fayfreethinkers.com

Last summer, Colorado passed one of America's most strident illegal immigration laws. It was the kind of law that inspires alarmist warnings of shortages in service industry employees and farm laborers. And guess what? That's exactly what has happened. Last fall, crops were left to rot in some Colorado fields after many immigrants fled the state fearing a run in with the law. Now, the state's farmers are worried about getting this year's crops into the fields, let alone harvesting them this fall.



Once again, the state's lawmakers believe they can come to the rescue. This time, their plan is to hire out convicted criminals, who will be guarded by wardens with guns, to work in the fields abandoned by immigrants.
See here.

Oh, the cycles of history. Didn't we make prison labor illegal a couple of decades back/

Government action ultimately depends on the payoffs to ruling elites. As cronies, constituencies, and hence payoffs change, so does policy. There is no reason to expect consistency in such a morally bankrupt system. It's the institution, the State! The thing is the abuse!

Hogeye wrote:Government action ultimately depends on the payoffs to ruling elites. As cronies, constituencies, and hence payoffs change, so does policy. There is no reason to expect consistency in such a morally bankrupt system. It's the institution, the State! The thing is the abuse!

DOUG
And we all know that in anarchy people don't scratch the backs of others...

Quite the contrary, but you miss the point. Given that people (on the macro level) tend to do what they perceive to be in their interest, it is not a good idea to set up an institution of legal violence - i.e. a State. This is the assertion of anarchism. Anarchists, rather than having an institution of legitimized aggression, prefer alternative methods of human interaction which are voluntary, such as mutual aid, free markets, and so on. Mutual aid and free markets certainly rely on self-interest, but that self-interest is expressed in win-win human interactions rather than the powerful plundering the weak. I.e. All parties in a mutual aid endeavor perceive an advantage or they wouldn't join; both parties to a voluntary trade perceive an advantage or they wouldn't trade.

Hogeye wrote:Quite the contrary, but you miss the point. Given that people (on the macro level) tend to do what they perceive to be in their interest, it is not a good idea to set up an institution of legal violence - i.e. a State. This is the assertion of anarchism. Anarchists, rather than having an institution of legitimized aggression, prefer alternative methods of human interaction which are voluntary, such as mutual aid, free markets, and so on. Mutual aid and free markets certainly rely on self-interest, but that self-interest is expressed in win-win human interactions rather than the powerful plundering the weak. I.e. All parties in a mutual aid endeavor perceive an advantage or they wouldn't join; both parties to a voluntary trade perceive an advantage or they wouldn't trade.

We on this forum have asked for substantive examples of when this scheme of yours has ever worked, and the examples have not born out your claims.