The text here takes the stance that debtors prisons don't work for this purpose. However, I don't see evidence of such here. To show it doesn't work requires considering within the policy and in the absence of the policy. Less than 100% effectiveness is different from not working. We do have some data because of different policies between states. For accurate conclusions, that would need to be analyzed to account for extraneous factors, as well. I would guess there are academic papers which have attempted to. I wonder if they have consensus.
'And just in case you still think, “But that was then! This is now! We can do it right this time!” I like your enthusiasm, Thanos, but I need you to chill. There’s no way to structure this so that it’s fair and doesn’t violate anyone’s freedoms—we all have biases. And as always, if history has taught us anything, power shifts. You might advocate for something now that later puts you at a disadvantage.'
But this is more of an ad hominem attack than an argument, and the talking down part of it was what really struck me as disrespectful. If we look at the actual argument, it is quite weak. Enforcement of prison sentences for manslaughter is subject to biases too, yet we do enforce it. The argument that we should not have a program because it could be abused is a weak argument against whether the program should be considered.
The text here takes the stance that debtors prisons don't work for this purpose. However, I don't see evidence of such here. To show it doesn't work requires considering within the policy and in the absence of the policy. Less than 100% effectiveness is different from not working. We do have some data because of different policies between states. For accurate conclusions, that would need to be analyzed to account for extraneous factors, as well. I would guess there are academic papers which have attempted to. I wonder if they have consensus.
You wrote:
'And just in case you still think, “But that was then! This is now! We can do it right this time!” I like your enthusiasm, Thanos, but I need you to chill. There’s no way to structure this so that it’s fair and doesn’t violate anyone’s freedoms—we all have biases. And as always, if history has taught us anything, power shifts. You might advocate for something now that later puts you at a disadvantage.'
But this is more of an ad hominem attack than an argument, and the talking down part of it was what really struck me as disrespectful. If we look at the actual argument, it is quite weak. Enforcement of prison sentences for manslaughter is subject to biases too, yet we do enforce it. The argument that we should not have a program because it could be abused is a weak argument against whether the program should be considered.