Short freedom

Apparently the left stops somewhere about right of centre - what a quaint political system the US has.

In theory if you could use any profits to make counter-investments or buy enough stock to be able to influence them to move in a different direction then your strategy might be viable, but unless you literally just buy 1 share to be able to harass them at stockholder meetings then in all likelihood your money is doing more harm than good.

Best to just straight up invest in organizations that are effective in stopping these things and influencing policy against them.

I would also ask yourself if this is beneficial at all.

Look at their historical prices. Investors have already bought into this.

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

Yes

The world won't be any better if you don't. The only difference is what you'd feel about it yourself.

I say who the fuck cares what some Internet randos think. I bet you ten shares that more than a handful of the people taking about ethical conundrum didn't even vote this past election.

The only thing that matters is can you live with it? If you can, go for it and make a buck working within the confines of Americans values because if you don't, someone else will.

I'll tell you that I don't regret buying into the reddit IPO despite its various ethical scandals and going forward here my family and future matters more at this point than anything the average American says since they voted or say on their asses and literally didn't vote for all of this.

If you think you see an opportunity go ahead and invest and don’t feel ashamed. Many of the Hispanic immigrant communities that will adversely be affected by mass deportation had high levels of Trump support.

I say fuck it and make a buck. May those who voted for Trump get exactly what they voted for.

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.

I don't think so - the stock market is extremely detached from fundraising in the modern world and if that company decided to fundraise it'll mostly do so on the back of mutual funds and uni endowments.

I personally find divestment is a pretty ineffective personal action in terms of individuals.

I think you'd be awfully surprised calling yourself "as left as they come" on here. There are some people who are so far out in left field that they come back around on the right again. Lemmy is full of anarcho-communists and people who believe that ownership of property is akin to murder.