Even if they stop jailing people, the fees and fines condemn so many people to penury. $45/month on a $500 balance – what’s a stronger word than ‘predatory’ that we could use here? I know libertarians are generally for private enterprise, but this seems anti-liberty and the vilest form of rent-seeking.
While the reporter was trying to get the other side for this article, the mayor kept giving him the slip. When the reporter finally got to the mayor at a public meeting, he got a whole song and dance about how it was the court’s issue. Mr. Mayor, sir, you signed the contract that puts your own citizens in jail for the crime of being poor. Shirking responsibility is what small town pols are all about.
Most collection agencies I know of take a portion of the recovery to fund the company.
Here, it seems that the City and the collection company are automatically making a contract that involves a third party (the citizen) to be charged fees without the consent or approval of the third party.
Just how can that be legal or moral? Why can the City and the company seek to obtain fees for which the citizen never agreed to?
6 Comments
Well maybe at least now we know the price of freedom.
It’s $198 court costs.
Even if they stop jailing people, the fees and fines condemn so many people to penury. $45/month on a $500 balance – what’s a stronger word than ‘predatory’ that we could use here? I know libertarians are generally for private enterprise, but this seems anti-liberty and the vilest form of rent-seeking.
@Canvasback,
From a Libertarian perspective, if a company’s very existence is dependent on government contracts, it isn’t really a private enterprise.
While the reporter was trying to get the other side for this article, the mayor kept giving him the slip.
When the reporter finally got to the mayor at a public meeting, he got a whole song and dance about how it was the court’s issue.
Mr. Mayor, sir, you signed the contract that puts your own citizens in jail for the crime of being poor. Shirking responsibility is what small town pols are all about.
Most collection agencies I know of take a portion of the recovery to fund the company.
Here, it seems that the City and the collection company are automatically making a contract that involves a third party (the citizen) to be charged fees without the consent or approval of the third party.
Just how can that be legal or moral? Why can the City and the company seek to obtain fees for which the citizen never agreed to?
So even if a person is not “poor” and is able to avoid jail because of ability to pay a fee for the privilege of being found not guilty – – that’s OK?
I don’t think that’s OK.
It’s not OK for anyone – regardless of their means.