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 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.
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.
Imagine thinking there’s a “right” answer to the Trolley Problem.
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 more 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.
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.
It really is a real life trolley problem
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?
No
Killing the evil fuck doesn’t save any lives. The board (?) still had the meeting he was on his way to and they are still going to continue to deny basic human rights to the people who pay them for it.
The reality is that this is just yet another sign of immaturity and arrested development. I forget where I first heard it but… folk been watching WAY too much Steven Universe and similar warm and cozy shit. They think that by always taking the high road they are better people and the world will be a better place because if you do the right thing everyone else will.
When the reality is that people like the dead fuck prey on naivety like that.
If we ever find out who did it we are sure to find out they are also a pretty monstrous person. But, as satisfying as this has been, it changes nothing.
The reality is that this is just yet another sign of immaturity and arrested development. I forget where I first heard it but… folk been watching WAY too much Steven Universe and similar warm and cozy shit. They think that by always taking the high road they are better people and the world will be a better place because if you do the right thing everyone else will.
I’m confused, didn’t you just agree that killing him has no effect? If so, why are you seemingly condemning the people who are condemning the people who are celebrating the killing?
I can assure you that I have no illusions about the brutality of human existence, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t oppose senseless violence when I see it.
Its the idea that “Oh, they are a human being with loved ones just like you”. When the reality is that he was a leech upon humanity who caused internally measured suffering and death. And his family benefited from that.
But, because the power of friendship and candy cane sandwiches, he is still a human being and we need to feel bad. It doesn’t matter how many people they murder for a buck, they are still a person and you are the bad person for not feeling bad for their death.
Its the idea that “Oh, they are a human being with loved ones just like you”. When the reality is that he was a leech upon humanity who caused internally measured suffering and death. And his family benefited from that.
He literally was a human being with loved ones just like you and me. The fact that the vast majority of people seem incapable of perceiving that reality is absolutely horrifying.
A leech is a leech. A human being is a human being. If you refuse to recognize the difference, you’re just as evil as anyone else. You don’t know anything about him or his life, which is why it’s so easy for you to dehumanize him. I wonder if you would feel the same if you had been there on the sidewalk and watched him gasping for air as he bled out. I wonder if you would feel the same if you had attended his funeral. I would hope not, but I’m honestly not sure anymore, my faith in basic human empathy and decency is somewhat shaken of late.
I’m not even saying that you need to feel bad. I’m just saying that people shouldn’t be supporting senseless gun violence and extrajudicial murder, no matter who the victim is. It’s like supporting genocide, or chemical weapons. This kind of shit isn’t good for anyone, and if you don’t understand that you’re a fucking idiot.
He literally was a human being with loved ones just like you and me.
I don’t make millions off of denying life saving healthcare to millions of people, which I think is more important than having loved ones. The worst atrocities are committed by people with loved ones.
They are still horrible people and the world is better off when they die.
Actually its closer to capital punishment. of course it isn’t good for anyone. but you know what else is even worse for everyone? the policies this man personally implemented unnecessarily causing death, pain, and hardship to millions. which hilariously is more similar to your examples of genocide/chemical weapons.
he is the type of person you remove (with prejudice) from your environment asap.
Got it. Being amused at the death of someone who has immensely profited off the death and suffering of others is genocide.
Thanks for the demonstration of what I was talking about, I guess?
You’ve immensely profited off the death and suffering of others. Every single amenity of modern life that you possess came at a cost. Whatever nation-state you reside in waged countless wars to secure the resources you now enjoy. Everything that you eat and drink is provided to you courtesy of a chain of exploitative corporations that are doing catastrophic damage to the planet and human lives. Everything that you have ever done, including breathing, has exacerbated climate change. Every time you have paid your bills and taxes, you have continued to support this exploitative system. You are actively ruining this planet for untold future generations simply by continuing to selfishly remain alive and being too cowardly to rebel in any meaningful fashion against a system which you clearly understand to be violent and destructive. Shame on you.
Luckily, I don’t advocate for murder under any circumstances, because I am not a monster.
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 pleasant 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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Derail the train
I believe that is in process.
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, leaving only kill or be killed and - guess what? - guys like this one are causing so many deaths and destroying so many lives that some of those are going to chose kill as an option.
Indeed, dichotomies presented in arguments are more often than not false, but sometimes they’re true.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you but we’re too divided to go on a general strike. Stochastic terrorism against the rich? Now we’re talking.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
Almost as if you need a military wing and a smart political wing.
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
What do you call an American health care CEO dead on the street in Manhattan?
What do you call an American health care CEO dead on the street in Manhattan?
Your comment is about a past event.
My post is using that past event to comment about how if insurance industry reform doesn’t happen the people who believe “all lives matter” in every possible scenario are not going to see more lives saved. In effect, if there was a trolley problem before them they would opt out from doing anything at all.
Preventitive services?
A tragedy.
Have some simpathy for the poor bystanders that had to witness the horrible sight of an American Health insurance CEO…
Yeah, him being dead only makes it slightly better
A good start?
Holy fuck. Not saying I agree (also not saying I don’t) but I laught at that answer.
That’s one of those jokes that also works for any kind of hate speech. In fact, that’s where it came from.
Laughing at this shows how easily you’re mobilized for any kind of terrorism.
This won’t make you think.
🖕
That cute reply is par for the course, too. Enjoy some more murders 😘
It did in fact make me think and I thank you for that. You won’t like the outcome of that thinking, though.
First of all, I’m far far away from being “mobilized”. I do agree that you could call what the killer did “terrorism” though, as he seeks to influence behavior by mortal fear (terror). Wheter the end justifies the means (as some would argue for example for "eco-terrorism) I don’t know. But I see how some people may feel like all other, more civil, avenues to change their life and the system for the better have been blocked off. But again, I’m far from being “mobilized” as in encouraging such behavior or even picking up a gun myself.
Now why did I laugh at the response? Simple: It’s morbid and unexpected, which are two aspects that I often find humorous.
Do I feel bad about laughing? No. The reason and the main difference to the “hate speech” you refer to are twofold: First, this joke is punching up, not punching down, as hate speech usually is. Second, hate speech is usually about what people are (black, asian, transgender, gay). This guy in contrast was loathed for what he did. That’s a major difference, since you can’t change what you are but what you do is in your hands.
I would love to hear a response from you but the condescension and smugness in your tone of writing makes me think that this won’t make you think.
You can call him anything. It’s not like he’s gonna come anyway.
I see what you’re getting at, but this isn’t the trolly problem. The trolly 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, that would change something, but one dead CEO isn’t going to do anything.
Let’s fucking goooo
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.
1/20th of school shooting numbers and we will get it
Gun laws would 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,
How do you think it starts?
…well, again, I definitely think that would be a bad thing. Truly terrible. Definitely wouldn’t be happy to see the billionaire class living in fear of the people they’re exploiting. Oh no. Stop. Police. Murder.
It starts with one …
Methinks you missed the point.
That’s only if this becomes a trend and many rich people die.
Even then, it’s not a guarantee that the rich won’t manipulate the masses with scapegoating.
Just like with a lot of thought experiments, you have to assume people will react rationally, so far they have which is kind of rare.
It wont save any lives. The next ceo will be a scumbag as well. the scum floats to the top of any organization.
I love this “greater good” end-run-around the law that we follow as members of society; like premeditated murder of a soulless CEO is somehow okay.
How is ambushing ever not weak and cowardly? Swords at dawn if you’re going to make it personal.
This is not how we solve this. Killers are tried and punished in accordance with laws we all agree on, here.
Bootlicker spotted.
Also, tell their to people who got denied health insurance coverage, coward
What you’re missing, I think, is that ambushing isn’t weak or cowardly. It’s just setting up the most favorable conditions for the “fight” as possible.
If you’re engaging in an unbalanced war, and anyone targeting a rich target would be since the ability to hire security means you’ll be going against superior numbers from the beginning, you use the tactics available to you.
You may or may not agree that it’s a war. You might not agree that the shooter is justified. But the shooter most likely is at war in their mind, or (assuming it is part of things) someone that hired them does.
We aren’t allowed to duel, and someone challenged to one has no obligation to agree to it. You can’t usually even make the challenge without running into legal barriers. You send a letter to someone saying “hey, let’s have a sword fight”, expect a knock on your door. It simply isn’t an option. You can’t even arrange trial by champions, where you would face off against a chosen opponent and the other person would be bound by the outcome.
Again, regardless of whether or not you agree or like it, class warfare can be literal, at least in the minds of the people willing to wage such a war. Further, when one person uses their weapons to cause death and misery to non combatants, you can’t be surprised when those non combatants find weapons of their own and fight back any way they can.
That’s the thing you’re missing. From the state of mind of the populace, the CEO I question has a track record of causing death and misery by using the weapons of wealth and power. This means that the question isn’t one of peace time, it’s a question, for that frame of mind, of using the best tactics to achieve a goal.
Like it or not, the shooter achieved the goal of disrupting the machinery of that company, at least temporarily. They achieved the goal of making it known that wealth is not bulletproof, which is a very strong idea when the populace feels disempowered. That isn’t cowardice, that’s just good tactics. It may or may not end up being good strategy, but only time can show that.
If people are in a state of war, and I promise you that a shit ton of people do view the current assault on humanity by financial means as war, then ambush is a perfect tool for asymmetric warfare. It’s a tool to magnify your forces.
