OK - so in the thread yelp.com/topic/gaithersb… - I had a friend who used the Dept of Corrections to reupholster his living room and dining room - rather inexpensively.

He couldn't remember what he paid, but he thought it was something like $1.50 an hour (this was a few years ago).

MM raised a good point about the ethics of paying for "slave labor"...but Adrian raised an even better point about not hijacking her thread :)

So thusly - here we go.

While I object to slave labor...at the same time, I don't see this as slave labor.  If I wished to become a professional uhhh...upholsterer (what do they call themselves?!?) I would need to spend money on the classes and etc.  The Dept of Corrections doesn't charge the inmates for these classes - thusly, I don't see a problem with only paying the inmates $1.50 for their work.

Also, we use free/cheap labor ALL the time...in the form of Interns.  Interns are often paid nothing, or extremely little - because they want the job experience...that is their compensation.  In turn, I feel that the inmates are getting job experience so that they can earn an honest living once they get out.

Finally, I think that the Dept of Corrections has to make the wages obscenely low - because let's be honest...how many people would feel comfortable with having an convict in their home to do work?  The only way they can be competative and offer the inmates this opportunity, is to make it worth the consumer to utilize them - but having obscenely low wages.

But then, I haven't really read or studied up on this topic, so I can be swayed to the other side.

Do the inmates have a choice whether or not to work?  If they do it isn't slave labor.

The inmates also don't pay for a mortgage, rent, food or healthcare, so $1.50 an hour in net income may be more than some minimum wage workers earn.

I agree with you Fenny, you raise several good points.  Interns and apprentices often work for little to no money just because they want the skill set, which is comparable to the case of inmate work.  I know, I've been there.

I'm also assuming that these programs are voluntary for the inmates to participate in, and therefore, these inmates can't be defined as slaves.

But many inmates still probably have a family to support, so even though their mortgage is paid for their families may not be.  Prison should punish the person, but not drive an entire family to financial ruin.  Here's a slightly out of date article with more info: fedcure.org/alerts/S672p…

I don't claim to know anything, but it just seems to me that if they are working for wages they should be paid a minimum wage.

I'm with Zach on this one. Their living expenses are paid for by the state. They should be happy they get a wage at all.

I'm with Zach and Ben on this one. Despite the low wages, in addition to not having bills, they're also fed three times a day, which is a lot more than some people in the US have, sadly. And while I understand what you're saying, Jeff, it's kind of hard to believe that a family would rely on a person behind bars to support them. Possible, maybe, but highly unlikely (in my mind).

Hard to believe that an inmate might leave behind 5 children and a minimum wage earning mother?

I see this program as a privilege for the inmates.

haha. thx for opening a new thread Fenny!

And yes - this program (from the quick internet searches I've done) is not only voluntary, but very competative.  Inmates have to meet certain criteria in terms of their rehabilitation (stay out of trouble, non-violent crimes, true remorse, etc) to get into this program...

Not at all, Jeff! I meant it's hard to believe that they would rely solely on the person in prison, knowing that it's not likely for them to be able to have income, even if it is $1.50/hr.

I took a peak at the original thread and I'm a bit offended by the comment that these inmates should not be compared to interns as they are adults and not children.  I'm 23 and just finished up an unpaid internship, with our own federal government, and I did it happily just for the work experience.  There's also people out there older than I who take on internships or apprenticeships.  

And, not to get too far away from the original topic, but I don't think a woman should be having five children with a criminal.  And if she decides to, that's her own problem.

My point is more that I think inmates would work for a reason other than to financially support themselves, and since they have no say in wage they'll just "take what they can get" since it's better than nothing.  I'm not making a joke but is there some sort of general store within prison where they can take their earnings?

Not that I'm aware of.

But all my knowledge of prison comes from watching Oz.

I see you, Jeff. That makes sense. Actually, I was wonder about the same question. I thought there was at least somewhere to buy cigarettes or something. (Dear God, I sound so bougie.)

Jeff - I think there is a commissary for the inmates.  I seem to remember seeing something that that effect from CSI.

Where is MM for the opposing view and to support Jeff?  :)

Well it may sound like it but I don't really have a position on the matter since I don't know the full story.  But if their compensation is so ridiculously low (I read ~$5 a month??) why even pay them at all?

I think the pay (if not used in the commissary) is held for them in an account for them when they leave prison...?  So they leave with a small nestegg.  

I seem to remember from prison shows/movies that inmates all take turns working in the laundry and kitchen - do they get compensated for that?

I don't ask these questions to be mean or cheeky, but I do wonder: they're not in prison to make money, so why pay them at all? Isn't/shouldn't labor a part of the "punishment" for a crime (provided they actually committed the crime... but that's another conversation)?

I like how we all have this assumed understanding of how the system works, exclusive crafted from watching TV shows, haha.

hehe, sorry to steal your question, Jeff!

that's kinda what I was wondering Vonetta.  It almost seems like if they were doing labor as a result of their sentence it would be less offensive to me than them getting paid $5 a month.  And I keep saying $5 because that's the only figure I've read.  If someone has more info, by all means correct me.

I really wish MM was here, as this is how this entire debate started...

...and OMG, are you saying that TV shows aren't real?!?  Because, I seriously use TV factoids as the basis of my arguements.

Wait.  I remember there was a MTV True Life special on being in prison.  Let me see if I can find it on Hulu or Youtube...that may provide better insight on what prison life is, and what that $5 can be used on :)

$1.50 hourly net income  is more than any self-sufficient low wage worker could ever hope to make.  It's a best option in a really crappy situation.  When they get out of jail and get hired for $8 an hour, they'll be worse off and will likely be tempted/forced back into illegal activities in order to make ends meet, or the stress of working 16 hrs a day will lead to violent outbursts, etc.

Justin - to play devil's advocate, does that mean that there shouldn't be a program to train inmates in a skill, as working 16 hour days for $8/hour will release their "natural" violent tendencies?

vonnetta, seriously?  

There's been tons and tons of studies into the anatomy of criminals.  One of the consistent findings is that many of them are not actually bad people. It turns out that many criminals are just trying to make ends meet, but without any useful skills or funding to start up a legal existence outside of jail, they are quickly forced back into crime.  If you pay inmates a small amount of money for useful services rendered by them while in prison, the prisoners can learn a trade to make them employable AND give them enough money to maybe cover food and rent when they get out.  

There's lots of different approaches to this subject, but paying them nothing is an ignorant, shortsighted and foolish route.  When people can cover their basic needs through employment as a legal member of society, they're dramatically less likely to commit crimes.

Damn, Justin, I was just throwing the question out there. :) Thanks for your opinion, though.

But you bring up a good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. I don't think that would work for a lot of prisoners (maybe I'm just a Debbie Downer that way, but I don't think everyone's got it out to do good in life, for whatever reason), but it does sound like a good idea, especially for those who are unjustly incarerated but post-jail still face the consequences of not being able to find a job and other discriminations for having the "ex-prisoner" label.

Haha Fenny, that's a bigger issue.  One that many people, namely every Libertarian I've ever met and most Republicans refuse to even discuss rationally.  A fair days work for a fair days pay is not part of America anymore.  That's now considered communism.  Even mentioning that there are real, indisputable, and easily quantifiable repercussions to underpaying labor, it's considered a liberal agenda.  Even acknowledging that there is a problem will usually get people labeled as liberals.  Go politics.  Head-in-a hole for the win!!!

These programs are stop-gap at best, but do show measurable improvement (or so I imagine... else doing them would be pointless).  One of the biggest hurdles faced as a poor person is startup costs.  It might be possible to live at $8 an hour if you can afford a down payment on an apartment and car, yet it might not be possible to ever save up enough money for either of those things while making $8 an hour.  The end result is people forced to live in motels and weekly rental suites.  Those arrangements cost way more to pay for than regular rentals, but don't require any money down.  The book Nickeled and Dimed explores this problem in great detail (and 1st hand, no less), its a quick and interesting read if you haven't already seen it.

dont worry. vonetta won't mind paying for their welfare with her tax money. =P

===================
I think the wage is totally fair. Having all your expenses covered and learning a valuable trade is useful for their future. Nevermind no one really wants to hire ex cons when they get out.. I mean if you had a business, would you pick the criminal as employee or the person with the clean record?

They probably do have a family to support. But this is one case where its just too bad. It's not my fault they did a crime (as long as they are truly guilty). Most likely they dealt with socioeconomic pressures that lended themselves to becoming involved in crime.. but ultimately it is still their decision to do something that causes them to go to jail. It's not that I don't understand why, its just that a wrong is still a wrong.

Vonetta,

sorry for possibly overstating that... I don't usually mean to be so personal. Its just how I think, and therefor how my uneditited writing comes out.  

it's not really an opinion though.  Opinions are ideas that aren't quantifiable.  I like red better than blue is an opinion.   It's subjective.  The issue of cyclical crime is heavily researched and well documented.  Programs like this one attempt to help fix a real problem, not push an opinion.

Justin - I will definitely need to get that book, because as I'm reading through the comments on this thread, it occurred to me, that as much as I like to whine about the lack of a Vuitton purse on my arm - I *AM* one of the fortunate ones that don't have to worry about how to find housing on $8/hour.  

And I agree, that politicians & lawmakers seem to trivialize this question by mostly pushing the blame back on the poor, by implying it is their "laziness" or their lack of character/will/what-have-you that is the reason for their poverty.

However, that being said - while I agree that trying to make that $8/hour stretch into housing, food & transportation is hard - if even ONE inmate learns a trade that allows him/her to make an honest (non-illegal) living - isn't it worth it?

Keon, what dictates a wrong?

As someone who I assume makes enough money to eat and stay warm at night, it's easy to say all crime is wrong.

What if your only option leaves you working as much as you can and you or your family is freezing or starving?  For some reason it's hard for people to imagine that happening here, but minimum wage jobs can lead to that exact situation.  Personally, I'm not going to fault someone for stealing when they're using the money for necessities AND are employed.  To me, that's a systemic problem, not a matter of personal morals. (note: that is an opinion)

However, raising the minimum wage is not the solution either.  If you increase the minimum wage, the cost of goods naturally increase as well.

So is the solution socialism? Communism? Going back to the fuedal system?

Now that I'm thinking back upon all my history and sociology and cultural anthropology classes...is/was there ever a society that didn't have the poor?  In every culture, community and society, there seems to always to be a group of poor/improverished of some kind.  

Does this mean that poverty is just a necessary evil of any economic model?

Having had a lot of friends in and out of jail, they like working on these things because generally speaking its better than sitting in a cell with a creep status roommate. And yeah $1.50 is fair when you don't have bills, get fed 3x a day, get a free gym pass, free housing, free clothing & free access to bathing facilities. They pretty much use that cash for canteen.

As far as having those people in your domicile, that's a personal choice. As far as myself is concerned, I'd rather DIY than do that, but I don't actually see this being an issue of ethics. Like others have said, prisoners often get more benefits than those in the outside world in the current economic situation.  In turn, the also have several of their rights stripped while they are incarcerated. But at the end, most of my ex-felon friends agree that anything getting them out of their cell or out of general population for a while is a positive thing & gives them the opportunity of being in a safe environment for at least a small amount of time.

I think about that sometimes, Fenny. Personally, I think we'd be completely deluded to think there will come a day where everyone will have their fair share of everything. It's sad, and I wish it were not the case, but it is. That's just reality. And okay, just for the hell of it, if there did come a time in which there were no "poor" people economically, I think other forms of oppression would pop up to take its place. (I really am an optimist, I promise! :) )

Actually, the argument of increasing wages leading to increased pricing is only anecdotal.  it doesn't hold up when discussing low-end wages.

Prices go up regardless of low end wages.  

Does this mean that poverty is just a necessary evil of any economic model?
Yes, sort of...

The catch is keeping the poor confortable enough to be peaceful and productive.  The part that I call "sort of" on is the "evil," not the "necessary."  There's no pysical reason that we can't provide basic needs to every working person in this country.  Our labor is effecient enough to effortlessly handle that seemingly monumentus task.  There wouldn't be much drain to speak of, especially when you weigh in all the positives.  Healthy people work harder, better, longer.  They commit fewer crimes.  They make better decisions.  They get sick less.  There's not yet been a 'right' way to do this, but claiming our current system is fine is just as flawed as saying the soviets had it right.

Right on Justin.

It's not that I dont understand justin. I'm just saying crime is still crime. I am not saying its not understandable or people are forced into difficult situations. And I don't speak from someone who always had things easy or a family that always had things easy. There was times in my life where my family had to go to food bank/shelter for stale bread and such... So I understand that things aren't easy. I do believe most things can be overcame though.

That said, I do believe there needs to have more down to have fair wages. And I understand the argument that everything is going to go up, but I feel sometimes that argument is oversimplifying things. I think the disparity that exists between some people making a lot of money and those who are struggling could be a lot less. There will always be a disparity, but it doesnt mean it has to stay the same.

So as far as those in jail. I'm sorry they are in jail, but ultimately they still committed a crime against something or someone. And regardless, I think that is wrong.

Vonnetta,

I think there's a big difference between everyone getting their "fair share" and getting "enough."  We've got an economic model that doesn't give a lot of hard-working people enough to live on.  This is not only morally unfair (an opinion, for sure) but is also a problem.  These people cost the rest of us a lot of money through crime, prisons, loss of life, loss of productivity, violence, and other expenses that we end paying for as a society.  It goes further when you see cost of living go so hight that the term "working poor" starts to include vital services.  When cost of living is so high that police, teachers, city services, and all those people we count on to be healthy upstanding people, a region can be in real trouble.  That effects everyone even more... and it's where a lot of places are potentially headed.

But keon, -why- is it wrong?  that's the part I don't get.  No one chooses to participate in our system.  We're just thrown into it.  It's not like there are other options.  I can't see a rational person deciding that it's their lot in life to suffer.  That's the same as suggesting a slave should accept his place... it just doesn't seem to have much moral backing.  "Rules are Rules" is only a fair argument when the rules are fair.

Justin, A) my name only has one "n," thanks very much, and B) I don't deny what you're saying. I'm flattered that you think I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I too am one of those statistic kids who grew up with a single mother who worked multiple jobs to provide for her children, who worked hard so we wouldn't have to live in the hood anymore (which, contrary to popular belief is not "cool," by any means), etc. so, yes, I, too, have struggled before. I know what it's like to be the "working poor," so I know firsthand that it sucks. What I am saying is, and what I believe, is that poverty is unavoidable, mostly because it becomes relative. Sure, we should all have what we need, which I'm sure we agree includes food/water/shelter/clothing/meds when you're sick, etc, but because we're human, desires will creep up and somehow, magically, people will start to think that they should have more than what they "need" and will start to do whatever it takes to acquire these wants in addition to the needs, inevitably leaving behind those who can only get the needs.

Right VoNetta, but there's a bait-and-swap argument in there.  I don't think I've ever argued that people should be entitled to more than they need but every time I argue that people should have their needs covered, the topic switches to wants.  That's a cop-out tactic that most people against fair wages make at the earliest moment they can manage.

well justin im not sure what you are referring to as far as wrong things.

When I say 'wrong things' I mean people selling drugs or stealing or robbing because they dont have many options.. dont see many options.. or think there are many options available to them. I think addressing how people end up in that situation is very complex and there is blame to go around in many places. Blame on the people themselves, and lots of blames on the systema and opportunities or lack of opportunities available to them. No one chooses where they are born.. just as none of us chose not to be born in sudan or something and be hungry. All I mean to say is that we still live in a society. And in a society it is not ok to committ crimes against others. And it doesnt become right just because the circumstances someone faces seem unfair.

By the way, I am FOR fair wages... and I am for progressive taxation. Mainly because I am totally for helping those who need more help than I do. Plus the more I help and the better education they can get is the less likely they will decide that a criminal life is the way to go. (there will always be criminals anyways.. and you dont have to be poor to be one.... see AIG..)

Awww, thanks for spelling my name right, Justin. And I agreed with you about the needs, I just wanted to take the thought a step further.

I'm asking "why is it wrong to do whatever you have to to put a roof over your head or food in your stomach?"

I'm loooking abstractly.  I'm not placing blame.  I'm keeping it simple for reasons of ethics over politics.  If a person needs something (and I DO mean need, not want) then is it wrong for them to take it from someone who has more than they need?  On a base level, I say no.  The person with more than they need, at a very fundamental level, is hurting the person who doesn't have enough by hogging resources.  The real moral criminal in this situation is the person being robbed, not the robber. The reason for this is simple: The robber has no choice. (S)he is acting as he must.  The robbed victim in this situation has the power of choice.  If the 'victim' chooses not to share, then he's harming the robber by denying something he cannot live without.  The robber responds in the only way he is able to.

What is a need, and what is a want?

We *say* that our most basic needs are shelter and food right?  But there are free or government subsidized housing (AKA the projects) and free/subsidized food (food stamps, food banks).  So in theory, the poor have all that they NEED.

However once these basic needs are satisfied, we add new "needs". Such as the need for safety - no one wants to live in a neighborhood where drivebys are an occurrance.  We have a need to give our kids a better education so they can have a better life.  We have a need for transportation so that we can get to work.  

Are these new "needs" really wants?

And then, these needs/wants are all relative.  In super poor/devastated countries, such as Cambodia (which never recovered from the Pol Pot crazy) or North Korea or Ethiopia getting to eat more then once a day is a luxury.  So does that mean, in comparison, that our (US) poor have all of their "needs" satisfied with the programs that we already have in place - so everything else is a "want"?

OK - you guys type too fast!  I'm like 6 comments behind!  :)

hahah, but at least this convo is intelligent conversation. I think people complaining about the threads should at least enjoy this. Thanks for posting a good topic fenny.

No prob :)  Thank mm for starting on "moral consumerism" :D

I admit though...this is awfully heavy for a Friday afternoon!  HAHA!  I'm so surprised by how active this is :)

Oh boy.  I've skimmed through this topic so sorry if I'm saying something someone else already covered.  Okay, our prisons are meant to be rehabilitative, that is a fact.  These prisoners need to work because we hope to put them back out on the streets and we don't want their skills and any sense of work ethic to atrophy.  There's not point in jailing people with term sentences if we don't honestly hope/believe that they will not return to the cell--otherwise, hang 'em high, right?  Regardless, even if you don't get out, prisoners need money to do things like buy cigarettes and candy....as Fenny noted, they have an account.  It's the stupid things like candy and exercise that keep these prisoners calm, which is important because there are more of them than there are of the guards, so giving them something to "want" (besides their freedom) helps maintain order and avoid chaos.  Considering, as already mentioned, that their basic "needs" are met, I believe that it is alright to charge them below the minimum wage because they've been naughty.

Justin, I disagree.  The Robber could choose to starve to death.

Fenny, there's two angles on need.

The personal one:

What we need to survive.  
The housing you mention is in short supply and often unviable.  I've even tried to get some... there's waiting lists of 3+ years, and that's for housing that's still unaffordable on low-end wages.

What we need to be most effecient workers:

What we need to generate the most moeney for the not-poor.
education, healthy enviornment, availability, transportation, safety, stability.

Its funny how people often fail to see that these things are essential to businesses.  "Handouts" like education and safety tend to generate good returns, they're just hard to graph directly.

I'm a little confused (forgive me, Friday afternoon for such a deep topic...!) are you saying that we need to pour more money into education, healthy enviornment, etc - not just for the poor, but for everyone?

If so - then, I can make the argument that we already have that.  Not to say that our education system can't be better...or that our transportation system can't be *better* - but I'm saying that it's pretty darned good - the question is...do people (not just the rich, but the poor as well) make the best use of the services that are already in place?

Fenny! Don't muddy the water! one topic at a time!!!! Entire careers are built around each one of those things you've just mentioned.  there's too much to discuss all at once. :p

And may I take a moment to echo Keon's comment about what a great thread this is???  Deep, heated, passionate discussion - but without any name calling or belittling!  LOVE IT!

Justin - we're YELPERS - we can multitask!  :)

OK - I'll back up a bit and just ask you for clarification on your last post... :)  I think I may have gone down the wrong path due to poor interpretation :)

Fenny L. says:

And may I take a moment to echo Keon's comment about what a great thread this is???  Deep, heated, passionate discussion - but without any name calling or belittling!  LOVE IT!
-------
For serious!

Keon "crazy caps fan" D. says:

hahah, but at least this convo is intelligent conversation. I think people complaining about the threads should at least enjoy this.
------
I am! :D

yeah... Personally I wasn't a fan of the people who were complaining.  A couple of elitist condescending naysayers leave and the threads go back to the  interesting conversations those same people were waxing nostalgically about.   Go figure.

Wait a second...the person being robbed is the moral criminal?  My family has had our house broken into when we were barely making ends meet.  It's fairly hard for me to understand that people don't have a choice of doing right and wrong especially when I came from an immigrant family that came to this country with nothing.  I'm sure that more than a few here came from a similar background.

This is a great thread.

Justin - are you operating under the assumption that most crime is committed because the aforementioned criminals are doing what they have to in order to survive / avoid starvation and homelessness? I'm just wondering.

Anson,

in its simplest context, yes.  in your example, not so much.

Irena,
most? no.  I am operating under the idea that a lot of crime is the result of financial and structural stress, both long term and short term.  "Most" would be over-stating things.  There's a lot of crime we won't ever do away with, but that's not reason to ignore the stuff we can deal with.

Justin - can you explain how the victim is the moral criminal?  I'm confused...

To clarify - I'm confused because the victim did not cause the social stratification that would cause the criminals to steal from them.  Isn't that sort of like saying that a rape victim was "asking for it"?

And then, there is the assumption that the victim has more then the criminals.  Often, criminals steal from those of their own economic strata - as that is the most accessable.  Thusly, the victim did not have more then the criminals, and so they are not the cause of financial/structural stress.

Also, the assumption is that the crime is theft and not domestic abuse, murder, hate crimes, etc...

The victim is the only person who can make a choice.  The person who needs something has only two options, passive suicide or theft.  Since we value the sanctity of life, there's only one option: theft.  The victim however, can choose to share or not to.  Either way, he comes out okay.  A perceptive victim could remedy the situation and share to begin with.

Again, this is a very limited example that I'm only using to demonstrate that rule of law is not always moral.  I'm not saying people who rob your house are necessarily in the moral right... I'm just saying that they -can- be right.  in some situations there's room for the argument.  When people put blind faith into rules and systems we end up wit very bad situations.  It wasn't always against the rules to own slaves or kill jews.  Would anyone like to support or justify those actions?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no from everyone here.  Claiming "well those are the rules" is rarely a rational moral justification (unless we're talking about a soccer game).

ah, and fenny...

you've strayed too far out of my limited example.  I'm not justifying all crime.  I'm actually only justifying probably less than 1% in black and white terms.  I've got no idea how much would fall into gray area.

So I guess we're definitely talking non-violent crime. Cause stealing/robbery is one thing, but injuring or murdering someone in order to better one's own life is not justifiable by way of socioeconomic circumstances.

So then where is the line?  Is it ok for someone to kill someone during a robbery?  

I'm going to disagree with the point about the victim coming out ok.  The victim can lose everything and then by your example, be forced to steal as well and then you have a whole circle of crime going on.  I still don't see how the victim can make a choice.  Even if they share, there's no guarantee that they don't get robbed.

again, my example was very very limited.  The problem with issues like this is that gray areas are very hard to agree upon.  Its easier to explain the axioms and build from there.  When someone said "its immoral to break the law" I demonstrated how that isn't a solid argument.  That sort of conclusion is a high-level blanket statement.  No blanket statement like that can ever really be an absolute.  Making judgements based on such a statement would be unsound logic.  That's what I was getting at.  We can't simplify issues with phrases like "a crime is a crime."  The nature of such statements forces them to be wrong.

Thanks to Cadence R. for pointing this thread out to me...I don't normally jump into these conversations! :) But, i have a few thoughts...

I think you also need to look at the difference between nonviolent and violent offenders.  Lots of nonviolent offenders are drug offenders, and they're put in prison, when really what they need is treatment or services within the community.  

Separate from that, I think the fact remains that regardless of whether the person is being paid 1.50 an hour or minimum wage to do basic work, its not going to be a substantial nest egg when they get out.  Many will leave and have nowhere to go...if they did have families, its' likely they've lost contact with them, and sometimes it may have been their family that led them towards incarceration in the first place.  When they leave prison, they have to find jobs, places to live, and they don't have the resources or means to do that. Lots of jobs won't hire you once they find out you've been in prison, and like someone mentioned earlier, getting affordable housing can be a complicated, difficult process.  

A lot of these people made small mistakes that ended up costing them substantially.  if you want to see some interesting case studies, i pass along this report: justicepolicy.org/conten…
that shares the experiences of a bunch of different people in baltimore who have been in contact with the criminal justice system.

I still think that crime is crime.  There just happen to be different justifications, some valid and some not.  I'm working under the assumption that rules and laws are two different entities, so where technically you can have slavery be ok under the law, it violates the "rules" or whatever code of ethics you choose to follow.

Okay:  I see where Justin is going with this, I think.  I believe he's arguing from the strictest economic parameters, no morals or really ethics--the idea of efficient markets.  How our market works right  now is that we are effecient (meaning all resources are being used) when a gain for one equals a loss for another, that's a basic economic rule.  So unemployment points to ineffeciencies in our market, as well as surpluses of anything.  We are always trying to get to an equilibrium.  So, in Justin's example if someone has zero units of his needs met, that means that at least one other person has a surplus of their needs met.

Now, how we build our politics and laws is crucial here.  Currently, our laws and politics state that the person who has the surplus shouldn't be penalized as long as the surplus was achieved within the rules of law--which is fine and I believe it too. No arguments there.  But I THINK Justin is stripping away morals and modern politics to get to the most basic level of economics and survival.  Imagine a pile of 100 cookies and there are exactly 100 people in the population.  Now, if someone doesn't have a cookie, that means someone else has atleast 2.  How did they get 2?  Did they run to the pile the fastest?  Was there an orderly line but they slipped an extra in their pocket?  Regardless, the person without the cookie (assuming cookies are the only way to survive) is now forced to steal someone else's cookie (preferably finding the person who has the extra one) or lay down and starve to death.  

The example is highly unrealistic, but as Justin admits, is a limited example. It's when we think about how our society has evolved and consider the hard work people do to get their cookies and the rules of law that protect those cookies, that we start to be less understanding to those without cookies.