Good rif on 'natural monopoly.' Let's also consider how to identify 'de facto-monopoly.' 'Common Good' dropped out of the public discourse as it was replaced with the assumption that 'free market' is the same thing. Boy, is that wrong!

My family comes from what used to be a Soviet Socialist Republic. My mother and father were refugees of WW II. When we used to visit family in the U.S.S.R. my father would like to find, pull out and show us the hidden microphones in the hotel room. When we took photographs we commonly had a couple of not very well blended in guys in the background of each one, plainly the spies assigned to following us. When we went someplace - like a relatives home - without calling ahead or telling anyone we were coming we found that we were expected.

We would remark at how opposite that was to life in the United States and the West where the authorities were kept in check by democracy and such things didn't happen. How that was our freedom from Big Brother and surveillance by the authorities in contrast to the police state that was the Soviet Bloc.

When the Berlin Wall fell and the Stasi's records were opened we in the West marveled in horror at the totalitarianism.

In the United States, however, it wasn't quite as we liked to think. There were always, in the 20th century, pretexts for suspending the Constitution "just this once" or for just this one exceptional ocassion which always wound up being more the rule than the exception resulting effectively in a militaristic police state. The enemy was just so cunning and so insiduous and the threat just so terrible that we "just had to" make an exception in this case and dispense with constitutional rights of the people and the sovreignity of other nations.

Various Red Scares provided this pretext. The communists were "just so" all the above that we "just had to" do McCarthyistic purges of dissident intellectuals and more common people. We "just had to" do COINTELPRO; we "just had to" send the police and FBI to attack like thugs or arrest and imprison on bogus charges with bogus, ill gotten evidence all the labor organizers, peace activists and environmentalists. We just had to engineer a coup of a democratically elected government of Guatemala that only wanted to impliment a New Deal style democracy, or something similar in the Congo or Chile and we "just had to" invade Viet Nam. Remarkable coincidence that in each case our action prevented (with exception of Viet Nam) the self determination of these nations and continued the colonial relationship in which they were in service to us (the U.S. and Western Europe) and working as coolies to support our extravagant lifestyles. (The Soviets, of course, did something similar the only difference being that they colonized other white people as the Hungarians, the Poles, the Czechoslovakians, etc..That, of course, was just plain barbaric of them. If they had only colonized people of color like we in the U.S. and Europe we wouldn't have - couldn't have - objected.)

After the Berlin Wall fell we no longer had the pretext of Communism to violate the U.S. Constitution and the sovreignity of nations. We needed a new pretext. Thus the "War on Drugs" replaced the Cold War.. George H. W. Bush announced a "zero tolerance policy" for drugs in the U.S. and drugs were just "so terrible" that we "just had to" give the police and federal authorities power to ignore constitutional rights to catch drug dealers and give our foreign policy establishment the liscence to ignore international law. It became overly generous to provide accused traffickers a fair trial or any of the standard "rights of the accused" (whose purpose is to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and punished).

When we wanted to invade Panama - remarkably about the time the canal treaty was to expire - we couldn't say we were fighting "Communism" anymore so Panama was a "narcodictatorship". Manuel Noriega was tried in secret with "secret evidence" against him and wasn't allowed to introduce as evidence the fact that he was almost always acting on the instructions of the U.S. government.

Then came 9/11. The "War on Drugs" faded from our minds, it wasn't needed anymore.

Trust of the government is absurd. Arguing that we don't need constitutional protections if we have a "good king" is silly. Whereas, that may be somewhat true as long as the good king is king and as long as he is good, NOBODY is good ALL the time and the potential for abuse in totalitarian spying is infinitely great.

Similarly, to argue that any particular moment of crisis is a time for giving up, however temporarily, the Bill of Rights is mostly fallacious. It is precisely in those times of crisis and mass hysteria when the Constitution is needed most.

It should also be remembered that the Weimar Republic became the Third Reich through the ceding of "emergency powers" to the executive branch of the German government after the burning of the Reichstag.

Sorry to talk on a different subject. I asked a question on Thom's show about an hour or something ago, on what's the difference between Medicare Advange and Medicare Suplement. And when I finished asking Thom, and he went to ask Wendell Potter, I got completely cut off and did not hear my answer. Plus every time I call back, it's "busy." No one in the chat room was paying much attention and they don't know. Anyone who was listening or who knows, could you answer me? And I'll check back later. Thanks!

Wendalore.

Quote Aliceinwonderland:Snowden, Assange and Manning stood up for their principles, at tremendous personal sacrifice. Makes 'em all heroes, doesn't it? Yet they are treated as criminals while the real criminals skate free. Meanwhile President O-bomb-a slaughters thousands of innocent civilians with drones, and he gets a Nobel Peace Prize. Baby Bush was also a war criminal, wasn't he? I think I recall hearing something about Bush also having been a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't reckon I'll be taking that mark of distinction too seriously again... ever.

Aliceinwonderland ~ The Nobel Peace Prize is turning itself into The Nobel Joke Booby Prize. Oh, well! Obviously relevancy isn't one of their guiding principles. History will surely bare that out. History is a cruel mistress. By the way, have you heard that Baby Bush and his friends were found guilty in an internationally recognized tribunal for war crimes?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bush-adminstration-convicted-of-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/5336860

That's right, it's not publicized or anything but the fact of the matter is that the man is a convict and prisoner of his own country. There'a comin' ta git him! And, there's no place to hide.

Thought that might cheer you up. Nobel Peace Prize? I think history will be the judge on the actions of us all. I feel sorry for everyone else who earned and deserved that once prestigious designation. Oh, well! What are you going to do?

Quote Aliceinwonderland: I agree with DAnneMarc's assertion that we need more economic justice in this society and to take better care of the mentally ill. But Marc, your logic escapes me when it comes to gun licensing. While I'm hardly naiive enough to assume gun licensing will magically erase the problem of gun violence, I do believe it would be a step in the right direction.

Aliceinwonderland ~ Yes, a step in the right direction; but, just what direction might that be? For you and I the direction is the betterment of society. What is it for the wealthy puppet masters that pull the strings in Washington. Between you and me I agree 100% that licensing and registering guns is an excellent idea. Never having purchased a gun I never new you could without such reasonable processes. Quite frankly I was shocked you could. Such a policy would be an excellent first step. But what is going to be the second step. Easy access to mental health services for everybody? I doubt that.

Remember the testimonials of how Nazism overtook Germany. It wasn't all at once. It took baby steps that seemed innocuous. People readily agreed to the proposals; which, at the time seemed like good ideas for everyone. Before Mr. Obama was elected a large contingency of "Teabrains" expressed concerns that he was going to come and take your guns away. Absolutely ridiculous accusation with no foundation in reality. However, don't forget that these groups were funded and covered by the same people who push policy. Any master criminal will tell you what better place to hide the true agenda then in plain sight.

Alice, believe me when I tell you that I neither like firearms, own firearms, or believe that we will persevere over the current batch of Tyrants with firearms. I do like the idea of registering and licensing all legally sold firearms. However, other than suicides and a few random homicides I don't believe that solution alone is going to make any difference in the big picture. I believe all the recent shooting were either planned or orchestrated by the ruling elite as part of a much more devious plan. Nowadays I don't trust anything that comes out of Washington to not have any ulterior motives. Finally, anytime the ruling elite are willing to sacrifice random innocent people to achieve an ends you can believe that the ends is not in the best interest of the country.

Don't think that I am against licensing and registering guns. Quite the opposite, I am against the advancement of fascism and tyranny. If they are after our guns, they can't have them. Remember, the Government has no reason to fear a well armed militia. It is the ruling elite who have that fear. They cannot walk around freely in an open society if they think the public is gunning for them. That is why they target law abiding citizens. They fear well armed law abiding citizens far more than criminals who just kill each other. In this case, this fear is a very, very healthy thing for the country; and, these elitists should continue being very, very afraid. That is the only thing that makes them hesitate at all from full blown fascism. That is what I can't support any gun control legislation at this time despite the fact that I believe in it. The timing is completely wrong. It is far more dangerous to proceed on this path now than is the danger that guns represent. Just call me paranoid.

Tonight on Democracy Now, it was mentioned that Secretary of State Kerry has denied Snowden access to a passport. Ain't that special. Old John Kerry, the former peace activist! (Gag me.) And Snowden hasn't even been convicted, let alone charged, with any crime!

Snowden, Assange and Manning stood up for their principles, at tremendous personal sacrifice. Makes 'em all heroes, doesn't it? Yet they are treated as criminals while the real criminals skate free. Meanwhile President O-bomb-a slaughters thousands of innocent civilians with drones, and he gets a Nobel Peace Prize. Baby Bush was also a war criminal, wasn't he? I think I recall hearing something about Bush also having been a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't reckon I'll be taking that mark of distinction too seriously again... ever.

I'm in a really bad mood this evening. Maybe it's time for bed... - Aliceinwonderland

Quote R.Bodmer:The idea of registration and licencing puts too much power in the hands of the government. At any time a licence can be revoked for any reason. If in the event a person comes in controll of this licencing position that does not beleive in the 2nd amendment and the right to protect your self a slow revocation. one by one we could loose the ability to defend ourselfs. plus registration has allready been found to be a violation of the constitution of the United States of America.

R.Bodmer ~ Personally, I don't like the idea of gun control either--that is, as it is pertaining to any legislation that would infringe on peoples rights to own firearms. That being said, I have no problem with gun licensing or registration. I find it hard to believe that gun purchases without registration and licensing was ever permitted in the first place. Seems a little stupid and irresponsible to me. Of course, this is coming from someone who believes people should have to get a license to have a child. I believe that anything that you do, that has an affect either directly or indirectly on the freedoms of other, needs to be regulated by the Government. That is what they are for in the first place--TO PROTECT US FROM EACH OTHER.

I share your contention that we also need to protect ourselves from our Government. Especially now when the Government is responding so provocatively to mass shootings without ever even addressing mental health issues. During a time when they seem preoccupied taking away Constitutional human rights that protect We the People, it is natural and healthy to be very suspicious of their intent. I share your concern. However, from a practical standpoint, I can assure you that in no way is any of your stockpile of firearms going to do anything to protect you in the event that the Government decides to come and get you. In fact, I can almost assure you that any attempt to rely on such a recourse will inevitably result in your immediate demise as well as anyone else who is around you. You cannot fight the Federal Government with bullets. Relying on bullets to deal with the Government will also fuel a false sense of security that will prevent you from participating in movements that will be effective in the cause.

Until we get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals, take care of our mentally unstable citizens, solve our economic woes, reduce poverty, and end the war on drugs we are never going to solve the problem of gun violence. Registering and licensing guns will have a negligible impact only. It is no solution. It is, in fact, a Red Herring despite the fact that it is the responsible thing to do in a civilized society. Unfortunately, the society we live in is far from civilized. The bottom line is that as long as the other cures I've mentioned aren't addressed equally as well as "gun control" I suspect that this legislation is nothing more than a disingenuous nefarious trick and there is no way that I can fully support it. The Government simply has failed to convince me that they seriously want to protect the public. I don't know about you, but over time the Government has conditioned me to be very suspicious of anything they do, and question everything. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that some rouge element in the Government itself isn't behind these mass shootings. The way they've jumped straight to "gun control" instead of addressing mental health makes me conclude that they have arranged these false flags for very nefarious purposes. There wasn't even any debate and it seemed like "Gun Control" legislation was already prepared and ready to go after each tragedy.

Lefty s in this country have been in denial of false flags since 9/11. Only a fool would deny that there wasn't complicit high level Government involvement with the WTC attack. How involved that was is open for conjecture. If you ask me the same agenda that was behind that false flag is behind all these shootings and "gun control" legislation. None of this is new. Just Google "Operation Northwoods." This agenda has been around for half a century. We have the responsibility to our future generation to keep an upper hand with our Government and keep it in check. We cannot allow it to chip away any more at our rights. Already we are going to have to fight to get back the ones we've lost. The elitists who control the puppets in Washington are very clever. They love to manipulate people into demanding exactly what they want to happen. We need to be smarter than that and not allow ourselves to be fooled. That begins with questioning everything that comes out of Washington like we were living in Nazi Germany. As Nancy Reagan once said, we need to know when to "Just Say NO!!"

I agree, obama is pretty much a continuation of the bush admin (more so, than what a real democrat should be). You wouldn't know it from the way republicans complain of course.

But I am conflicted on the grain of truth in the conservatives argument; spying has always been ongoing, and the nature of syying is simply changing with technology..

My big concern, as snoden put it, the motivations of people behind the spying, and lack of transparency to the voting public. We are either a free democracy of the people, or we are not. Snoden, manning, and assange are heros for risking their freedom, to try to save America's soul, before fascism becomes irreversible. Meanwhile conservatives want to talk about anything but the real issue here.

We certainly need a greater degree of transparency.. Such secrecy brought us war, when chenny lied, then BAM, half million dead bodies (incl Muslims).. No doubt, even if some American operatives were put in danger, this is a far more important issue.

Knowledge is power, and anytime power is concentrated, death, disparity and war soon follow, because history clearly shows individuals in charge trend to crazy.. Whether power makes them crazy, or chat crazy people might be driven to seek positions of power, is the only questionable part.

I remember growing up in the 70's. when things were different. the FBI handled all internal criminal issues. the CIA handeled all intelegence everywhere else in the world. after 9/11 we had a knee jerk reaction to terrorists. well here are the consiquences of our reaction. we let the govt run rufshot over our rights.

patriot act: the ability to turn in your friends and neighbors with out reprisal... hummmm. remaniscent of the cold war communist era.

DHS: well what can i say.. into everybody's business with out oversite.

NSA: nuf said. look at there track record of violations of the constitution. hummmmm.

These 3 things need to be removed from the USA. before we loose all our liberty.

Solution.

expand FBI scope to domestic anti terrorism.

eliminate FISA court. replace with congretional approval commity accountable to the rest of congress. members must be rotated out every year.

expand CIA operation to cover only external terrorist operations with joint information sharing with FBI and joint FBI and CIA anti terrorist taskforce. make it a criminal act for CIA to act inside the USA.

restrict phone taps and data mining to warrant required. FBI current requirment.

last but not least: ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Rebuild forign confidence in America by not spying on allie's. with out congresional approval.

p.s. Thank you Thom for a place to speak openly about issues that may or may not be of interest to other people.

Hello Alice.

Please come out of wonderland. This is the USA and we have a heratage of responsible gun ownership. I am a proud owner of several firearms that have never been fired at another person. I lock most of them up in a locker. I keep one next to my bed just in case i need it. I hope i never do. And yes it is chambered at all times.

The idea of registration and licencing puts too much power in the hands of the government. At any time a licence can be revoked for any reason. If in the event a person comes in controll of this licencing position that does not beleive in the 2nd amendment and the right to protect your self a slow revocation. one by one we could loose the ability to defend ourselfs. plus registration has allready been found to be a violation of the constitution of the United States of America.

"between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/20/224507654/how-many-die-from-m...

Why are we concentrating our attention on gun deaths per year when we should be concentrating our attention on hospital & doctor caused deaths? One thing that really gets my goat is that many people's diseases are not caught because doctors may not send their patients in for a scan or an xray or some other test or lab work. And even then, those tests are often misread and they miss things. I think that those people who make the decisions as to whether they should agree to send people in for a test find it much more profitable to just let the patient develop cancer or other mortal disease and just let the patients die.

I knew someone who was a Vietnam Vet, I'll call M., who was exposed to Agent Orange and who had been going to his VA doctor for years. And he had symptoms that the doctor should have acted on with various tests..scans. But all the doctor would do is keep prescribing various pain killers that eventually wouldn't work anymore.

The doctor would never prescribe sending him to the hospital. And the doctor was really ticked off at us for taking M. into emergency at the VA hospital when he was buckling over under excruciating pain and couldn't stand. We had called the nurse previously but they couldn't find the doctor...so the nurse suggested that we take M. to the VA hospital. So we did.

They didn't really do anything then except to put him under a temporary pain killer injection then write more prescriptions. But his excruciating pain soon returned...like the next day. And then, his doctor wanted to send him to a physical therapist to help him deal with the pain.

The second time we took him into the emergency.. a couple of days after the first visit..they finally ran tests..scans..and found a couple of large tumors and massive spread of cancer throughout his body.

Had the doctor, years earlier, when M. first started having strange symptoms including pain, prescribed tests like cat scans or pet scans or even an xray...they may have been able to catch it before the cancer spread.

They kept M. in the VA hospital for some time and they tried Chemotherapy but it didn't work so they put M. into hospice where he eventually died...a few months later. I'll never forget the nightmarish look on his deathbed face, as if he had seen the devil or perhaps was just in agonizing pain...mouth stretched wide open like he was in the middle of screaming for life. They were supposed to keep him supplied with narcotics to keep him from having pain...but we had had several problems with the nurses who seemed, often, very negligent. Often, they wouldn't give M. his pain killers and we had to complain...which of course..didn't make for good relations with the nurses.

I had thought then, that this was just typical of the VA...but then I learned from a former co-worker that his wife got cancer and went through about the same thing with her doctors...and she had insurance and went to a private doctor and hospital. She managed to survive because Chemotherapy worked for her...she was younger and they caught it in time...but just barely. They should have caught it much earlier...but they were negligent for not catching it sooner.

This problem is 14-15 times worse than the number of deaths due to guns. Why isn't there a movement, like the anti-gun movement, raising hell about the number of deaths due to hospitals and doctors malpractice?

As a practicing academic emergency physician for the past twenty years, I have seen, first hand, the impact of gun violence in this country. While Thom has listed the rather sobering statistics, where the CDC estimates over 30,000 gun shot related deaths and over 100,000 gun shot related wounds in our country each year, it seems pointless to continue to argue facts without recognizing the fear that exists on both sides of this issue. For those in favor of second amendment of rights, it is apparent that they truly fear the violence in this country endangers their families; as such, they believe that any infringement of the second amendment would further endanger their loved ones. On the other side, those who believe in limiting gun ownership, the registration of guns, and mandatory background checks, believe the disturbing facts speak for themselves: our country is the gun injury center of the modern world. Our gun related deaths and injuries can only be compared to countries who are actively engaged in wars on their own soil. So, how can be find common ground so that we address the concerns and fears on both sides of this issue? As a scientist, rather than a politician, I would propose the following public health approach to this now well recognized public health emergency. There are four unique aspects to the problem: 1) Intentional gun violence toward teenagers and young adults, especially African Americans, since the leading cause of death for an African American male from the teen years to age 44 is murder. This is by far the most difficult aspect to address since so much is related to the lack of economic mobility; 2) The intentional and unintentional gun violence toward someone you know and know well. This often follows the emotional rage that human beings commonly experience at some point in their lives, but with the easy access to lethal weapons often leads to deaths rather than to nonlethal injuries or simply verbal outbursts; 3) The injuries and deaths from the truly accidental discharging of weapons by children who find loaded guns in their homes; and 4) Suicides: the availability of guns has allowed for a huge increase in successful suicides in the past twenty years, especially among teenagers and young adults. This category includes mass murder with suicides; the US has become the mass murder with suicide center of the entire world. If we approach these mass shootings from a perspective of suicide prevention, then, perhaps we can find common ground in their prevention. Each of these categories may require unique approaches; we can utilize successful experiences from other comparable countries, such as England and Australia, or we can create our own, uniquely American fixes to these problems. For instance, would those on both sides of the issue support a government sponsored exchange of lethal firearms for non-lethal Taser type weapons for home protection? So, rather than attack those on either side of the issue, can we please step up as the greatest moral society in the history of the world and use scientific study to address this public health crisis in a way that will address the fears and concerns on both sides of the issue? I believe we can if we can just get past the rhetoric.