Incarceration as a labor market outcome

I wasn’t all that surprised that Bryan Caplan

didn’t like my interpretation of our bet on EU and US unemployment rates, which was that the combined rates of unemployment and incarceration in the US would exceed those in the EU over the next ten years. I was, however, surprised by the vehemence with which libertarian-inclined* commenters here and at Crooked Timber objected to this interpretation.

A string of them echoed Caplan’s argument that

From a labor market perspective, though, Quiggin’s incarceration adjustment would only make sense if you thought that most or all of the people in jail would be unemployed if they were released.

Caplan has missed my main point. I’m not suggesting that incarceration is disguised unemployment (though obviously it reduces measured unemployment). Rather, I’m saying that, like unemployment, incarceration should be regarded as a (bad) labor market outcome. If you want to evaluate the performance of the labor market, you need to look at both.

There’s nothing radical or leftist about this viewpoint: it’s one that is at least implicit in all economic models of the labor market of which I’m aware, and is most particularly explicit in that of the Chicago School*. Most of the crimes for which people are imprisoned in the US can be understood as reflecting economic choices which in turn are determined primarily by the labor market in which those choices are made. This is obviously true of property crime and drug dealing, and it’s true, directly or indirectly, of lots of violent crime as well. As Gary Becker put it (quoting from memory here) “a burglar is a burglar for the same reasons as I am a professor”. (You don’t have to buy Becker’s assumption that criminality is a “rational” choice, to agree that it is a choice and that choices reflect the attractiveness of the available options).

There’s plenty of statistical evidence from scholars like Glenn Loury to show that criminals, and particularly those who end up incarcerated, are drawn disproportionately from groups with bad labor market prospects: poor, disproportionately black, facing low wages and high risk of unemployment. But well-done case studies are often more convincing, so I’ll point to the Venkatesh study of Chicago drug dealers reported in Steve Levitt’s Freakonomics. Venkatesh found that most street dealers were making less than minimum wages, and were motivated by the very low probability of surviving to attain the only high-paying job realistically available to them, that of the local kingpin. Even more striking was the observation that, when gang members learned Venkatesh was a university professor, they approached him in the hope that he would be able to wangle them jobs as janitors – otherwise an ambitious, and probably unattainable aspiration.

The Chicago theory on which the case for flexible labor markets is based predicts that the lower is the return associated with the “outside options” of employment or reliance on social insurance, the higher will be the incentive to engage in crime as a way of making a living. The only way to offset this is to make crime still less attractive, or less feasible, through high rates of imprisonment and long prison terms. That is, other things equal, low wages and weak or non-existent unemployment benefit systems can be expected to lead to higher crime rates, higher rates of imprisonment of both. So, any consistent advocate of the Chicago theory should treat both incarceration rates and unemployment rates as labor market outcomes.

Unfortunately, as has been shown by the current debate, there’s not a lot of willingness to explore the logical implications of the Chicago line to a position that might undermine its policy conclusions. Loury has noted the destructive effects of imprisonment (in Chicago terms, it causes rapid depreciation of human capital). There’s no good reason a priori to suppose that a labor market in which wages are low and unemployed are treated badly will do better, when both unemployment and incarceration are taken into account than one with higher minimum wages and more generous social welfare.

So, I would argue, my interpretation of my bet with Bryan Caplan is the more relevant one in terms of policy evaluation. The proportion of bad labor market outcomes is better measured by the sum of unemployment** and incarceration (expressed as a proportion of the labour force) than by unemployment alone.

* Or maybe shmibertarian: as we saw during the Bush era lots of alleged libertarians are quite comfortable with extreme use of state power as long is doesn’t touch their bank balances. On the other side of the coin, I should note that the Cato Institute has done some very good work on this subject, including publishing this Glenn Loury piece.

** I’m leaving aside issues about the best definition of unemployment, underemployment and so on, which have been canvassed extensively in earlier discussion.

100 thoughts on “Incarceration as a labor market outcome

  1. Or maybe shmibertarian: as we saw during the Bush era lots of alleged libertarians are quite comfortable with extreme use of state power

    This is balony. In Australia quite a few libertarians (sadly) sided with the war mongerers. However not in the USA.

  2. funnily enough, the US prison industry is so enormous that it has become a major employer in its own right!

  3. yes, ‘funnily’ was not the right adverb, it’s actually a very sad state of affairs. doubly sad, since much of the prison industry is now privatized, with a few disgusting parasite corporations (like Wackenhut, which Howard brought in to run our refugee detention camps) riding these horrible judicial systems all the way to the bank. what do you call the authoritarian (and racist) merging of state and corporate power again?

  4. Terje
    I think privatized prisons are sad (in the same way I think the privatised second fleet was an abject failure). Let me see..they didnt feed the convicts enough for them to walk out on arrival (and one third never got to be carried out at all). The privatised prison transports Howard was so fond of, to detention centres, crossed Australia’s vast outback from Victoria to detention centres, with little water, inadequate toilet facilities in probably cheap metal vans with inadeqate air conditioning resulting in the death of a man (in Australia).

  5. Or maybe shmibertarian: as we saw during the Bush era lots of alleged libertarians are quite comfortable with extreme use of state power as long is doesn’t touch their bank balances.

    Reminds me of when Bob Black said that “libertarianism and Leninism are as different as Coke and Pepsi”.

  6. JQ–I think you are spot on in your analysis, and at least in the US, any analysis of labor outcomes and welfare policy that ignores incarceration is myopic at best.

    As for the discussion of privatized prisons, I think that one incredibly important role of the state is the monopoly it holds on the use of force. Like all monopolies, it restricts supply of force which is an all-around good thing. By contracting out that right to use force, however, you introduce parties that have an incentive to increase that supply, and they begin to accumulate the political power to allow for the relaxing of monopoly power. You definitely see it in the US: the prison guard lobby is instrumental in blocking legislation to make sentencing laws (particularly for drug laws) more sane. That is the case even with state run prisons, but when there is a private, profit-driven entity behind the organizing, the lobby gets much stronger and more effective.

  7. of course you don’t understand, Terje. all you understand is that “private”=”good”.

    even when the government is the only buyer, and the profit comes out of taking as much tax-derived money as possible from this government, and spending as little on it as they can on those imprisoned by this government due mostly to its authoritarian and invasive laws.

    I wouldn’t expect a “libertarian” to understand why this is “sad”.

  8. TerjeP says at post 1;

    “… perhaps the minimum wage has something to do with depriving them of legal jobs.”

    I would say “What about the minimum reproductive cost of labour?” Surely, we cannot expect people to work for less money than that which suffices for societal survival including reproduction and education of the next generation.

    Welfare is often seen by the extreme right as an unmitigated evil and something which detracts from the incentive to work. Welfare is far from ideal but the alternatives are worse. Don’t forget the workhouses and poor houses of the 19th Century and people starving due to market failure.

    I suspect that all right-wing libertarians would like to see the removal of both welfare and minimum wages. I cannot imagine them freely walking the streets of that society. They would hiding in their gated enclaves. Crime, starvation and disease epidemics would be rife.

    Enlightened self interest suggests we are all safer and that society is more open when there are safety nets in the form of welfare and a minimum wage.

    A healthy economy needs workers to get a good wage (enough for adequate housing, food, clothing, education and some recreation and entertainment). When workers have a good wage their spending keeps the whole system humming.

    Starvation wages are no good for anyone but the 1% who like to own everything and lord it over others. Do such types draw part of the enjoyment of their wealth from the contrast of those in abject poverty around them? They certainly show a pathological resistance to any system which tries to help people rather than grind people down.

  9. “This is balony. In Australia quite a few libertarians (sadly) sided with the war mongerers. However not in the USA.”

    This is wrong, Terje. Back in 2002 and early 2003, pro-war libertarians were the dominant group in the blogosphere. IIRC, the term “shmibertarian” was coined with specific reference to Glenn Reynolds.

    Obviously, there is some sense in which “no true libertarian” supported the war, but that’s as applicable here as in the US.

  10. “The only way to offset this is to make crime still less attractive, or less feasible, through high rates of imprisonment and long prison terms.”

    Or through reform of abysmal drug and sentencing laws.

    “That is, other things equal, low wages and weak or non-existent unemployment benefit systems can be expected to lead to higher crime rates, higher rates of imprisonment of both.”

    That’s perfectly fair. It is in fact a reformulation of my own moderate-libertarian justification for welfare.

    However, for balance people should note that high minimum wages exacerbate unemployment (and therefore crime), particularly amongst certain sub-groups.

    http://andrewleigh.com/?p=1218

    I know Quiggin (among others) has concerns about the impacts of changes in the minimum wage on equality, but that’s a separate issue to the one at hand.

  11. Why do I suspect that some libertarians would willingly tolerate higher incarceration rates and longer prison terms for the unemployed that turn to crime (rather than addressing the cause of unemployment)? Chasing the tail end of a problem again and somewhat hypocritical.

  12. Why, Alice? Because you’re biased. 😉

    Also, please enlighten us as to “the cause of unemployment”.

  13. Alice – I spend all this time railing against the minimum wage and then you accuse me of not addressing causes of unemployment. Weird.

    Ikonoclast – I have little problem with welfare to address the misery created by government interference. I do however have a problem with the interference that creates the problem.

    I’d support a social wage or negative income tax as a form of universal welfare if we ditched the minimum wage as part of the package.

  14. “That is, other things equal, low wages and weak or non-existent unemployment benefit systems can be expected to lead to higher crime rates, higher rates of imprisonment of both.”
    .
    I think “other things being equal” is the optimum phrase here. If you look at crime and incarceration rates, it’s surprising how weak the relationship is between them and other factors across countries. Australia (an extremely rich country), for example, has the highest crime rate in the OECD, but an incarceration rate about 1/7th that of the US. Alternatively, the crime rate in Japan is tiny, yet their incarceration rate is almost half that of Australia.
    .
    Even if I compare economic systems, there doesn’t seem to be much relationship between them and the crime/incarceration rate. Singapore and Hong Kong, for example, have next to no social security benefits, quite low wages for a good section of the population, and a more uneven distribution of wealth. Yet their crime rate is around a tenth that of Australia (if remember correctly) which has has a high minimum wage and comparatively large social benefits.
    .
    Given these sorts of statistics, I’m not especially convinced that incarceration rates are a good indicator of economic performance, and at least in terms of cross-country comparisons, even overall crime rates appears to be only slightly better predicted by them.

  15. I think given the current system of incarceration that JQ bad labour market outcome holds some weight. But a change that elliminates most of the drug laws, tax evasion and protest laws could mean that JQ could loose (but never fear a $100US in nine years will only be worth a fraction of the ozzie dollar).

    As far as I can see the Libertarian arguments are as follows:

    1. Drug laws are enforced by the state, which is influenced greatly by lobbyist who have financial or ideological interest in maintaining the prison system current culture and the revenue it generates. Libertarians oppose those that foster this unethical relationship.

    2. Libertarians consider the loss of privacy, the loss of liberty, the loss of independence, as important. From this stance the culture of the sytem of incarceration is flawed. One major example is the prison system deprives all rights of exchange through any medium such as cigarrtes or baked beans or whatever. You can only buy from the state store. I admit that it still goes on illegally but why not encourage such productive exchange.

    Imagine going to prison and being able to save for the future when you are released. This is productive labour. You can’t currently cash in your baked beans. Society rheotoric on prisons capacity to rehabiltate prisoners is only rheotoric beacuse of the lack of interest or ideology to implement freedoms and rights libertarians believe to be important.

    It may be fine to takeaway the liberties of those violent individuals, but the prison population is growing in the US primarily because of laws on drugs (and tax etc) instigated and policed by the state. JQ I hope you loose but only on the premise that they stop incarcerating people for drug offences and tax evasion. I hold little hope of this ever happening.

  16. Terje
    you say

    “Alice – I spend all this time railing against the minimum wage and then you accuse me of not addressing causes of unemployment. Weird.”

    Whaht I find strange is your apparent suggestion that the minimum age is all there is to explain unemployment. If we really took all those casuals and underemployed into account I would suggest the minimum wage has already fallen below any “legislative documented minimum wage requirement” yet unemployment is still rising Terje…? Why is this?

    You forgot demand for goods and services Terje.

    I find your focus on one term “the minimum wage” as a structural inhibitor of employment in these times, frankly odd, given the growing pool of tenuously employed that dont even reflect in that legislative minimum wage.

    Define your minimum wage Terje? A weekly minimum wage, a two day minimum wage or should it fall to an hourly minimum wage?

  17. re above post – I wasnt suggesting anything untoward
    “minimum age” should say minimum wage.

  18. Alice – the legislated minimum wages should be $0 per hour. If you abolish the minimum wage and other price controls then you abolish structural involuntary unemployment. Education and other factors then dicatate wages which is as it ought to be. Welfare will dictate willingness to work. Of course you will still get transitional unemployment in times of economic shock.

    As stated previously my view is that the minimum wage ought to be abolished and replaced with other forms of income support. A citizens wage or negative income tax would be my prefered options. I’d rather be having a democratic debate about how high or low a citizens wage ought to be rather than debates about price regulation in the labour market.

    If Sweden and Denmark can live without a legislated minimum wage and can figure out such thing at the enterprise level I see no reason why we can’t also.

    And if we do keep the minimum wage then we should follow the lead of places such as the EU or Canada and set it on a regional basis not on a central government basis. After all labour markets are different in different regions and the cost of living is different in different regions. Given housing costs why isn’t the minimum wage in Sydney higher than in Dubbo or Alice Springs?

  19. TerjeP wrote “If you abolish the minimum wage and other price controls then you abolish structural involuntary unemployment”.

    No, because that’s leaving something rather important out: there’s a de facto minimum wage in the form of the minimum necessary for survival under the circumstances. Real wages can only fall far enough to clear the labour market, i.e. get rid of unemployment, if that clearing level is higher than that de facto minimum wage. If not, of course you would start to get the sort of adverse outcomes this piece is on about. But I suspect you already had this as background knowledge, because the rest of your comment relates to this, thus…

    That rest of the comment describes something that would bring back a labour market like that in earlier times, or in developing countries now, in which people have separate subsistence resources and they could (can) sustainably bid wages down lower than survival levels as they only need top up wages. When you hear about poor people in poor countries living “on” less than $1 a day or whatever, that is plain nonsense. They are living on that plus separate resources, which is still poor but nothing like as bad (in fact, impossible) as is made out; the cash wage is a very necessary top up, but not the sole means of survival.

    Incidentally, people should be careful about throwing terms like “shmibertarian” around. I know people with the surname Smibert, and there’s the chance this could cause offence.

  20. Let’s eliminate the minimum wage from the lexicon, and while we are at it, kill off wage stickiness too.

    That could be achieved by having a realtime measuring system for the wages paid in any job category. If some unemployed bum (probably all their own fault that they lost their job in the downturn, hey?) wants a crack at a job on offer – let’s say it’s to be lavatory cleaner in the Royal Adelaide Hospital’s dysentry wing – then they must submit an electronic offer on e-JobBuy. You enter the nominal hourly amount you are willing to work for, and if you have the minimum offer and meet all other criteria, you get the job. Basically an auction, albeit with *decreasing* price offers.

    But here is the good bit, if you’re the boss! As these wage offers get submitted within a given job category, for that job type anywhere, a minimum hourly wage is recorded for each hour throughout the day. The boss only has to pay you the minimum wage for any given hour, for that hour; *and*, all other employees currently in that job category! No more sticky wages! You are bidding for *everyone*, isn’t that great!

    Finally, what if people don’t have enough experience for a given job? And what about the fact that $0 per hour is a nominal minimum wage? Well, allow negative wages! That is, someone in need of experience may offer to work for a negative wage; and if they are successful, all other workers receive that minimimum negative hourly wage too! (Just don’t get caught being the would-be-employee who submitted the minimum wage…)

    Of course, we trust bosses not to submit capricious wage offers themselves – that wouldn’t be nice.

    Apologies in advance if I have lowered the tone of the discussion.

  21. PM says “I know people with the surname Smibert, and there’s the chance this could cause offence.”

    LOL!

  22. TerjeP wrote “Ikonoclast – your implicit claim to moral superiority is obnoxious.”

    TerjeP, I do indeed hold the opinion that my social-democratic and economic views are morally and logically superior in many supportable and demonstrable ways to libertarian views. I hold that view without apology.

    I’m sure each one of us (other than psychopaths and sociopaths) believes his or her view set to be morally and logically superior to competing views. Otherwise, we could not hold to our own views with any integrity or strength. In other words, we all carry an implicit claim to moral superiority in the very act of holding personal views.

    Libertarians are free to think I am obnoxious because I turn up my nose at their toxic nostrums for society. If libertarianism “ran” the world, the processes and outcomes would be indistinguishable from anarchy.

  23. Ikonoclast – it was your pretence to morally superior motives that I found obnoxious. Not your claim to a morally superior worldview. I take the latter as a given for the reasons you outline above.

  24. Donald – why go to such lengths building straw men? Is it merely for mirth or because you can’t handle the debating points that are actually on offer?

  25. JQ: I was wondering why you didn’t refer to the Jayadev & Bowles (JDE,2006) paper ‘Guard Labor’, or their (2007, Economists’s Voice) comment ‘Garrison America’. I think some of their arguments are probably consistent with yours.

    You also don’t mention the notion (à la Stiglitz and others) of unemployment as a labour discipline device, and imprisonment being a similar labour discipline device for the employed.

    Others, with their commentary on ‘minimum wages’ also seem to be missing arguments about asymmetry of information, incomplete asset/credit markets, and more. Not that I want to get into a debate about the role of minimum wages alone, but simply that the idea is more nuanced than saying ‘without a minimum wage markets will clear’, or as one of the commenters states ‘If you abolish the minimum wage and other price controls then you abolish structural involuntary unemployment.’ This assumes complete markets, no asymmetry of information, and no firms (i.e. one person firms with no internal hierarchies, else Hayek’s criticism of government trying to access information applies equally to multi-person firms- I can’t recall if it was Herbert Simon on this or someone else).

    On some of the other arguments, Truman Bewley offers interesting insight on why underbidding wages doesn’t/wouldn’t work, or at least why employees and employers both find it unacceptable.

  26. Iknonclast# says
    “If libertarianism “ran” the world, the processes and outcomes would be indistinguishable from anarchy.”

    Well that thought did cross my mind as well Ikono and you are braver than I am to say it. Terje does not appear to like the presence of Government much, (I may be wrong on that) and it seems to me that not enough is offered by libertarians by way of what systems exactly would maintain law and order in a society sans government.

    Perhaps Terje can elighten us and I am being genuine in asking here? Is it the difference between a small government or is no government at all preferable to a libertarian?

    Im starting to feel its a bit like asking Austrians how we correct the non functioning gaming banking monoliths?? (which are so far removed from small friendly libertarian style banks that seem desirable to both Austrians and libertarians?). I didnt feel they had much of a solution to the situation we have now, other than reliance on an ideal situation we clearly dont have.

    Im not really interested in blame ie who or what caused it. Whether its governments ineptitude or greedy high income earning employers / employees gaming and extracting too much surplus. But it would be nice to have some suggestions for libertarian remedies for the high unemployment we have now or the extremely concentrated large and powerful banks we live with now.

    Where really are the structural inhibitors to wage flexibility thus price flexibility – are we all really sure they are at the low income end of the labour force? Im not convinced they are not also at the top.

    I doubt removal of the minimum wage would help – its very low already (although removing it may add to incarceration rates). What difference would it make now? Employers pay the minimum wage or taxpayers pay for greater incarceration and more police? Either way someone pays to avoid criminal activity, someone has to collect the tax, and someone has pay police to police it.

  27. Anarchists are a subset of libertarians just as totalitarians are a subset of socialism. 😉

    I’m not personally an anarchist. However I’d rather be in their company than in the company of totalitarians.

  28. TerjeP – OK, I admit in that sense I can get a bit obnoxious. My apologies and I’ll give myself an uppercut.

    The laissez-faire capitalism of the industrial revolution was a kind of libertarianism. If you don’t like reading Engels (“The Condition of the Working Class In England”) then read the novels of a Christian dissenter like Elizabeth Gaskell. I’d suggest “Mary Barton” and “North and South”.

    I am always wary of pure idealist philosophies like libertarianism or free market ideology or utopian socialism. The reason I am wary is that these pure idealist philosophies always propound that a single principle applied to an extreme degree and across the board will solve all our problems.

    The nostrums are “all we need is individual freedom without state interference” or “all we need is free markets” or “all we need is to do away with private property” and all our problems will be solved.

    All of these philosophies leave some part of reality out. Libertarianism leaves out the necessity for the democratic state, free market-ism leaves out the reality of market failure and the need for long term planning whereas utopian socialism leaves out the reality of self-interest and the need for personal incentive.

    The world is complex and messy and not amenable to single purist solutions. That is why a social-democratic public/private mix to the whole shebang works best. It is the most eclectic and pluralist of all systems we have developed thus far and it best enables the deployment of differently directed segments of our total group intelligence to the full range of problems faced by real people in real societies in a real world.

  29. Ikonoklast,
    “The laissez-faire capitalism of the industrial revolution was a kind of libertarianism.” Thanks for admitting this – it must have hurt. The improvement of the lot of the working classes over the agrarian poverty during this period was one of the great benefits of freedom. Sure – it was terrible by the standards of today, but that (as you would know) is the wrong comparison. Compare it to anywhere else on the planet at the time and it is chalk and cheese.
    Again, thanks for that.

  30. 36Terje – says
    “I’m not personally an anarchist. However I’d rather be in their company than in the company of totalitarians.”

    LOL Terje! but there must be something agreeable between..

  31. As Ikono mentioned Engels – I was once seared by reading Engels the great towns (Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, London) and visions of the splendid wide new streets with large houses and mansions created by the wealth of the industrial revolution, behind which as documented by doctors and public officials, were the alleys and lanes filled with the poor living many to a single room in filthy conditions…there were two sides sides to that great libertarian age of capitalism (the poor surplus labour also colonised a few large countries).

    Now there is an idea of what to do with the unemployed…..transportation? (but where?).

  32. I am always wary of pure idealist philosophies like libertarianism or free market ideology or utopian socialism.

    Fair enough. I’m inclined to agree. However I don’t see libertarianism as being about purity. In my book it is mostly# about where you put the onus of proof. I think as individuals we should be free from coercive interference unless there is strong evidence that coercive interference delivers a significant improvement in net utility. Obviously “strong” and “significant” being inevitably somewhat subjective.

    By way of contrast conservatives tend to think we should maintain existing structures unless there is evidence that altering them will deliver a benefit. So whilst I’ll say “show me the evidence that continuing to ban drugs makes things better” a conservative will say “show me the evidence that changing these laws will improve things”. When in doubt conservatives defer to the status quo, whilst libertarians defer to individual freedom. Obviously when the status quo is liberal then conservatives and libertarians tend to be on the same side.

    As far as I can tell social democrats seem to swap around where the onus of proof lies depending on the topic. In other words they can be liberal or conservative depending on the occasion. Perhaps some would call this pragmatic, but to my way of thinking it is a somewhat insincere form of debate and a lazy way of thinking.

    # Obviously in terms of political taxonomy conclusions matter also.

  33. Alice – it would be fair to say that a significant number of my fellow travelers do self identify as anarchists. As a political system I think anarchy is quite an elegant theoretical idea but ultimately I think it is too unstable and too prone to totalitarian overthrow.

  34. not enough is offered by libertarians by way of what systems exactly would maintain law and order in a society sans government.

    In the scheme of things law and order is a pretty cheap part of what governments do. I think the trouble you have is that without the welfare state, public health services, public education and all the other socialism that you are commited to, you can’t envisage people being mostly good, mostly kind and mostly honest. You probably have a fundamentally different view of human nature.

  35. Incarceration is a labour market outcome but also an input.

    The current law and order push from South Australia where bikies are being denied basic freedoms when not locked up is a new phenomena.

    The bikies are certainly fearsome and most have spent long periods in incarceration. This is a guess, because the Rann Government has refused to release the details of the first control orders issued recently. It is unlikely that those who have been controlled in this manner don’t have prison sentences. Not in the first instances.

    It is certain that those under control orders will be further incarcerated. As a result of poor education and lack of skills, imprisonment will alternate with criminal behaviour. This will be an alternating cycle. Imprisonment is an unproductive and costly alternative to employment.

    The control orders in SA are a necessity because the jails are all full and the police are unable to control those making money from criminal violence.

    The Premier of South Australia has been trying to export his vision to other parts of the nation, with a degree of success.

    What does an individual who is not allowed to have mates (however unsavoury) around, nor has any skills to offer an employer, do? Only the worst jobs will be available. The toilet cleaner job is not available at any price, even a negative bid, because this gives access to too many secrets or vulnerable people. Many other jobs are not available either because of police checks required for so many jobs. Crime will look attractive just as it did to many who arrived on the First Fleet and later.

    Would this fit the Chicago theory?

    It is ironic that the Premier of South Australia created a Social Inclusion Unit and invited an eminent Catholic Monsignor into the State Cabinet to champion Social Inclusion. Now the jails are full to, Rack ’em, pack ’em and stack ’em capacity.

  36. The anti-bikie laws in SA are only good laws when compared to the anti-bikie laws in NSW. The anti-bikie laws in NSW can be used to outlaw almost any group the government deems fit. Including political parties.

  37. I’m not personally an anarchist. However I’d rather be in their company than in the company of totalitarians.”

    and thus spake the self selected blog-nazi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s