• dactylotheca@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah. No wonder they threw the book at him.

    I mean come on, who is really the one more deserving of punishment here: the fine upstanding job creator who had a small and momentary lapse of judgement, or the clearly bootstrap-deficient monster who – after choosing to be poor – doesn’t have the moral fortitude to live on the streets like he should?

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think the right answer here would be to sell the guy to the upstanding job creator. The creator gets to prove how upstanding he is. The feckless man with no bootstraps gets a place to stay. Everybody wins! How lovely and compassionate that world would be.

      • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        But surely you can’t be suggesting that the homeless man should be housed for free, so that someone who has contributed so much to society has to bear the costs?

        Maybe we should let the free markets decide: first, the criminal should sign a completely voluntary contract which specifies that his new owner is entitled to assign to him any work they deem a suitable compensation for his upkeep during his sentence (not signing the contract or shirking work duties leads to a doubling of the sentence and immediate transfer to an isolation cell for the remainder of his sentence), then put him up for auction and sell him to the highest bidder