It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.
It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn’t save lives…people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.
Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.
Tbh this is the logical end-state of a poorly-regulated for-profit healthcare system
Poorly regulated economy really
Capitalism really
Which is why I predict events like this are about to become a lot more common.
of a *general oligarchy
Yup!
Man, people really think this is actually going to change things and it’s hilarious.
Well, hilarious in that I have to laugh to keep from breaking down in tears. On one side you have people who will do anything to squeeze every last penny from our quickly decaying corpses, and on the other we have a bunch of people who did little more than bitch and moan until someone does something drastic and ultimately futile in which case they… mostly continue to sit back and watch while assuming everything is somehow magically going to fix itself for them.
Things might change if murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system becomes the standard in America. But one outlier incident won’t change anything.
G4S and Securitas will make a fortune off security services for execs.
Knowing their hiring standards it sounds like a job there would be a ridiculously easy way to get privileged access to these people. Nah they’ll use higher quality than that.
Invest now! Wooooo, capitalism baby!
Yeah but are other rich people staffing this corpos or just more plebs???
Asking for friend ;)
Yes, it’ll change things like the French Revolution did, where it kept going and going, executing more and more people who had less and less to do with it, finishing with Robespierre, who argued against executing people at all.
When the laws don’t apply anymore, the law of the jungle will catch up to you.
You mean the law of the strong against the weak? We’re not winning that battle. We can’t even agree to vote consistently, much less in our best interest. What makes you think we can all agree on who’s the right person that needs killing?
I never said the right people are going to get killed. People are just going to get killed in chaos, sometimes its aligns with the goals of others. This sucks.
Yes, we can’t afford to lose any CEOs because it might cause innocent people to be killed. Meanwhile those CEOs are stacking bodies through negligence and folks like you want to defend them. You just confirmed how you’d steer the trolley.
CEOs are already killing innocent people en mass. If you have a more effective way of doing things at this point I’m all ears.
Voting works, when people actually do it. It doesn’t work fast, but it works better than random killings.
And in the mean time while you go around shaming people for not voting endless human suffering will continue to happen because you think vigilante justice to right the wrongs in our society is more wrong than just letting the elites continue to stamp on the necks of the people.
Random?
Voting works, when people actually do it.
🤡
Well sure, if we just kill everyone we don’t like, clearly things will magically get better.
How do we define that, though? Cause every decision made will make someone unhappy, no matter how much good it might do. Are you going to step up and decide what’s right or wrong?
Already have. I think killing CEOs who contribute to endless human suffering is right, and defending those people from those who’s lives they’ve ruined unjustly is wrong. Next question.
Yep. It’s pretty simple and straightforward.
kill everyone we don’t like
Kill people who purposefully, pointedly, and knowingly cause harm, human suffering, and sign death warrants for people who could have otherwise survived. Robbing life and money from families whose kids or parents need treatment, and sending these people into bankruptcy. Or straight-up denying life-saving treatments.
And these people know they’re killing people, but they don’t care because they’re making so much money off of it.
So no. It’s not “everyone we don’t like.” It’s people who purposefully profit from doing harm at the cost of human lives.
This isn’t a “Is killing a person that insulted you right or wrong?” moral conundrum, it’s a “If you could kill Hitler after he had started exterminating people, would that be right or wrong?” moral conundrum.
Most people who would say “it’s the wrong thing to do” for the first one would say “it’s the right thing to do” for the second.
Mind you, the really right thing to do on the situation with this CEO would have been for the State to do its fucking job and protect the people from mass murderers like him, but it refuse to do so, hence here we are in a bad situation.
EXACTLY. These guys are trying to pose this conundrum in such a ridiculous disingenuous way. Like “if we allow someone to kill a person who has systemically killed untold numbers of people then what’s next, killing a baby?!” its absolutely baffling how these people think that’s an argument based in any level of reality or logic.
It was a bit messy for the French but they haven’t had a king since.
The justice system should cast justice, and for that we need political pressure and reform. Self justice is not right in that way
The justice system should cast justice
Indeed, but it has failed to do so and now millions of people are suffering.
So it needs to be changed politically. If the people actually voted in their interest there would be no problem. If they vote against themselves they are at fault themselves. Thats how democracy works, even if its sad
Y’all had 35+ years to do it the right way. Too late, we’re gonna do it the hard way now.
murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system
How would that work, in practice? Who decides which companies are putting evil into the system? Who decides which CEOs to kill? Why not kill the board of directors and VPs as well? Why not kill the nurses and doctors who refuse to treat a patient unless they have health insurance? Why not kill the investors that provided the funds? Why not kill the politicians who made the laws? Why not kill the people who voted for those politicians?
Yeah, that’ll definitely work.
Yeah you’re right, CEOs should just be able to destroy the lives of Americans without any repercussion and anybody who tries to do anything about it is bad and wrong. Man, thank you for showing me my error! You truly are the only intelligent person here. You are the chosen one.
The argument to ask who casts justice and decides the barrier is a legit one. You are using a strawman argument against him by saying they are in favor of allowing destruction of the lives of Americans happen. Such tactics are mostly used by populists and we do not need to stoop to such levels
anybody who
tries to do anything about itperpetrates an extrajudicial contract killing is bad and wrong.FTFY
Go ahead and do anything you want, nobody is stopping you. Protest, boycott, don’t pay your bills, be my guest. But when you use a silenced handgun to shoot a man in the back who had not been convicted of any crimes, you are unequivocally bad and wrong.
The false dichotomy in this conversation is insane. What in your addled brain indicates to you that I was suggesting that CEOs should be able to ruin people’s lives without repercussions? You don’t need to be particularly intelligent to understand that anonymous masked gunmen assassins are a bad thing, it’s common fucking sense.
The judicial system is designed to favour these people. It has already failed, and cost countless lives. You’re suggesting something that is already in place and failing at a catastrophic level. I’m not going to sit here and pretend you have some kind of greater intelligence or moral high ground for pushing an idea that is proven to not work and costing endless human suffering. That would be fucking idiotic.
Again, false dichotomy. Your logic makes no sense.
The judicial system is not perfect, we can at least agree on that. But that does not necessarily indicate that the system has totally failed; it’s far more rational to assume that the system should be reformed.
But sure, let’s go along with your first wild assumption and agree that the system has failed and must be replaced. Your second wild assumption is that the best way to replace the judicial system is by hiring masked men to assassinate CEOs.
If that’s not your assumption, than I don’t understand why you’re supporting it. You could have been like okay, this obviously isn’t a good way of dealing with things, but it does raise a discussion about the inability of the legal system to appropriately punish CEOs. But instead, you didn’t bother, you just went right ahead and said this seems like a great alternative to the judicial system, we should keep doing this. Absolutely unhinged
When they deny and delay healthcare they’re extrajudicially killing people and murdering them first is self defense.
How’s that boot taste?
I feel like you are thinking about this wrong. From where I sit I think it’s more likely that you’re expanding the target list than helping put the brakes on this kind of vigilante behavior.
You aren’t wrong in a lot of what you’re saying though. Street justice rarely stays just for long. This may also be an isolated incident. However, some kind of pushback against this system is inevitable. If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety, and to be honest I don’t think meaningful change is possible until they are. Strikes, sit-ins, and protests have only ever been effective when paired with the implied threat of physical violence if demands are not met. Greed needs to be deincentivized in one way or another. Governments and corporations don’t seem interested in making that happen so action like this seems increasingly likely to me.
I don’t have any aversion to physical violence, if it is directed towards a rational goal with defined objectives and limits to its usage. This is an example of the opposite, an arbitrary and chaotic usage of violence that only serves to exacerbate social dysfunction.
If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety
I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society. There is no line that you can draw between yourself and people [who] don’t help improve the situation. We are all, by definition, a part of that group, for as long as it takes until the situation does improve. And that’s why I’m trying to explain that this kind of action is taking all of us further away from whatever improved version of society you envision.
I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society.
Being intentionally obtuse doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Your average person, especially those in other countries, don’t view themselves as responsible for healthcare costs in America. Whether or not that is technically true is irrelevant as their contribution is not nearly as important as the others on your list. Take away the line about voters and maybe the doctors and nurses, though some would likely disagree with that part, and you’ve got a pretty accurate list of the people most responsible for the situation. They oversee these systems and are therefore seen to be responsible for associated outcomes.
I’m not being intentionally obtuse. I’m trying to open your eyes to the fact that there is no list that can be drawn up. It’s an impossible task to separate human beings from the conditions of their environment. The system is inherently flawed, it doesn’t matter who becomes the CEO, they are all incentivized to follow the same playbook.
What you suggest has been tried countless times in the past. When you remove the people occupying positions of power, others just take their place. You’re ultimately advocating removing individual human beings, when you should be advocating changing the system entirely. Instead of trying to overthrow and take over the system that exists, you should be trying to escape the system and build something better.
It doesn’t create good outcomes directly. It’s indiscriminate, highly subject to individual biases and extremely destabilizing to society. It’s definitely not a good thing if it keeps happening over a long time.
But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence. Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.
But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence.
This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale are you alluding to? That hasn’t ever occurred in America. What usually happens is that people vote, and that’s what causes the government to act.
Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.
We got unions and workers protections because of voting and political pressure. The modern framework of labor rights in the US was almost entirely created by FDR, who was swept into office by an overwhelming majority of voters as a result of the Great Depression. He passed a ton of legislation as part of the New Deal and utilized political pressure on the Supreme Court when they tried to strike down the legislation. It was strengthened and expanded by JFK and LBJ, two more presidents who were elected with strong mandates from the American people.
There is no scenario where gunning down healthcare CEOs applies any sort of political pressure to anyone. I know that it feels like it means something to the common person who doesn’t understand much about the functioning of government or business. But I can promise you that it means very little to the people with the power to make decisions, aside from reminding them of the necessity of private security.
This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale
The battle of cripple creek involved shootings and dynamite explosions between workers and mine owners and was only stopped once the governor stepped in and helped negotiate a compromise.
I wasn’t trying to imply anything close to a full on war, but violence was a lot more common in early clashes for worker rights. Protests and strikes much more frequently were backed by violent behavior including several deaths.
As you go back further in history, essentially everything was decided by violence. But the balance of power has shifted with the rapid advance of technology. Violent behavior is less likely now than ever to make a difference, in my opinion.
And also that’s not what this is. There wasn’t any manifesto, there wasn’t any protest, there weren’t any unions going on strike. It was just one man gunning down another man in cold blood. To what end?
We could start with health insurance and pharmacy benefit manager companies, and then we can move onto “defense” contractors. If that’s not enough we can then move onto real estate investment companies and if there’s still time to make an even stronger point we can go after the greedflation grocery conglomerates. If that’s still not enough there’s the technofascists running the big tech companies and spying for the government. There’s plenty of targets out there who have it coming and I hope none of them every sleep peacefully again.
Good luck with that, Rambo
Laughs in French revolution
It might not change anything but it certainly raises spirits
Well it’s a good thing people are happy with the continued state of affairs where nothing has fundamentally changed!
It’s the only thing that’s ever changed things. Nonviolent movements are great but behind every successful one there is a separate violent movement forcing power to the table. The myth of successful nonviolent movements has been propagated as another tool of control.
It depends on how many people succeed in offing CEOs quick enough before the state clamps it’s power down. The state reacts relatively slowly so hopefully a lot more copycats (or our smiling hero) get a few more names off the list to really make a fucking point.
The state is gonna respond with more dystopia.
I’d encourage everyone to be careful with this type of thinking, because I’m seeing it a lot. Characterizing situations as having only two unpleasant options (“two tracks” in this case) is a classic strategy to rationalize violence. Gangs use it, terrorist groups use it, and even governments trying to justify wars use it (e.g. remember Bush’s “You’re either with us or against us”).
It’s a textbook false dichotomy, and it’s meant to make the least unpleasant option presented seem more palatable. This situation is not as simple as “either you’re in favor of insurance companies profiting off of denied healthcare of millions or you’re ok with murdering a CEO”
Problem is that all the other tracks can’t be switched to.
I want to live in a world where profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes. The third option here is that CEOs be paid less and be held accountable by their employees similarly to a democracy. But that means changing the system - which won’t happen until the CEOs are convinced the system doesn’t work. Right now, we regular folks are the only ones for whom the system doesn’t work. This uncertain future for CEOs is load sharing.
Precisely. The last few months have been nothing but trolley problem after trolley problem because rich people are never held accountable.
profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes.
Give them actual golden parachutes and they get both.
Don’t want to be too much of a downer, but if enough rich folk decide the system does not work for them. These rich folks will fight to change the system to function more like China and Russia. Where the peons have limited political expression and swift removal of ‘subversive’ speech.
Look at the events of the past few years, and especially the past few months in the US, and tell me that they’re not already trying to do so.
Actually, ya. That is on point.
They tried to silence people with social media. I’m banned on every major platform for being anti capitalist anti imperialist anti fascist and pro murdering health insurance CEOs (ok, that’s a new one years after being banned, but my sentiment has always been there).
They can’t stop the fediverse. They can’t silence us like they used to.
Well I’m open to other ideas but I haven’t seen any viable ones yet.
tldr: one idea would be challenging their ability to hide behind licensed MDs who are paid to shoulder liability
This is actually my field, and I’ve spent countless hours of my life arguing with these insurance companies on behalf of patients they’ve denied, (losing more often than I’ve won, but you have to try). They suck.
When they’re being exceptionally unreasonable, the bridge-burning hail mary I would throw would be threatening the license of the provider that denied the appealed claim. It has worked a surprising number of times.
Most people don’t realize that it’s not just paper-pushers at insurance companies who are denying claims. Those folks can routinely deny things that policy excludes, but if it’s a judgement call or a challenge that their policy isn’t meeting medical necessity, they hide behind doctors on their payroll who are putting their license on the line when they have to say that the insurance company is justified. Those individuals can be reported to their licensing board or even sued. Short of voting in universal healthcare one day, I think this is the most direct route to challenge this nonsense.
I appreciate your measured takes and inside point of view, more of both are always welcome (not that you need my invitation lol, you’re basically famous around here).
The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I’m not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don’t blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.
Our institutions no longer fix our problems, and that’s growing worse, not better - the deck is getting stacked more and more heavily against us as time goes on.
I’m not advocating mass violence. What I am saying is that executives who create conditions like these, for people suffering under an increasingly-dysfunctional and hopeless system like this, should absolutely expect their lives to be in danger on the daily - out of just pure pragmatism. I’m not putting a value judgment on that, I’m saying it is flat out inevitable.
CEOs frequently measure any and all human events as costs to be managed. Especially these insurance executive pieces of shit. I don’t see why a certain number of fairly predictable CEO murders resulting from their hideous behavior should be any different.
The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I’m not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don’t blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.
Relevantly, I think this also makes a good argument that “how we solve things” as a society is as important the problems we’re solving. When our institutions are weakened or bypassed (through corruption, lobbying, or vigilantism), it’s destabilizing and leads to bigger issues. I hate how much power insurance companies have over care too, and I get it, I just want to urge everyone to be cautious about this familiar type of language that tries to frame violence as the “only remaining option”. It’s almost always pure rationalization coming from people’s anger rather than truly being our only option.
That’s a great point. And truly, it speaks to what may be the root of the problem - skin in the game. Skin in the game shapes how we solve problems. When leaders make it plain they have none, people notice and reasonable problem solving falls apart.
At some point, I personally blame Jack Welch at GE decades ago for pioneering & normalizing this (thanks Behind the Bastards) - companies shifted from prioritizing outcomes for stakeholders to only prioritizing outcomes for shareholders. Historically I think that was because better outcomes for all stakeholders was seen as the primary driver of better outcomes for shareholders. Jack Welch realized they aren’t nearly as coupled as everyone thought - over the short term only, a crucial distinction! To be fair, someone else would have, too, if he were never born.
For an example, he pioneered the tactic of closing profitable manufacturing plants that were not as profitable as he wanted - and despite the net loss of profit, and the sudden deep trauma to a town full of human lives - investors liked it. It’s the origin of “line goes up”.
Oversimplifying a complex issue of course because I don’t want this to get any longer, but that behavior really does make two different systems of inputs and outputs that are often in competition with each other. One system for investors, and one for everyone else. And a growing number of people see it, see the different outcomes, and are rightfully enraged.
With that said, angry people are easy to manipulate and abuse, which is counterproductive and bad, and I’m not so much disagreeing with you as offering another point of view. Cheers!
Yup, I think we’re totally on the same page here.
Fuck yeah behind the bastards out in the wild!
Also… anyone know of Jack Welch’s whereabouts these days? For you know …reasons…
I just want to urge everyone to be cautious about this familiar type of language that tries to frame violence as the “only remaining option
This gets harder and harder to deny when we’re still talking about most of the exact same issues that have gotten worse, not better for almost two decades. How many elections and protests and awareness campaigns and volunteer drives are people expected to do with no meaningful progress?
At some point it starts to simply feel like a parent telling their child ‘not now, later’ over and over again with zero intention of ever actually doing anything. No where in life are you allowed to infinitely delay with no progress (especially to your boss at work), so why should the public accept the same?
Three decades! Three! Not two! I’m 35 and had a sick parent growing up. This has been my entire life, my parents fighting with these ghouls until eventually my father died from lack of proper care.
How do lay people being denied coverage find out who their “doctor” is to go after their license?
Sounds like a lot of paperwork and waiting around and sick people don’t have a lot of time for that. A bullet is faster.
Derail the train
I believe that is in process.
You’re absolutely right and I’d argue it boils down to the fundamental error in OP’s shower thought:
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track. It just adds another dead body to the pile.
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track
Why wouldn’t it, though? Every CEO makes a profit/loss calculation in their head. Now they’ve got one more potential entry in their loss column. We’re not talking about saving lives already taken by UHC, but future lives that other CEOs might cost.
We all know that the death of a CEO is a blip in the actual day to day operations in the company. The teams and departments will continue operating as before, and the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
After all, if they’re already doing cost/benefit analysis with human lives, what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses, and then try to recover their costs through the business (including through stinginess on coverage decisions or policies).
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
That only remains true so long as this doesn’t turn into a copycat situation, which it very well might given how numerous the people with motives are, how easy it is to get guns in this country, and how fervently the people of this country are supporting the gunman.
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
The key word there is ‘remote likelihood’. My point was that if it goes from ‘remote’ to ‘possible’ or ‘likely’, then it will start getting factored into decision making.
what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses
Unlike fines, which can be passed off as a cost of doing business, their lives are irreplaceable. And once the logic has been hammered into their heads, it can start influencing their decisions.
There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They won’t. Anyone who has a semblance of belief that their decisions in the job might actually cause their own death just won’t do the job. Instead, it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
And once they’ve internalized the idea that any decision made by any one employee of the company, including their predecessor CEOs, can put them in danger, it’s pretty attenuated from the actual decisions that they themselves make.
It’s a dice roll on a group of people, which isn’t enough to influence the individuals in that group.
it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
Who then get removed from society
It’s a dice roll on a group of people, which isn’t enough to influence the individuals in that group
Depends how many dice you roll. That’s my point. If you roll enough dice, it can start affecting decisions.
This is ludicrous. A person faced with unpopular decisions that might send assassins after him is going to make himself harder to assassinate, not less hated.
Whilst I can’t disagree with what you say, and I’m glad you’ve pointed it out, I’d include one caveat. “If” capitalism is heading towards an even more extreme iteration of itself then, perhaps, the (currently false) dichotomy you mention may come to exist. I kinda hope we don’t end up in such a binary struggle but… humans. Shrugs broadly.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Always two, there are.
Well, in the total picture the best option of all would be Justice System which is Just and hence stop people causing massive numbers of deaths for profit, which is not what we have (especially in the US) and is even getting worse.
Ultimately all Just venues (I was going to say “non-violent”, but “lawful” violence is still “violence”, so even in a Just system, Force would still be used on the ones profiting from mass deaths) seem to have been closed in the last couple of decades.
The more options get closed, the more people will only see as options to either meekly accept the death of a loved one (or oneself) due to the actions of the people leading Health Insurance companies or vigilante vengeance, since the State has over the years removed itself from enacting Justice against the wealthiest in society, which would’ve been the best option of all (not least because it prevents the deaths of both the victims of guys like this CEO and of guys like the CEO)
Indeed, dichotomies presented in arguments are more often than not false, but sometimes they’re true.
No I think most of us recognize there are a lot of other tracks out there. It’s just we’ve tried most of the other tracks (protests, voting, thoughts and prayers, etc) and most of them haven’t made anything better. So… there are only a couple of tracks not tried yet. But already this one sure has made way more waves than 99% of protests ever have.
If a significant portion the US population went on general strike, things would change quickly.
The other option, which is slower, is to build up alternative systems in a network of mutual aid, like cooperatively owned insurance, businesses, housing, energy systems, etc. Essentially slowly replace the state with hundreds of interconnected coops.
If a significant portion the US population went on general strike, things would change quickly.
This requires people willing and able to do so. Considering most Americans live paycheck to paycheck I don’t see this as real and viable currently.
The other option, which is slower, is to build up alternative systems in a network of mutual aid, like cooperatively owned insurance, businesses, housing, energy systems, etc. Essentially slowly replace the state with hundreds of interconnected coops.
This issue i see with this approach is that some people will always try to be the opposite and we end up in a stalemate. Also, people can be ignorant and not even understand that there is something that needs to be done. There’s so much misinformation in the world today.
This requires people willing and able to do so. Considering most Americans live paycheck to paycheck I don’t see this as real and viable currently.
I can’t dispute that. More of the US workforce would need to unionize for it to be possible.
This issue i see with this approach is that some people will always try to be the opposite and we end up in a stalemate. Also, people can be ignorant and not even understand that there is something that needs to be done. There’s so much misinformation in the world today.
I think if it reached a certain point of popularity, it would become so self evident of its benefits for the working class that it would snowball. But it would take a lot of education and time.
If we look at how Spain was able to have a libertarian socialist revolution, it apparently took 75 years of steady education (some through independent ferrer schools) and organizing before the populace as a whole was educated enough on the concepts and practiced enough through militant unionization to finally attempt a mass resistance movement.
I suspect the U.S. higher literacy rate combined with the internet may reduce the time needed.
Union activity has existed for decades and this utter failure of the social contract has been going on just as long. The unions only fought for themselves (understandably) while non union workers were manipulated by media to be against unionization. That’s unlikely to change in any meaningful way anytime soon. We’re too divided, too manipulated, and most importantly it takes too long when people have already been suffering for decades. I see this going the route of stochastic terrorism. This guy fired the first shot of a lopsided future (current?) war.
I agree with you but we’re too divided to go on a general strike. Stochastic terrorism against the rich? Now we’re talking.
There’s a lot of other tracks out there that haven’t been taken, such as our government regulating health insurance in the form of single payer so this doesn’t happen, or our government using its justice system to go after it’s worse actors, but no, shareholder value comes first (even when shareholder value requires murder).
So this is the track we’re on and I fully fucking support it and hope he’s just the first of many to meet this well deserved fate.
Fuck around find out. We’re the most armed population on the planet and you think they’re gonna continue to get away with this shit? The public is united across the political spectrum in their support for this guy getting shot. I hope his ilk never sleeps another peaceful night again. I’m just surprised it took this long. I hope there are copycats.
These people killed my father. I am living for this right now. If I had less to lose and more skills to do it I’d be copycatting it myself and taking one for the team. These people need to die. They’re overdue to meet their makers and account for the mass deaths they’ve caused and profited from!!! via capitalism.
FBI: I’ve got an alibi, I was at work.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing that it’s a false dichotomy, but do you have viable alternatives?
I don’t presume to have the answers, but there are plenty of alternatives if we’re comparing them to murder in the street.
I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies. It happens all the time, and the more people that know about it, the better. (They rely on people being unfamiliar with how they operate)
Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It’s a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we’ve come close at least twice in recent history.
I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies
That’s a bandaid solution at best.
Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It’s a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we’ve come close at least twice in recent history.
This country couldn’t even turn down the guy paraphrasing Hitler, whose promised to finish gutting the ACA. The chances of us seeing universal healthcare through “the right way” isn’t good.
The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people and hoping for the best, not to solve healthcare reform in a Lemmy comment section.
The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people
And that point is undermind by those ways not being viable.
You’re entitled to that belief, but I’ve seen the first one work in my field firsthand, as I said. We’ve also seen universal work in multiple countries, and I’m optimistic we’ll see ultimately see it in the US too.
No one is questioning whether it’ll work. We know it works. We’re questioning America’s ability to actually pass it into law. Which doesn’t look good (especially as many other countries are slowly eroding their own universal healthcare options as the capitalist class manages to nibble away at it). And in that sense, we’ve been moving backwards
I see what you’re getting at, but this isn’t the trolley problem. The trolley problem is predicated on the idea that killing one will save many, but it’s assumed that everyone involved is innocent. It’s a philosophical question about moral choice; is inaction that allows many to die more moral than an action that directly kills one? If the one person being killed is somehow culpable for the deaths of the other people, that changes the entire equation.
Also, that’s not even what happened here. One person was killed, but just as many people are going to die today because United Healthcare. No one was saved. Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets, that would change something, but one dead CEO isn’t going to do anything.
(And, to any moderators or FBI agents reading this, I’m of course not advocating for that. Can you even imagine? The ruling class that has been crushing the American working class for decades suddenly getting put down like rabid dogs? With the very weapons that the gun manufacturers allowed to flood our streets in order to maximize their profits? Makes me sick just to
fantasizethink about it.)Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets,
How do you think it starts?
but it’s assumed that everyone involved is innocent.
The Wikipedia article for Trolley Problem states that there is a version called “The Fat Villain” so I think that fits here and is still a version of the trolley problem.
but one dead CEO isn’t going to do anything.
You are right about that. But if CEO deaths started matching school shooting numbers things would likely change.
Fair enough, but that’s a variation of a variation, and pretty obscure (I’d heard of the Fat Man variation, but not the Fat Villain).
But if CEO deaths started matching school shooting numbers things would likely change.
I mean, that’s basically what I’m saying, but that’s not really the Trolley Problem. That’s basically the French Revolution. (And, again, should any law enforcement agents happen to read this, I’m definitely not trying to incite violence against the billionaire class, no matter how badly they deserve it or how much better the world would be for it).
Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets, that would change something, but one dead CEO isn’t going to do anything.
Let’s fucking goooo
Oh so this will save thousands of lives then? And here I thought they just hire a new CEO while making their services worse to fund the bonuses for the new one. Silly me.
If it was a random death you might have a point. I would still say it makes sense that people would celebrate the death of a villain, but that’s beside the point.
This was an assassination, a message on its own even if there weren’t literal words carved into the casings. This may well give a person about to make an inhumane decision on behalf of a company’s bottom line pause. It’s a reminder that those decisions have real consequences, even if not always legal ones.
They’ll pause to call up more private security to keep themselves safe while they raise your premiums even more.
A Christmas Carol was just a story, not reality. You’re not going to scare CEOs into doing the right thing, especially not with threat of death.
Maybe. You seem to be very certain about how each of these individuals thinks, which is not a level of confidence I often reach with my own opinions.
Well I guess we should just start killing people we don’t like just in case it makes the world a better place then, right?
Cause that seems to be the theme of your lack of confidence positions.
Not at all. I said that now this has happened, the humans actually in charge of the decisions which inspired it might adjust their cost/benefit calculations. I didn’t say it was right, I said it’s understandable why people would celebrate it and I said there’s a chance it will have an actual impact.
I’ll leave you and your straw man to discuss further; you’ve got more of an argument with him than you do with me.
They will adjust their cost/benefit analysis - of their personal security.
Ah, so lack of solid opinion is your defense of your support of random killings. You don’t actually support it because you don’t support anything… but you don’t mind if someone else supports in just in case it might help you in the long run.
You’re a professional bystander, someone who hopes someone else does all the hard work in making your life easier.
More private security means more people in their vicinity with guns. Hope none of those people has a loved one murdered by these assholes. Statistically that seems unlikely, and finding good security will get harder if demand spikes that much.
Would their security have good insurance? Cause otherwise that’s another potential gunner.
The rich are far more of a coward than your giving them credit to be. They are only so evil because of the lack of consequences, not in spite of.
yes, which is why threats that are backed up with actions are far more persuasive.
Lmao, you honestly think any executive heard any message other than ‘i need to spend more on corporate security and body guards’?
Yes, I do. Sure they’ll do that, but I think they’ll have a tiny bit of second guessing. Would certainly be more impactful if this was a trend rather than one off.
I hear we produce a lot of bullets compared to the number of MBA’s out there
Yeah, and they’re mostly bought by bootlickers.
Not immediately, but hopefully the next CEO will learn a lesson from this and have more consideration on how the company affects people’s lives. I feel like CEOs of large corporations have lost the fear of the masses because they think they’re powerful. But they’re not, they just have a lot of money, a bullet can still kill them.
First time seeing a CEO get replaced for whatever reason?don’t worry, we’ve all been there.
Blue cross just backflipped on time limits for anaesthesia, so
And now security services
This hit is probably more about a “pound of flesh” than saving (future) lives. (Source: pulling theories out of the air)
Do you have a solution to help the situation, or do you just like to complain?
If I don’t have a solution, I have to agree with murdering people?
That’s like if, in order to drive down the price of diapers I just started killing babies, then when you said that was evil and ineffective I just responded with, “oh yeah, well do you have a better idea, or are you just here to crap all over mine?”
All that said, yes, I do have plenty of common sense suggestions for reforms to the healthcare system that don’t involve me murdering someone in cold blood, as it turns out.
I wasn’t saying that, I was just asking what your solution was. I’ve seen a lot of people complaining about healthcare and going the doomer route that nothing can be changed, everything will always be awful, just shut up, accept it and die.
So, what’s your suggestions?
The issue is you’re telling people not to complain in response to someone saying “randomly murdering United Healthcare workers is ineffective and evil.” It’s an implicit approval of the murder, even while acknowledging that it won’t change anything. It’s a pretty rough look, even if that’s not what you intended.
But, for suggestions that might work, get involved. Campaign for stricter regulations on the insurance industry. Call your congressional representatives. Run for office and work your way up the system, or become friends with someone who is and help them on their campaign. There’s any number of ways to make a difference that are better than shooting a man in the middle of the street.
One quibble, this guy wasn’t a worker, he was the boss. The decision maker.
Have you done any of the items in your second paragraph? If so can you share how it’s gone and what you judge the impact has been?
Sure, but he’ll be replaced by another boss. Then another. How many should be assassinated?
I have. I’ve worked on a campaign for my local congressperson (at the time) whos platform I believed in. I met them through the campaign and got to know them personally. They won and are still serving in Congress today, and have done a good job over the years in my opinion (though I’ve since moved states and lost contact).
It was shockingly easy to get involved. Literally just approached them when they were starting up their campaign and asked to help. I knocked on doors and helped at campaign events, and I like to think that my contributions (and those of people like me) helped to get them elected.
And, as I say, they were someone that I had the personal cell number of and could contact when I had concerns.
There’s any number of ways to make a difference that are better than shooting a man in the middle of the street.
Are they really? How many people have been doing those things for decades with very little to show for it? How much campaigning can a parent paying for cancer treatment for their kid be reasonably expected to do? How many generic responses from representatives not listening to the concerns of their constituents should we trudge through?
Whether or not this shooter was motivated by the reasons we’re all assuming is pretty irrelevant at this point. The simple fact that we’re having this discussion at this scale demonstrates that people do not believe that the things you mentioned will improve things, and I think that’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the situation we find ourselves in. Maybe vigilante action is not the answer but I think it’s pretty clear that the usual responses you’re giving are not resonating with people. Decision makers need to change that perception if they want to prevent people from looking outside the system for answers.
First, I think you’re completely underplaying all the huge gains people have made over the years by doing exactly what I’m talking about. Especially at the state and local level.
But yeah, if you think I’m defending the system as perfect and unflawed, of course not. Of course most people don’t want to have to dedicate their life to fixing the system. Of course they have other priorities. Kids, illness, etc.
And of course killing a man in cold blood is easier than spending years or decades fighting for the change you want to see.
But I’ve seen change accomplished by people who believe in the law and civic order. I’ve seen people make the system work. It is possible.
It’s not easy. It requires someone to basically make it their life, and that’s certainly not for everybody. But it can be done. And if you’re at the point where you’re throwing your life away by shooting a man in the middle of a NYC street, there are better ways to use your life than that.
Improving health coverage is theoretically possible, and later on they may get better, but the only things that will improve are a few blue states and even then it’s just small changes.
So dreams of large non violent change are as futile as the murderous rage. Best one can do is make more money or move to a better area or immigrate.
This is America, so unfortunately gun crime is just something there’s no fix for. 🤷
The problem with the trolley problem is that this event isn’t a trolley problem. Killing one CEO doesn’t save lives, hell just be replaced and more guarded now.
We need proper reform and regulation.
It really is a real life trolley problem
- this will save precisely zero lives
- you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
- insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
Number 3 is the best argument for national insurance. (Saying public might imply it’s tradable, this isn’t what I’ve meant)
The health insurance industry is an abomination. It’s completely across the purpose of keeping a population healthy to try to extract and concentrate wealth out of the process, and they’re dug in like a tick.
Health care is not compatible with the free market as health care is logically something people would pay anything for.
National insurance denies claims all the time as well in some form.
Not to the extent of UHC
Do you have detailed numbers or just a feeling?
UHC covers far more people than most national systems despite not being national (I’m sure china is bigger, but most countries have much smaller populations). National systems often have ways of saying “that isn’t covered” that mean the claim isn’t even attempted. there are many different national systems with different rules. There are lots of other complications here that need to be studied in depth.
I think you’re getting this kind of backwards. Individual claims aren’t denied under universal healthcare. It’s not opaque like a private insurer. Specific procedures are the thing not covered, and that becomes part of a national legislative/policy discussion.
What is the difference if you need a treatment you cannot get
The fact that the system is transparent, that every one is denied in a way that is public knowledge, makes the system much easier to change. It’s not directly comparable to the opaque way that US insurance companies deny claims, and the way you said “often have ways” implies the same level of subterfuge.
I feel like you also missed the other commenter’s point entirely. No one makes comparisons on raw numbers, that would be silly. But the rate at which UHC denies claims is likely greater.
Somebody posted a graph of the stats in another thread, and there was a great follow-up by somebody who had worked in claims at another company about just how bad those stats really were.
The national average for denied claims is 16%. UHC denies 39% of claims. The real kicker here, as they pointed out, is that this is after appeals. They worked at some branch of Blue Cross, which sits at 17% of claims, and said how most claims that are appealed are approved and that the vast majority of those that are denied are things like chiropractors putting in claims for procedures that end up being malpractice or stuff where the paperwork was wrong. Basically, if you get something denied by insurance, you’re almost guaranteed to get it approved after an appeal. They said that for UHC to hit the numbers that they do, they would effectively have to deny almost every claim that they get that isn’t a routine medical visit like an annual physical.
Wish more people talked about reform than violence tbh. Thinking about leaving lemmy since associating myself with some people here makes me sick
this will save precisely zero lives
Not if it starts a movement
It is not just this one life
See above
an insurance company that never denies any claims
Ideally that’s called free universal healthcare, which we should have
you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
Yes, it’s a shame the system failed to deliver justice. The solution isn’t that justice shouldn’t be served, it’s that the system needs to be fixed so people like this
are killed lawfully and by the stateare not in a position where they profit off of human misery.If he was no longer a threat, I’d endorse rehabilitation, the last emperor of China, who collaborated with the Japanese in WWII ended up living out his years working menial jobs and making real connections with people.
His wife said on the news that he loved life…
Just his own
allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public
Are you proposing to not allow people to voice support for the murder?
You can’t be serious 😂
insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
Insurance companies in other countries survive just fine by paying out what they are expected to. Only in America is insurance as screwed up as it is.
People in the comments seem to be arguing if this will or will not save lives. I don’t really care if it does. I think it’s ironic that there’s a crowd of people arguing that human life is precious and we can’t celebrate this guy’s death when the guy in question is the antithesis of that philosophy; he dedicated his life to profiting off of the suffering of others. I’m glad to see him go. There are many more I wish would follow.
It’s more like “We found the guy pulling the lever on the trolley problem, only his trolley problem is ‘people die or I get less money’, and he has the trolley run over the people every time”
Unfortunately, there’s a long line of twats behind him drooling over their chance to make the trolley run over human beings in exchange for money, so killing him doesn’t really have the ‘trolley running over people averted’ effect that the trolley problem is usually based around. You’re just punishing a shithead killer by killing him. Which, while hilarious, lacks the moral quandary that the trolley problem is meant to highlight, since no one is actually saved.
It’s one of those things where the institutions of society can and must genuinely pursue the killer (albeit not at the level they actually are, expending a disproportionate amount of resources compared to if one of us commoners was killed), but if I saw the person who killed the CEO, I didn’t.
It’s not a real life trolley problem, because there is no mechanism by which killing this CEO saves lives.
There is. There’s reason to think the CEO was targeted specifically because of his shitty policies. If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
(This is not a call for violence, and I am not advocating for it, this is answering a direct question about how and why the mechanic might exist)
If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
No. They’ll hire private security and reduce their public exposure. Ironically, this will end up costing the company more and potentially increasing prices as a result.
The last thing they’ll do is suddenly become introspective and sympathetic.
“this may increase costs for the consumer” argument is flawed. It always implies they would have left profit on the table otherwise, rather than squeeze the system and everyone within it for as much as it’ll give and then some.
Nobody’s expecting them to become more introspective and sympathetic. Unlike fines and regulations, which can be passed off as the cost of doing business, threats to their life carries the risk of succeeding no matter what measures are taken. And the cost of such is not something that can be compensated for with money. Hence at some point simple profit / loss analysis will require them to consider not pissing off the public too badly
I promise you, I would risk getting shot every day for a 10 million dollar salary. Many jobs are dangerous for very little pay, give me the cushiest job and maybe somebody murders me?
Not the point. If you’re already getting 10M with no risk, would you want to raise it to 12M and live in fear for your life?
In general, the employer that purchased the insurance plan decided what they wanted the plan to cover. That’s why you can have great insurance plans when you’re in a union, for example. While for a bottom line, an insurance company wouldn’t want to pay claims, the people actually doing it each day are just following whatever plan guidelines they’re given. This death will do absolutely nothing.
That’s how it works in theory. In reality, insurance companies in the US deny a lot more claims than they should. Somebody posted some stats showing UHC denies about twice as many claims as the other insurance companies, making them the worst of the bunch.
This death will do absolutely nothing.
I’ve already pointed out how it might do something.
This death will do absolutely nothing.
Have you seen other socials?
Have you seen how limp dick fake news is?
I never seen America this united so clearly it did something and some parasite life is a small price to pay for such solidarity haha
If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
…Or they could go the way of prison gang status, where the system selects its leaders based on their willingness to not only do violence to others but also sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for power. That seems way more likely to me than CEOs suddenly growing a fear based conscience and throwing profits/shareholders under the bus and somehow still being allowed to remain in their positions.
And all that is assuming that would-be assassins are in general coherent and reactive to the relative badness of corporate leaders and credibly applying danger relative to harm caused, which doesn’t seem likely either; rationality and being a killer tend to not usually go together, even if this incident seems like an outlier just from its most obvious narrative.
where the system selects its leaders based on their willingness to not only do violence to others but also sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for power
The system already chooses leaders based on their willingness to do violence to others, so I don’t see any downside if they decide to start sacrificing their safety and wellbeing.
And all that is assuming that would-be assassins are in general coherent and reactive to the relative badness of corporate leaders and credibly applying danger relative to harm caused
That’s not strictly necessary, as long as there’s a general trend of risk increasing along with harm done.
so I don’t see any downside if they decide to start sacrificing their safety and wellbeing.
It’s not that it’s necessarily a downside (though it probably is because people like that are potentially even worse to be ruled by), but you said there’s a mechanism for coercion by assassination to work here. This is why there won’t be; you will just get harder corpos.
That’s not strictly necessary, as long as there’s a general trend of risk increasing along with harm done.
It’s necessary because what if the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all, because of all the people fucked over by it? If regardless of their actual efforts to improve the humanitarian situation, executives are judged shallowly, there is no incentive to do anything except to quit and be replaced by someone who has more of a gangsterish disposition.
This is why there won’t be; you will just get harder corpos.
You’re postulating one possible (and in my mind, unlikely) outcome. I’m pointing out that the usual and straightforward result of threatening punishment is that people stop doing the activity (or at least rethink it).
It’s necessary because what if the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all, because of all the people fucked over by it? If regardless of their actual efforts to improve the humanitarian situation
It’s 2024. Stats and numbers are publicly available and easily searchable on the internet. UHC had double the industry average rejection rate. And the CEO had been in charge for long enough that if he had wanted to make changes, he could have. There’s no ‘hypothetical’ scenario here.
It’s weird how only in the US is it necessary for insurance companies to fuck their customers over to survive. I wonder why insurance companies in the rest of the world can survive without fucking their customers over? I suppose it’s a puzzle we’ll never solve.
I’m pointing out that the usual and straightforward result of threatening punishment is that people stop doing the activity (or at least rethink it).
The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality, and this is backed by both research into individual behavior and collective behavior.
I wonder why insurance companies in the rest of the world can survive without fucking their customers over?
Probably because the insurance companies they compete with are bound by the same (specific, predictable, law-based) rules prohibiting that behavior. Probably not because they are afraid of angry customers with guns.
The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality
The idea that punishment works is the concept behind our entire justice system, and most of society.
Probably because the insurance companies they compete with are bound by the same (specific, predictable, law-based) rules prohibiting that behavior. Probably not because they are afraid of angry customers with guns.
You seem to have missed the point. You claimed that ‘the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all’. I’m pointing out that the industry does not inherently have any risk factor, and it’s entirely possible to be in the industry without murdering tens of thousands of people. The rest of the world manages to do it. The risk factor would be deciding to screw your customers over.
It’s just not a good solution to the agency problem. Coercing someone with a gun to get you $300 from the ATM requires constant presence and the gun sticking into their back continuously. Trying to use the threat of possible assassination to get someone to act in a CEO role in a way beneficial to their millions of customers, that’s just not stable.
Using threat of punishment to motivate behavior is extremely unstable even in the tightest, simplest circumstances. Like you gotta be on the ball to get that person to punch in their ATM code and hand you the bills. Even that straightforward action is barely stable in terms of the incentive structure.
You simply can’t coerce a class of people with targeted assassinations. It’s too loose, too abstract, to unstable as a mechanism of control.
All of how our society operates is under threat of punishment when you have no access to food housing or healthcare by not making an income. If you we have threat of punishment for the working class we can also have threat of punishment for the owners. It’s the only way to fairly enforce the social contract under our current economic system. Obviously it’s bad to operate this way and what we are seeing is a direct result of a class of people not being held accountable for their end of the social contract.
You’re right, the thing that would work is if governments held them accountable, but governments have sided with the CEOs instead. These CEOs should beg the government to hold them accountable so that they don’t have to fear the masses.
Trying to use the threat of possible assassination to get someone to act in a CEO role in a way beneficial to their millions of customers, that’s just not stable.
Nothing about our current situation is stable. So yeah, of course the violent symptoms of the starving and ill masses won’t be stable either.
Using threat of punishment to motivate behavior is extremely unstable even in the tightest, simplest circumstances
Isn’t that our entire justice system?
You simply can’t coerce a class of people with targeted assassinations. It’s too loose, too abstract, to unstable as a mechanism of control.
On what basis? Nobody’s ever tried it, so it’s not like you have data to point to that says otherwise.
CEOs have faced zero consequences for their actions, the people they’ve harmed have exhausted all reasonable peaceful options. This incident alone will probably not change anything for the better but if those in power have no fear of the masses idk what else they expect to happen.
It’s worse than that- they’ve been rewarded for their actions
Which made them feel 100% vindicated.
I mean, if this was some dictator of a poor country slowly squeezing his citizens for money so they were hungry, some dying of starvation, and had shitty infrastructure so he can jaunt off to holidays in his private jet and live in a mansion with private guards, nobody would be saying this guy deserved to live. But a CEO squeezing sick people and their families for money, actively shortening lifespans and QoL… he’s fine, let him off the hook?
[off topic]
Back in the day, I heard a lecture on the tactics of terrorist groups.
The IRA was particularly effective in assassinations. People thought they had an vast army of trained killers on hand.
Actually, the number of shooters was small, maybe fifty in all.
What made them so dangerous was that they had a powerful ‘rear echelon.’
When the shooter arrived in town, he’d have three or four drivers waiting for him, a choice of safe houses, and more than one doctor to go to if he were to be injured.
What ultimately made the IRA win and get the Good Friday agreement was they targeted (ironically) high insurance properties. Take away human lives? Meaningless. Take away the money? You get a response.
IDK, the “we only need to be lucky once” is a hell of a message.
It doesn’t force UK regime to act until mega corpos got hurt and force the regime to act tho
I still agree that message sent here is valuable but hurting their profit is where the W is at
Almost as if you need a military wing and a smart political wing.
The patterns of behavior between shareholders, boards of directors, and executives is what’s killing people. The same role can be re-cast with different actors.
It’s not that CEOs need to die, it’s that that larger pattern of behavior that gets rich by killing people needs to end. Maybe this spooks other people who are part of that larger pattern into stopping, maybe it makes them do it more, stealthier, and with bodyguards. It’s hard to say.
At the very least, we should all jump at every chance to help things without hurting anybody, wherever we do find it. “Necessary violence” comes with a big ol heap of plausible deniability, and it’s a pretty big ask for somebody to handle it responsibly.
The justification will be alluring even in circumstances where it is not legitimate.
