[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

Omar Rahman rahmans at me.com
Fri Nov 1 08:46:47 UTC 2013


Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:51:43 -0700
From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>

> The
> government should somehow farm out the task of surveillance to private
> companies and industries, for none of the above list are likely to be
> military adversaries.


Theoretically we can imagine a private solution to every public need but that doesn't mean we should suggest or implement them. If we pause for even a moment to consider a private corporation, by which I assume you mean a publicly traded profit making entity, that is empowered to meet the nation's surveillance needs it seems ludicrous.

1.)	Shareholder's rights - shouldn't shareholder have the right to review the operation and the 'product'
2.)	What if your (Spike's) dreaded 'Mormons' bought it?
3.)	What if, maybe, just maybe, industrial espionage was a part intelligence efforts?
.
.
.
[to an arbitrarily large number].)	Capitalism rewards profit making above all else, so as our privacy was strip-mined we might reach a point of 'environmental collapse' where our privacy resources were completely depleted. I guess at that point we might actually need government intervention to 'recapitalise the privacy market'.

Spike, this notion is almost as bad as suggesting that private corporations placed in charge of our health care would do anything other that extort us as soon as we became seriously ill. No one would be gullible enough to believe that corporations care for anything other than their profits. Oh wait.....

Hmmmmm, maybe if the states did it we could have 50 competing systems and we could could change our residence every time our health situation changes (or our surveillance needs.) I'm sure that, for example, crossing the Rocky Mountains wouldn't constitute a barrier for a Californian to enter the health care and surveillance markets of Nevada and vice versa.

We have 'single payer' military, spies, etc. If you and others say that it is not constitutional for the Federal Government to implement a single payer system that doesn't prove anything to me other than that we should immediately implement a constitutional amendment to give them that power.

As a direct consequence of a single payer system you get the power to control costs. THAT'S what this is all about. It IS a huge expansion of government. We want it to do that precisely because of capitalistic principles of 'supply and demand'. When you are bleeding or you have some other serious condition guess what: YOUR DEMAND GOES FROM ZERO TO 100% INSTANTLY. Your supply goes from 'maybe x, or maybe y, or maybe nothing' to 'which one is closest, step on the gas I'm bleeding'.

Privatised medicine and insurance are under this law of supply and demand. We as a society recognise imbalances in markets and we (sometimes) break up monopolies, and (sometimes) regulate banks. To put it in mathematical terms the supply and demand curve for medical services (excluding optional/elective procedures) is discontinuous and this is indicative of an inherently unfair marketplace.

Spike, elsewhere you have stated that it's not in the "track team's" interest to sign up for healthcare because they are healthy. This is not true because:

1) sooner or later the 'track team' will turn into the 'zombies' you talk of
2) they will need a functioning health care system to take care of them which can only be built and maintained through constant effort
3) I was on the track team (literally) and we're not (all) short sighted jocks, we generally 'grow up' and hopefully grow (very) old and live responsible lives

Regards,

Omar Rahman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131101/fc5cf3c0/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list