this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
553 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7701 readers
3792 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 58 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

except as a punishment for crime

The United States has the largest known prison population in the world, it has 5% of the world’s population, and 20% of the world’s incarcerated persons. China, with four times more inhabitants, has fewer persons in prison.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Guess what happens when you introduce a third party that benefits from higher incarceration numbers…

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago

Proceed directly to step 4.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except…for wage slavery?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago

except as a punishment for crime

but yeah that too

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I just realized, does that make the draft unconstitutional? It's literally state coerced labor without even the pretense of a bullshit charge.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, and more generally, upheld conscription in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience.

TLDR, not according to the Supreme Court, though you haven’t been the first to perhaps disagree.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

That ruling is bullshit

As reasoning for its decision, laws of the following governments of sovereign states were given as listed in The Statesman's Yearbook for 1917 as enforcing military service

~~The justices were literaly looking for any reason to keep the draft (for an unwinnable war that the pentagon lied about for years)~~

And yes, the draft is by definition servitude/slavery and is illegal under the 13th.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

1917 is just a few decades too early for the Pentagon to be involved. Not that the government wasn't fucking lying anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Technically it isn't, because you're left with option or conscientious objecting.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

what was the logic of allowing ANY form of slavery at all?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Logically, slavery as punishment for crime is actually pretty reasonable and theoretically good. The criminal isn't just taken care of by the state, thus costing the people even more, instead, they actually have to pay for their crime by working it off.

But reality intrudes upon this theoretical situation. Since someone benefits from the criminal's work, there's now incentive to imprison as many people as possible. It creates perverse incentives that cannot possibly be avoided.

But almost as bad a perverse incentive is the for profit prison system, even if they aren't allowed to force prisoner labor. Because for profit prisons again have the incentive to imprison as many people as possible since that makes them more money; anything that reduces incarceration rate means less money for them.

Of course, we have both of these going for us. For profit prisons that make more money off the state the more prisoners they have, and the permission to force labor from them since the Constitution specifically allows it, thus letting the prisons make money twice off each prisoner. Yay!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

Yeah even theoretically it's a bad idea. You can't revoke the fundamental rights of people, even criminals, or the fundamental rights are not fundamental anymore, thus endangered for everyone, not just criminals.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In this context? Probably so that prisons pay for themselves. Or the loophole was intentional – it seems rather obvious that Southern states could pass arbitrary laws and enforce them willy-nilly, targeting minorities or whoever fell out of favor of the ruling class.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

that's the overview answer, mabe better put, how did the justify this to the lawmakers?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

I am not even a US citizen and I'm making guesses based on my limited knowledge of its history. You'll have to ask someone else.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Article 1. [All persons born free; their natural rights; slavery and indentured servitude prohibited]

That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; therefore slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited.

Article 1 of the Vermont Constitution of 1777. Vermont is awesome.

Also, article 3 specifically establishes freedom from religion:

Article 3. [Freedom in religion; right and duty of religious worship]

That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculia[r] mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord’s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Societies force you to ignore certain loopholes in the law.

Murdering people is bad … but terrorists are okay.

Raping animals is bad … but killing is okay.

Killing babies is bad … but abortion is okay.