Yep. The government's stance is that once you share it with a 3rd party it's fair game, pretty much.
One Of The Biggest At-Home DNA Testing Companies Is Working With The FBI
- Thread starter crimsonaudio
- Start date
The way y'all talk in this topic y'all should stop being diffident centrists and join me in rolling out them damn guillotines.
I think that I would be worried about a "precrime" situation: e.g. Say Boss Hog uses Bo and Luke's genetic profile to deny driver's licenses to Coy and Vance because they share the same genetic markers for reckless driving. Also, I have no confidence in the FBI or any government entity in keeping this information secure: Boss Hog give the information to Hazzard Insurance Group which skyrockets the premiums on the General Lee.
tobacco companies did a number on quite a few folks, and opiod manufacturers are trying their damnedest to keep up.
and then there was the corvair and pinto
There are always outliers, but none of those companies actually murdered people. And none of those actually took away the people's rights. I'm not suggesting they don't deserve penalties for lying about their products (putting profit ahead of the welfare of the buyer), but it pales in comparison to what governments have done to citizens throughout history.
The impact of those companies' wrongdoing would have been far less had the government not promoted, nay, mandated, providers put their lies into practice. That doesn't take away the wrongs of anyone, but government magnified the effects.
you think that corporations would have behaved more in the public interest in the absence of government?
That's not what I said.
What I did say is that the government mandated changes in practice that incorporated those private business wrongdoings and that if that were not the case the effects would have been far less.
If you aren't/weren't in the field you might not know, but I have mentioned it several times here.
The government promoted pain as the fifth vital sign, a right to adequate pain relief, and the lie that using opioids to relieve pain would not lead to addiction. They also tied payments to doctors and hospitals to patient satisfaction surveys that directly incorporated the above as principles to be promoted in order to make sure everyone got onboard with it. Those mandates then filtered out to private insurance as everyone wanted to be in the government's good graces. Doctors and nurses were "educated" by all those institutions on those same issues to drive the point home further. The entire system succumbed to the government mandate based in part on a private company's lies and good intentions. Without the government being involved and moving the whole system in that direction and tying payments to compliance there may have been more people resisting the changes or maybe not even hearing much about it or calling it bunk or all three. I hope that helps.
oh, i see what you meant now. thanks. it seems like this was in part an issue of regulatory capture link
Even if the corporations were purely evil and promoted something they knew was harmful (such as smoking tobacco or an unsafe automobile), it's still up to the consumer to choose to buy and use said product. If / when governments are 'evil' they have historically incarcerated or outright murdered millions of people.
Hence my point that companies pale in comparison. They literally have to appeal to the consumer on some level - the government can (generally speaking) strong-arm people, up to and including removing their rights or even their life.
This is why I'd trust a company far more than any government. But it's also why I'm guarded about my personal information (within reason) - as I know the company might eventually turn over my data to the government.
Hence my point that companies pale in comparison. They literally have to appeal to the consumer on some level - the government can (generally speaking) strong-arm people, up to and including removing their rights or even their life.
This is why I'd trust a company far more than any government. But it's also why I'm guarded about my personal information (within reason) - as I know the company might eventually turn over my data to the government.
In part, yes. I’ll reserve most of my thoughts due to both little lunch time today and I might say something to get myself banned. It does irk me that it happened and then the government acts like it was someone else all along.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
