Skip Navigation
124 comments

  • Short answer: Yes

    Long Answer: Good lord. Yes, it would be something a bad person would do.

    In effect, any gains you make will be blood money. Have fun with that on your conscience.

  • Yes.

    Investing to make money off of other's suffering is never justified.

    You may as well scream "FUCK YOU, GOT MINE" a little louder.

  • Yes. Doing so makes you a hypocrite. Don't worry through, there's no shortage of hypocrisy in America. It's practically a requirement to be at least unwittingly hypocritical. Just by drinking Coke or tipping a waiter you're contributing to a broken system designed to exploit people for maximum profit.

    But here's the rub. You can't, in any practical sense, escape that crap, however, you can choose to not deliberately contribute to stuff outside your immediate wheelhouse. It's one thing to buy a chocolate bar out of a vending machine, but investing in Nestle? That's a choice, and one you could have easily skipped. You could skip the candy too, but it's very, very hard (and impractical) to refuse every corporate product ever. Everything, from the materials in your electronics to your mortgage company, to most food from lettuce to frozen chicken, exploits people. But you don't have to voluntarily make the problem worse.

    And on the sliding scale of morality, investing in slavery - in this case the prison industrial complex is just greed and indifference to the cost in human suffering. Seriously research it, slavery in all but name has been part of the plan since the Reconstruction era after the Civil War. We never had a justice system; we have a punishment system that hungers for the labor of the downtrodden, especially of minorities.

    So if you want to at least try and be a better person, and investing is something you want to do, look into the companies you're investing in. See what their executives are paid compared to their workers here and abroad. There are companies that you can ethically justify investing in - small companies, co-ops, credit unions, pro-union companies, companies actually trying to solve problems or make the world better, like solar manufacturing, etc.

    If you want to invest in human suffering, then you're going to have to make peace with being a bad person and being judged for it. I'd advise at least trying not to. It's a hopeless battle, but fighting honorably is its own justification.

  • So first, you need to know that the definition of "genocide" is larger than you probably think.

    The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The acts in question include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.

    Emphasis mine.

    Second, hastily-built private prisons constructed for the purpose of keeping a group that has committed no crime in one place long enough to "dispose of" them? They also have a technical term: a concentration camp. If they're also performing work, they're a labor camp.

    So what Trump wants to do with Latiné folks is a form of genocide.

    Third, there are multiple levels of supporting a genocide, from being a member of the society that created the out-group, all the way up through pulling people from that out-group from their homes. Somewhere in the middle of that list is "voluntarily providing aid to those committing the genocide."

    Fourth, each level of support bears a different culpability, and each individual within the levels bears a different culpability based on their knowledge and understanding of what's happening, their intentional decision to participate or not, and the amount of protest they raise at the treatment of the out-group.

    So, knowing all of this, where would you put such a decision?

  • Yes. Regardless of the second part. Don't invest in private prisons, even if it's sums that would seem inconsequential to the industry as a whole.

    Edit:If it's invest in, in the sense of, buy the stock of, I'd still say yes. It still contributes to the success of the industry, even if just minuscully so.

  • Unless you got hundreds of thousands in assets to invest, you are only gambling on the suffering and slavery.

  • The question of morality in investments is not absolute; it depends on how one frames responsibility and agency.

    Markets are amoral tools. Financial markets operate independently of moral judgments. When individuals invest in an industry, they are not necessarily endorsing its practices but recognizing an opportunity within existing systems. One can argue that targeting an investment does not equate to creating or exacerbating the problems within that industry.

    The existence of private prisons and deportation schemes reflects systemic issues, not individual investors. Policies and demand for incarceration stem from government choices and public sentiment. As such, targeting investors as "bad people" shifts focus away from the policymakers and institutions enabling these systems.

    Some may justify these investments pragmatically: by securing financial stability, individuals can later support progressive causes, donate to charities, or fund organizations fighting for systemic change. For example, an investor might use the returns to support immigrant advocacy groups or lobby for prison reform.

    There is algo "Separation of Investment and Values". Not every decision must align with one’s ideological framework. People often compartmentalize their personal lives from their professional or financial strategies. A leftist could rationally engage in capitalism as a survival mechanism within an inescapable capitalist framework while still advocating for systemic change.

    Many industries—tech, energy, or agriculture—have problematic practices, from exploitative labor to environmental harm. Singling out private prisons overlooks the broader complexity of investing in any sector. Most portfolios inadvertently include industries with ethical concerns, such as fossil fuels or fast fashion.

    Defending this investment as not inherently immoral hinges on the premise that financial actions alone do not define someone’s character. Morality lies in how individuals balance their actions, mitigate harm, and contribute positively to society. However, ethical investments often require introspection and alignment with long-term values. While investing in private prison contractors can be defended on pragmatic or systemic grounds, it’s worth questioning whether the financial gain outweighs the potential ethical compromise.

    • Hmmm, are you saying workers are alienated from each other via the market? Social relations are mediated by commodities and money??

      I swear I've heard this somewhere before...

      • Are you saying is not? When applied to investments, the abstraction becomes even more pronounced. As investors, individuals might focus on profit potential (commodities and returns) without directly engaging with or even acknowledging the human or social costs underlying those profits. The market acts as a buffer, depersonalizing the consequences and further alienating participants from the broader social implications of their actions.

        So, yes, you’ve heard this before, and it’s a classic critique of how capitalism distorts and reframes human connections in terms of profit and exchange! Marx argues that under capitalism, commodities take on a life of their own, obscuring the labor and social relations that produced them. The true connections between people—worker to worker, worker to consumer, are hidden behind the veil of market exchange.

124 comments