would still be the same, the police would be the same, just the people who own the prison buildings would have contracts to perform duty X -- "keep prisoners fed and clothed with no escapes". The primary incentive of the private prison is to not piss off anyone with power, including voters. That's a pretty powerful incentive. Government-run prisons, on the other hand, are generally run by public-sector unions, who are among the most corrupt organizations in the country, and would have no problem throwing an innocent person in jail if it meant filling union coffers.There have been some reports of private prisons colluding with judges to sentence relatively innocent people to long stays, but it is no worse than the corrupt judges colluding with unions. When people go to jail for victimless crimes, this is much more likely to happen, so it is big government that is a cause; the collusion among judges and prisons, whether public or private, is the symptom.2. As Cane said, but instantly cutting the prison population in half by treating drug abuse for what it is -- a medical issue -- rather than a criminal issue.

Thanks. Public unions may be corrupt (hint: they are), but the efficiency of private business is not going to shorten prison stays. I agree with you that the few examples of corrupt judges can be ignored, and are probably equal under both circumstances. But the prisons will have an influence - may be just in how they report prisoner behaviour, for example - but they will length stays, and certainly not shorten them.As for number 2, I could definitely get on board with that kind of initiative. Probably too much fear and ignorance in the country to have this type of initiative be as far-reaching as it should be, but any push in that direction is a good one.

[mrdannyg 274]

I'm pretty sure it's about half of the prison population that is in for non-violent drug crimes.That may be slightly misleading because of people who did violent drug crimes pleading down to a lesser charge, but even if it's a third that's way way way too high.

Meh, I'm good with half, if those are the stats. If the crime is related to addiction, then anything other than treating the addiction is just a bandaid, violent crime or not.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yeah, I guess they'd get paid so much per prisoner per year or something. But again, this is an issue common to both public and private prisons, and is only an issue if judges and prosecutors are corrupt. It's not like prisons are allowed to go and drag people off the street and take them to jail.

No, but they (the private prison companies) are allowed to lobby politicians aggressively for tougher sentencing laws and incarceration for lesser crimes which, to my understanding, is exactly what they do. I don't think judges or prosecutors are generally corrupt but that is not the ONLY way it is an issue.And, for the record, I believe Henry's assertion that half of all people in prison are there for drug or drug-related crimes is pretty accurate. I would also be fine with privatizing all prisons if the trade-off was a sensible drug policy.But I think Gary Johnson proved that it's easy to do one and impossible to do the other (for now).