Donnadogsoth Posted April 18, 2016 Author Share Posted April 18, 2016 So let's assume for one moment that the premise was sound and not riddled with holes like swiss cheese: If prisoner B can't (or doesn't want to) afford to pay the 2 cigarette fee for using the toilet he's forced to defecate somewhere in their cell. This of course will lead to heavy odor pollution of the cell and prisoner A suddenly has an incentive to let prisoner B use the toilet for free unless he enjoys spending his day in a smelly cell and risk diseases. Problem solved by the underlying principles of the free market. Your reasoning is flawed, because it presumes prisoner A is of the same culture as prisoner B, and finds faeces everywhere abhorrent. Prisoner A may well not care, and enjoy using "his" toilet purely as a power trip over prisoner B. You're also presuming that prisoner A's primitive accumulation of the toilet is moral, and are just scrounging for reasons why he would let prisoner B use it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancapitalistpig Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 There's a solution for that: As a feces-ridden cell is a hazard to health Prisoner B can always opt for the self defense route. More so as Prisoner's A "accumulation of the toilet" is immoral, as you suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treecher Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Did you mean to say: Two ancrappers are in a jail-cell... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts