NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

How crappy/nice would it be? On one end of the spectrum is something like the camps set up at the border to house asylum seekers, and on the other is basically section 8 housing. You'd probably have to pay me a significant sum of money to stay in the former, but I would seriously consider the latter if it meant not having to pay thousands in rent in an expensive metro. The problem is that the nicer you make it, the more people would be attracted to using it for freeloading purposes, but if you make it too crappy, then people would rather sleep on the streets than use it. We see this for homeless shelters in some cities, for instance.

>Compare it to prison with free healthcare, food and many more additional costs plus costs to society associated with whatever made somebody go to prison in the first place.

Right, but the reason for prison isn't just keeping someone housed, there's also the additional concern that they're presumably a danger to society and therefore must be contained. Therefore the argument of "you don't want people to get free housing but are okay with prisoners getting free housing" isn't the type of gotcha you think it is.

>I mean, if you think about country income (or lack thereof) and spending, even ignoring military, corruption, church etc. There are still way bigger things to worry about regarding your tax dollars. There is tons of freeloading, exploitation and injustice, but if somebody is willing to accept living in slums to just have some roof over his head, he probably needs it, for whatever reason.

This is an entirely unpersuasive argument. Think about it from the flip side. Suppose the Other Side wants to increase funding for the police, and you object because you think that the police have shown a history of wasting the money on armored trucks and tacticool gear. They then reply with, "who cares? there are way bigger wastes of money you should worry about!" would you be convinced?

>And even giving absolutely zero empathy, assuming no mental problems, childhood traumas etc., counting these specific irrelevant cents, it still may simply be the most economic solution from the society perspective.

Has there been a serious attempt at estimating the costs? Taking (cost of a studio apartment) x (number of homeless in america) doesn't really get to the true costs, because:

1. it doesn't factor in the induced demand from people freeloading

2. that a studio apartment completely solves the homeless problem. for instance, for people with mental health/drug addiction issues, they might trash the place and cost more than a studio apartment, or might choose to live on the streets altogether.

Arizona communities would 'collapse' without cheap prison labor, Corrections director says

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2022/07/1...

Louisiana is another state that's notable for the degree to which it has institutionalized this economic practice.

>So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share.

You're repeating the same mistake as the parent, by refusing to seriously engage with the opposition, instead arguing against a strawman version the opposition's argument, and then concluding that they must be insincere. If I had to steelman the opposition's positions, I would go with the following:

1. They think it's fundamentally not their responsibility to help society's downtrodden

2. They think think we have a responsibility to help society's downtrodden, but only the ones who physically can't support themselves. "free housing for everyone who's incredibly poor" wouldn't be compatible with this view, because it's possible for you to be be poor through laziness or whatever.

"It's fair because you too can get free housing if you're poor" doesn't address either of these concerns.

>like a child who never learned to share.

Okay, and what if they actually don't want to share? This isn't kindergarten where you can appeal to the teacher to forcibly get them to share. This is the real world, which means you need to amass a coalition of supporters to back you. Name-calling your opponents isn't going to help do that.

Because they brought a gun. I’m not sure how you truly know someone’s intention. But getting a gun, loading it, and threatening someone with it is perhaps the closest to knowing they are willing to use it.

I think that people can’t even know themselves as many who claim they didn’t mean to, still “accidentally” shot someone.

But in the case of sentencing guidelines, you don’t need to know whether they will or not. If they use lethal force that’s a multiplier in prison time.

And I’m ok with that. I don’t care to get into nuance with people who threaten innocent people with death.

Note, there are exceptions when the gun isn’t loaded and the sentence is not the same as a loaded gun.