The assumption here, as I understand it, is that the law that was broken is from an agreement that everyone has with their local governments--their State and US constitutions. These laws have previously established limits on fines and punishments. These maxed-out probationary periods coupled with substantial monthly fees are nothing more than money-grabs with no interest of protecting individual rights.
Using the person listed in the article, he did the crime so he should do the time. If he can't afford to pay the fine, then he should have spent a couple days in jail. Every judge I've ever known would have given him time-served and released him after a couple days... week at the most unless he had a history of doing the same.
The law maxes out a fine for the similar offense at $1,000. If I read it right, the fees exceeded $4,800. Assuming the article gives us all pertinent information, the theft of a $2 beer shouldn't ever result in such a ridiculous punishment. I'm surprised someone like you, Eric, would be for this type of behavior. Especially since the agreement for following these laws is between government and person, not business and person. Your agreement was never with an outside entity.
Maybe all of this has been mentioned. Meh.
Quote:Lol, paper definitions work to the moment the people who define them change them. So, tell me, how's all that we don' do anything non-private Communism working out in the remaining Communist countries in our world today? Communism is now simply synonymous with Authoritarianism, regardless of what Webster's says. Sometimes they nationalize it, sometimes they make deals with it; in all cases they do what they want without regard to the will of the people.
Communism has been adopted by the right to mean anything they don't agree with. You are taking that stance and running with it. My point remains the same. It is not communism by any means. People and groups (in this case the right) have adopted it and tried to turn it into a galvanizing term that their base can use to vilify anyone on the left of them. That does not change the definition of the term.
So I just watched the whole segment. It was pretty well done. Some cuts to a woman crying which seems a little much to me since the dollar amounts racking up were enough to get the point across. I don't see how someone could watch this and not think, at least, something was wrong with this.
Interestingly enough, the man who racked up thousands in fines and 60 days in jail time was a veteran... I don't know if that was noted here at all, nor if it was even relevant to some, but I thought it was an interesting aspect of the narrative. On top of that his lawyer, a self described conservative republican lawyer, agrees that it's above and beyond. That if you can't pay you do community service or pick up trash or something. He points out the jail time the man served was over 4 grand to the tax payers.
Quote:Huh? When you have private enterprise working with the force of government it conflicts with a true free market.
Without a free market no aspect of libertarianism will work, that's why we're so big on reigning in government across the board. Fascism needs government to function it's an aspect of authoritarianism which is the opposite of everything libertarian.
I'm on my phone, so I can't really write in detail, but from what I have read from your ideology, you appear to want private companies to do the work of the government. That would be a fascist system.
The accountability leaves the hands of voters and winds up in the hands of businesses, owners, and majority stock holders.
If my interpretation of your ideology is off base, please clarify.
Quote:I'm on my phone, so I can't really write in detail, but from what I have read from your ideology, you appear to want private companies to do the work of the government. That would be a fascist system.
The accountability leaves the hands of voters and winds up in the hands of businesses, owners, and majority stock holders.
If my interpretation of your ideology is off base, please clarify.
There are several areas I fully support no government involvement at all, such as education and transportation. Private companies running that has nothing to do with fascism.
There are areas that are inherit to government such as police, military, courts, firefighters I've said in some case those duties can be privatized and subcontracted but not in all across the board.
Fascism isn't privatization, fascism is the force of government being used to suppress free market competition and leave one government sanctioned option as the only option.
Quote:The assumption here, as I understand it, is that the law that was broken is from an agreement that everyone has with their local governments--their State and US constitutions. These laws have previously established limits on fines and punishments. These maxed-out probationary periods coupled with substantial monthly fees are nothing more than money-grabs with no interest of protecting individual rights.
Using the person listed in the article, he did the crime so he should do the time. If he can't afford to pay the fine, then he should have spent a couple days in jail. Every judge I've ever known would have given him time-served and released him after a couple days... week at the most unless he had a history of doing the same.
The law maxes out a fine for the similar offense at $1,000. If I read it right, the fees exceeded $4,800. Assuming the article gives us all pertinent information, the theft of a $2 beer shouldn't ever result in such a ridiculous punishment. I'm surprised someone like you, Eric, would be for this type of behavior. Especially since the agreement for following these laws is between government and person, not business and person. Your agreement was never with an outside entity.
Maybe all of this has been mentioned. Meh.
The fines could be $10,000 that's not the point. I don't care what the fines are my point is the existence of them isn't an issue.
Once a convicted criminal has defaulted on their court ordered fine, restitution, or sentence they have involuntarily entered a new contract. Just like if you default on your capital one credit card and it's sent to ANC collections you've now entered a new involuntary contract. All collection agencies have ridiculous fines and charges.
I'm not defending the fines the company or the implementation I'm pointing out a defaulted account has two options, sent for collections or written off. In the case of a public fine we the law abiding tax payers are footing the bill for collections and write offs of the dead beats not paying their fines for breaking the law. So subcontracting a for profit company to handle the non paid fines releases the public from funding their irresponsibility.
Quote:There are several areas I fully support no government involvement at all, such as education and transportation. Private companies running that has nothing to do with fascism.
There are areas that are inherit to government such as police, military, courts, firefighters I've said in some case those duties can be privatized and subcontracted but not in all across the board.
Fascism isn't privatization, fascism is the force of government being used to suppress free market competition and leave one government sanctioned option as the only option.
Ok, well that's an interesting perspective. Yet I don't think you've thought through your philosophy.
If we privatize everything and remove government regulations on those private industries, that natural push in the"free market" is to oligopoly at best and monopoly at worst.
In those instances which will arise you have corporate entities controlling the society. A corporate structure is the basis of fascism.
Quote:The fines could be $10,000 that's not the point. I don't care what the fines are my point is the existence of them isn't an issue.
Once a convicted criminal has defaulted on their court ordered fine, restitution, or sentence they have involuntarily entered a new contract. Just like if you default on your capital one credit card and it's sent to ANC collections you've now entered a new involuntary contract. All collection agencies have ridiculous fines and charges.
I'm not defending the fines the company or the implementation I'm pointing out a defaulted account has two options, sent for collections or written off. In the case of a public fine we the law abiding tax payers are footing the bill for collections and write offs of the dead beats not paying their fines for breaking the law. So subcontracting a for profit company to handle the non paid fines releases the public from funding their irresponsibility.
You should watch segment. The examples are absurd by anyones standard and go above and beyond reasonable punishment.
Quote:You should watch segment. The examples are absurd by anyones standard and go above and beyond reasonable punishment.
I will watch this weekend, I'm sure the examples are unreasonable. I agree $4,800 for a $2 beer is ridiculous, I was trying to argue about the practice of subcontracting in general not necessarily the defense of a specific case.
that said I bet he won't steel a $2 beer again......
Quote:Ok, well that's an interesting perspective. Yet I don't think you've thought through your philosophy.
If we privatize everything and remove government regulations on those private industries, that natural push in the"free market" is to oligopoly at best and monopoly at worst.
In those instances which will arise you have corporate entities controlling the society. A corporate structure is the basis of fascism.
We have to discuss in specifics, like every other political ideology it's not a one size fits all approach. It is however a radical approach that puts a bigger emphasis on individual choice and liberty over the collective good. That is where usually the difference is seen between libertarianism and either conservative or liberal ideologies, the individual (with the exception of harm to another individuals person or property) is prioritized over the collective.
Quote:I will watch this weekend, I'm sure the examples are unreasonable. I agree $4,800 for a $2 beer is ridiculous, I was trying to argue about the practice of subcontracting in general not necessarily the defense of a specific case.
that said I bet he won't steel a $2 beer again......
Fair enough. Making it for profit atthe expense if the violators is where i mostly take issue. They make a very good point that its not even fiscaly sound to do this. Costing the state more money than just putting them to work in the side of the road as community service.
Quote:We have to discuss in specifics, like every other political ideology it's not a one size fits all approach. It is however a radical approach that puts a bigger emphasis on individual choice and liberty over the collective good. That is where usually the difference is seen between libertarianism and either conservative or liberal ideologies, the individual (with the exception of harm to another individuals person or property) is prioritized over the collective.
That's not a society though. That's a corporate oligarchy.
Quote:The fines could be $10,000 that's not the point. I don't care what the fines are my point is the existence of them isn't an issue.
Once a convicted criminal has defaulted on their court ordered fine, restitution, or sentence they have involuntarily entered a new contract. Just like if you default on your capital one credit card and it's sent to ANC collections you've now entered a new involuntary contract. All collection agencies have ridiculous fines and charges.
I'm not defending the fines the company or the implementation I'm pointing out a defaulted account has two options, sent for collections or written off. In the case of a public fine we the law abiding tax payers are footing the bill for collections and write offs of the dead beats not paying their fines for breaking the law. So subcontracting a for profit company to handle the non paid fines releases the public from funding their irresponsibility.
$100,000 or $1,000,000 is OK too? Simple because they don't want to foot the bill and turn over the rights to a private company? Yeah, I don't see how that wont be abused at all.
Besides, the point is that the maximum fine for a first offense of shoplifting is $1,000--by law. Are you saying that it's OK to exceed that amount? Private company or not, they should be under the same guidelines.
Your last point is idealistic but unrealistic. How much money do you think they spend "footing the bill"? The cost of the time spent arresting him and housing him.
I don't imagine there are many people here that are more likely to want offenders to pay their dues than I am, but this program is careless and doesn't look out for the interests of those in it (or the taxpayer). It doesn't appear to follow the same laws that the government is required to follow. You could also find yourself a local Sheriff, Mayor, Councilman, etc. owning this company and pushing for higher arrests/citations numbers too. Aside from their obvious efforts to supersede the law that they're supposedly using to punish offenders, the potential abuse for this program should be enough for someone like you. I feel like your desire to have everything "private sector" is clouding your judgement here.
Quote:I don't imagine there are many people here that are more likely to want offenders to pay their dues than I am, but this program is careless and doesn't look out for the interests of those in it (or the taxpayer). It doesn't appear to follow the same laws that the government is required to follow.
It cost the government $3000 to collect the $290 fine.
So the private company saved the Government a total of -$2710. Which would be about 6 weeks of pay for a clerk to sit there (assuming they don't do anything else) and come up with a payment plan, and check up on them. Putting them into community service would cost even less.
I'm a big fan of community service. I feel most misdemeanors that don't result in jail time should offer Community Service as a punishment over fines. That way it doesn't adversely affect the poor.
Quote:It cost the government $3000 to collect the $290 fine.
So the private company saved the Government a total of -$2710. Which would be about 6 weeks of pay for a clerk to sit there (assuming they don't do anything else) and come up with a payment plan, and check up on them. Putting them into community service would cost even less.
I'm a big fan of community service. I feel most misdemeanors that don't result in jail time should offer Community Service as a punishment over fines. That way it doesn't adversely affect the poor.
Yeah but they made a profit even after losing the government money. We like free enterprising people that make profits....
The bigger problem isn't even the ever increasing fines. As pointed out in the Oliver bit, the problem is that the fines on top of original amount, are in a lot of cases the only reason some municipalities are getting enough revenue. It's a systemic problem that points to clear corruption and abuse of those that are the worst off to begin with.
Ok I'm going to watch the segment this weekend. I'm willing to go in with an open mind (obviously you guys know which way I'm leaning) but I'll re-post after watching the segment. It's HBO VICE correct?
Quote:Ok I'm going to watch the segment this weekend. I'm willing to go in with an open mind (obviously you guys know which way I'm leaning) but I'll re-post after watching the segment. It's HBO VICE correct?
Last Week tonight with John Oliver.
He posts most of the shows to his youtube channel if you don't have HBO GO
I was going to post it but decided against it.... He uses language not approved. It's the Municipal Violations video.
After watching the clip here's my thoughts:
1.) He starts off with an example of Alabama where a speeding ticket is $225 and then plays on the heart strings about minimum wage that takes 35 hours to pay off. Never mentions that's the maximum fine for going 25 MPH OVER the posted limit, that's 50 MPH in a 25 MPH zone or 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, nope just it takes 35 hours for poor people to pay off speeding tickets in Alabama!
2.) Harriet Cleveland she says she didn't pay the fines, what does anyone expect? It wasn't even the private companies that are an issue here, she just simply didn't pay the tickets, of course they will arrest you.
3.) Eric Holder gives a Ferguson [BLEEP] story, but if you listen he talks about how in 2007 ( 8 YEARS ago) an unnamed women had two tickets for $152 in the last 8 years she's paid $550 and still owes $541. Now wait a minute, her fines are 8 years old at this point, If her total balance between what's been paid what is still owed is $1091 then subtract the initial fine of $152 that means the additional fines for 8 years is $939. That means she's being charged $9.71 a MONTH in interest for NOT paying her fines, that's not unreasonable. She owes that much because she didn't pay her fines. Once again the problem is individual irresponsibility.
4.) Hallie Woods, has a seat belt ticket for $41 we don't get much info here other than she's being managed by JNC probation, apparently she's paid multiple checks but the balance isn't going down. It's hard to tell why, is she months behind and now has fee's on top of that? Is she only making payments sporadically? I find it hard to believe she didn't have $41 to pay a fine, how was she putting gas in her car, paying for insurance, hell if you can't pay a $41 fine in a 30 day period you SHOULDN'T be driving a car.
5.) Tom Barret - the stolen beer guy, you get next to no details other than a story of how he's so broke he's had to sell his plasma the fee is $12 a day and he couldn't pay. He has the $12 fee mind you because he's already defaulted on his court ordered fine. And of COURSE his Lawyer believes his client is a victim of an unfair system, it's his lawyer!
Look some of his report I can agree with, the municipal fines are ridiculous. In California a $38 inflating to a $238 ticket but you guys are not complaining about that, you don't consider that for profit? Why because government is doing it?
We have to many laws, to many regulations, I agree with Oliver. I however do not subscribe to the theory of scaling penalties. Every single one of those people in the interview are in the situation they are in because they made conscious decisions to not only break the law but then ignore the consequences. In real life problems don't go away.
Quote:After watching the clip here's my thoughts:
1.) He starts off with an example of Alabama where a speeding ticket is $225 and then plays on the heart strings about minimum wage that takes 35 hours to pay off. Never mentions that's the maximum fine for going 25 MPH OVER the posted limit, that's 50 MPH in a 25 MPH zone or 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, nope just it takes 35 hours for poor people to pay off speeding tickets in Alabama!
Nope. The speeding ticket is $225 for going UNDER 25 MPH under the speed limit. It's $275 for going over the speed limit. Here's the screen cap if you don't believe me:
![[Image: johnoliver.png]](http://s7.postimg.org/xzyycpugb/johnoliver.png)
2.) Harriet Cleveland she says she didn't pay the fines, what does anyone expect? It wasn't even the private companies that are an issue here, she just simply didn't pay the tickets, of course they will arrest you.
No, Private companies ARE the problem here. Because she was handed over to JNC. I'm not sure if you missed that part. She couldn't afford to pay the fines. And it's obvious they aren't supposed to arrest you for that, because a lawyer was able to argue in court that she shouldn't have been put in jail. Did you miss that part too? She outright said that she wanted to pay her fine, but it's gotten to the point where she can't. What does everyone expect? How about fairness. Not charging poor people more money just because they can't afford a fine. It's essentially saying "If you can pay the fine, do all the crime you like!"
3.) Eric Holder gives a Ferguson [BLEEP] story, but if you listen he talks about how in 2007 ( 8 YEARS ago) an unnamed women had two tickets for $152 in the last 8 years she's paid $550 and still owes $541. Now wait a minute, her fines are 8 years old at this point, If her total balance between what's been paid what is still owed is $1091 then subtract the initial fine of $152 that means the additional fines for 8 years is $939. That means she's being charged $9.71 a MONTH in interest for NOT paying her fines, that's not unreasonable. She owes that much because she didn't pay her fines. Once again the problem is individual irresponsibility.
Yes it is absolutely unreasonable. The government should not be charging interest on fines. You're essentially saying that it's okay to charge poor people more because they can't afford it. This is not a loan, it's a fine. Fines should not include interest. NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO PAY $1000 to pay off a $200 parking ticket. You like to preach individual responsibility, but you also like to ignore the fact that the system hurts the poor far more than anyone else, and that it doesn't encourage responsibility for those who can afford it.
4.) Hallie Woods, has a seat belt ticket for $41 we don't get much info here other than she's being managed by JNC probation, apparently she's paid multiple checks but the balance isn't going down. It's hard to tell why, is she months behind and now has fee's on top of that? Is she only making payments sporadically? I find it hard to believe she didn't have $41 to pay a fine, how was she putting gas in her car, paying for insurance, hell if you can't pay a $41 fine in a 30 day period you SHOULDN'T be driving a car.
Why shouldn't you be driving a car? I mean most people drive to work. She's going to need a car to go look for work. So yes, she should be driving. Why do you find it so hard to believe she didn't have the money? Just because you've been fortunate enough not to ever be that bad off? She was 17 years old. You don't know anything about her, or her situation, and I'm not sure why you're making the assumption she could have easily afforded a $41 ticket.
5.) Tom Barret - the stolen beer guy, you get next to no details other than a story of how he's so broke he's had to sell his plasma the fee is $12 a day and he couldn't pay. He has the $12 fee mind you because he's already defaulted on his court ordered fine. And of COURSE his Lawyer believes his client is a victim of an unfair system, it's his lawyer!
And OF COURSE you're going to defend privatization. I'm starting to think you'd defend it even if they put these people in slave camps. You'd say "Personal Responsibility!"
Says he will go in with an open mind....
....takes the antagonist stance on every example provided.