A doctor explains how he feels about the killing of a CEO. I agree with him — you can simultaneously believe that killing is bad and that a corporation and its executives are bad. You can have two bad things at once!
All these right-wingers fainting at the thought of the Left not joining them on the fainting couch fail to recognize that the last thing we want is swarms of armed vigilantes shooting anyone they don’t like — we’re not modern Robespierrists. What we’d prefer is a responsible government that checked the excesses of corporate capitalism without bloodshed…it’s just that it doesn’t look like that’s what we’ll ever get.
Two wrongs don’t make a right? Maybe we should try three…
PZ , Thank you !
Government controlling corporate capitalism excess won’t happen while the money from corporate capitalism controls the government. From both Houses of Congress to the Presidency and the Supreme Court. Until the voters smarten up and begin to vote for their own good, expect life to get more expensive with less and less rights and privileges (except for guns). I don’t foresee this happening because of the bumper sticker mentality deeply imbedded in the American populace. The Republicans have mastered this, using it on the country through their messaging. Pried from my cold dead hands, welfare queens, and MAGA to name a few.
Nope. The CEO is a murderer. If you believe in capital punishment then he deserved what he got. If you don’t believe in it in all cases then he shouldn’t have been assassinated.
The only reason we are talking about these things right now is because of the killing. All of the other approaches have done nothing and in fact things have gotten worse. So this is not a bad thing and violence is sometimes the only answer, unfortunately.
Maybe we do not need Robespierre, but Danton and Marat are beginning to look good.
…also, the guillotine is unhygienic. I am thinking of modifying the zombie virus so it only affects people who eat caviar.
The only reason the killing is not recommended is that it is impractical because a new asshole CEO will simply replace the old one. For as long as the “for profit” insurance infrastructure is running with very little checks the problem will persist and no amount of CEO whacking will fix it.
Well actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LZP6BVeLX0
Two wrongs does make a right.
If we have to sacrifice a healthcare insurance CEO every once in a while to improve healthcare or rollback harmful policies, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Bad translation by me:
Human bees,
did nature only give you honey?
Look at the drones around you!
Where is your sting?
But…I don’t believe in capital punishment.
SQB: you raise the interesting question why the Gods always seem to want sacrifices of virgins and rams, rather than of sinners.
Remember that two wrongs don’t make a right,
but that three do.
–Deteriorata.
National Lampoon
The thing about not believing in capital punishment is that there’s a very different dynamic involved between a state (which has access to an enormous amount of non-fatal ways to handle dangerous people) and non-state actors (which don’t). It’s not a contradiction to both think that states, with their near monopoly of violence and ready access to things like imprisonment, shouldn’t be in the business of killing civilians and to think that when the state is failing to handle a certain class of mass killer because they’ve decided that their killing is legal and not murder it’s fine for individuals to use lethal force as the one tool they have.
Maybe health insurance companies should not make decisions that inspire such a large number of people to have such a unpalatable(to them) reaction to the assassination of an insurance company CEO. Maybe we do not need to kill them but maybe we just need them to understand that they have no sympathy from the people if they do get killed for what they have done.
“Watering the tree of liberty yadda yadda yadda…” Where have I heard that before?
jheartney: reportedly, from right-wingers whose grass-roots are even happier to celebrate this murder than the left wing is.
What we need is capital punishment for corporations – legally dissolve the evil ones and then arrest those in charge.
Of course, most are evil – corporations exist so people can do evil without consequence – but it shouldn’t be hard to pick out the worst malefactors in a few key industries.
Urge everyone to watch The Corporation, a 2003 documentary. I had no idea capitalists hijacked the 14th amendment, intended to enshrine personhood to formerly enslaved people, to give their evil organizations personhood. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-corporation/
@ #13 Akira MacKenzie
–Deteriorata.
National Lampoon
I remeber riding around in Dodge Colt in 1973 – 74 listening to the National Lampoon’s 8-track tape with that on it.
The morality of killing people aside (and it should not be aside): For those who think that assassination of CEOs is the right approach to social change, read up on the anarchist assassinations of the period around 1900. Lone egomaniacal would-be heroes versus mass social movements. Which worked?
It is impossible to have much sympathy for people who dedicate their lives to making their shareholders and themselves ever increasing profits by denying healthcare to their customers.
For people who have serious chronic pain from a spinal injury, the insane process to get effective treatment or painkillers is very much an adding insult to injury situation. Being accused of being a drug seeker because debilitating pain is making your life miserable is apparently enough to drive the patient to murder the source of such draconian practices.
It’s crazy that it took a vigilante and murder to highlight the daily injustice of the health insurance industry.
@ 13
I’m a little younger than you, but I first heard it when listening to Dr. Demento (or trying to… Tuning into the Chicago radio station that played it was infuriating, to say the least.)
Whoops, that should have been for 19.
Don’t murder people. We have systems of justice, if you don’t like it, change it, if you can’t change it, maybe you are wrong.
The other execs will make a lot of pr noise but will only change 1 thing: getting better security
And the long line of people ready to leap into any “open” positions will not get any shorter because $$$
The only fix is a fundamental shift in how we handle healthcare and that ain’t gonna happen.
#sadbuttrue
I never advocate violence as a solution to anything. You can’t allow or excuse murder and still have a viable society.
But there are a helluva lot of victims of gun violence that I will grieve over before I shed a tear for that guy.
Condemning violence against the ruling capitalist class is Stockholm syndrome—CEO-on-CEO violence is nothing new, and it seems the consensus in my realm of existence is Brian Thompson’s acute lead poisoning should, and needs, to be deemed a preexisting condition.
It’s really not, Tadd.
[Too terse? e.g. Enlightened self-interest take: if killing people one dislikes becomes normalised, I myself will face a greater risk of being killed. Plenty of other possible reasons]
John @30: You can be annoying, but as far as I know, neither your comments nor your actions have resulted in the deaths or ruinations of thousands of people. So you’ll probably be OK.
If health insurance CEOs are forced to live inside a bubble of security guards worthy of a lifetime president of a banana republic it clearly demonstrates no one -except corporate flunkies and their client politicians- likes the system.
Birger, they shan’t be (seriously! The ruling class ain’t shook) doing that; also, if security goes up, well, expenses go up. So the customers will have to pay more.
(Wishful thinking is fine, but one has to account for reality, too)
@20 Joe Felsenstein – John Brown would like a word.
H.L. Mencken — ‘Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.’
“I detest violence. But if we ourselves are to suffer violence, our hands are no longer tied.”
To paraphrase the Changeling from Pathologic
Now, now.
Don’t want that to become the motto of CEOs everywhere, do ya?
Three lefts make a right.
Killing you enemy in a war is a good thing.
Once people’s faith in the justice of the court has been destroyed, they inevitably start resorting to the justice of the mob.
As someone without a job to fear losing for saying the wrong thing, I’ll say it: The murder of CEO Brian Thomson wasn’t wrong; on the contrary, It was an act of violence to be celebrated.
Do I think violence has a place in an ideal society? No, of course not, but we don’t live in an ideal society, and acting universally in ways we would wish people would act in a ideal society is no more the path towards improving society than playing chess as though your opponent will cooperate in a two-move checkmate is a winning strategy.
People can point to the successes peaceful mass social movements have had, and they do deserve the lion’s share of credit for change, but it is only through the elites’ fear of such movements turning violent that they work at all. The only way to engender that fear in the elites is for acts of genuine violence to occur, lest the peaceful be dismissed as harmless.
I don’t malign anyone for covering their asses by carefully curating how they lend their support to this killing; saying things on the internet, no matter how true, isn’t worth risking ruining your life if what you say comes back to haunt you. Still, let’s not mistake the “both were wrong, wink wink, nudge nudge” smokescreen as something genuine. In our hearts we should recognize this for what it was, a supremely moral act in this very specific situation. To do otherwise is an act of cowardice, an attempt to reap all the benefits of the act while remaining safely swaddled in comforting simplistic moral notions like “violence is never the answer, murder is always wrong.” In our own minds, we should be honest.
Without the positive online support for the acute lead poisoning of Mr Thompson, this would have been a relatively useless murking. But the bipartisan celebration of the incident is at least creating some discussion. Although I am pessimistic because hiring security guards is cheaper than changing the system.
@#41, Mark Jacobson:
Every successful peaceful social movement became successful because there was a simultaneous violent social movement desiring the same things, and the Powers That Be chose to negotiate with the peaceful movement out of fear of the violent one. Peaceful social movements without at least a credible threat of a violent alternative in action have basically never been successful.
Vicaricalish one:
Which is an irrelevance.
This was not indicative of a social movement, and it surely it’s not peaceful.
(You’re thinking Sinn Féin & IRA, aren’t ya?)
To what alleged benefits this supposedly refers is left to the imagination.
One more person murdered by gun violence, one more prison inmate/
(Just as many CEOs; the CEO is dead, long live the CEO)
Vicar@42–
The Velvet Revolution, the Carnation Revolution, and the Cedar Spring are just three examples of successful revolutions where the violence was either non-existent or entirely on the hands of the oppressive side.
While there are examples of peaceful movements with violent parallel movements, the idea that the threat of violence is the only reason they succeeded is not supported by cases such as the Civil Rights Movement in the US. It certainly wasn’t fear of NoI or the Black Panthers that led Johnson to push through the Civil Rights Act.
I’m not saying this to oppose violent revolutions. The question of violence vs. non-violence has to come down to the specific circumstances of each revolution and the weighing of moral cost/benefit. Unfortunately these can never be calculated with any precision, even in hindsight. So I’m not going to automatically condemn revolutionaries for using violence, but I’m also not going to give them blanket approval based on historical inaccuracies about the absolute necessity of violence.
@46 chrislawson
I agree with you broadly, though I maintain it’s the potential of violence, not violence itself, that does the heavy lifting. How many revolutions would have succeeded if the people in power were invulnerable god-beings? Some, but only out of the kindness of their hearts or being swayed by reason. A revolution need not have any violent component in and of itself to benefit from violence. That would be the preferable route.
But the people in power cannot be trusted do what is right on principle, and they cannot be swayed by reason, and they have forgotten they aren’t untouchable, they only recourse is to remind them.
You’re absolutely right that the calculus is impenetrable and there’s no guarantee this act of violence will lead to anything good, but it is the ruling class that has broken the social contract. The rule of law was the alternative to violence we created, and they have opted out. Without their cooperation, the only choices left for us are to fight back or lick boots.
@45 John Morales
If you literally see no difference in the world post Brian Thompson’s murder save one more dead man and one more in jail, I don’t know how to help you.
Mark,
I was hardly obscure!
By specifying the alleged benefits you imagine accrue due to this murder.
(Be aware I live in Australia)
@ Akira MacKenzie – 11 December 2024 at 12:20 pm
Or, y’know, NASCAR racing? ;-)
Yeah, I know there’s actually more to it than just that.. Couldn’t resist..
@ ^Umm.. @ 38. Nathaniel actually..
The process of completing their corruption will be underway from 20th January.
John Morales@45,
It’s should be obvious even to you that the benefit of this murder is in the revelation of the depths of (justified) hatred Americans of widely differing politics have for Health Insurance companies and their senior executives. It should point the way to a broad-based campaign to establish a national health service free at the point of delivery, which both Trump and the Democratic Party establishment will find it hard to deal with.
It ain’t a revelation, KG.
It’s an incident that will soon fade from the news cycle.
Not as significant as some might think.
Did the Paul Pelosi incident reveal the rottenness of MAGAism?
What about the Sandy Hook School shooting and gun laws?
—
[related]
You know, now and then I get paid harassers (sorry, representatives) that knock on my door and tell me they’re raising awareness for $GOOD_CAUSE$, and when I explain to them that they’re functionally employees, though they may be paid as contractors, they’re basically salespeople.
[there’s a subgenre of YouTube videos where USAnians living elsewhere enthuse over the local health system, and even one where USAnians living in the USA enthuse over those videos. Very meta!]
Sure it will. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have longer-term effects.
The vikings had a pragmatic approach to homicide. To avoid endless vendettas the family of the slain would be paid wergeld by the family of the slayer. Once the appropriate amount of silver or cows had been transferred the issue was officially settled.
I am willing to contribute to a collection for purchasing cows to the bereaved part. And if someone opines this is a materialistic way to value human lives my answer is: “He was a health insurance CEO. What is your point?”
Perhaps through the mechanisms of moderation and compromise, the right wingers can be persuaded to move from their position (do nothing) to a moderate position (responsible gov’t) based on the other extreme (eat the rich). It would be wrong for centrists to oppose responsible gov’t, wouldn’t it? Compromise is always better and all?
/s
SQB@#9
Sort of a take on the “the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots” our MAGA brethren like to throw around whenever a mass shooting occurs.
@birgerjohansson #55
I agree, provided that his life is valued the same as his company values the lives of others. I have a used napkin I can donate. That should about cover it.
@24 ducksmcclucken wrote: We have systems of justice
I reply: That is pure fantasy. We have a legal system. This country, owned and run by the filthy and their rich corrupt corporations, has no system that consistently results in justice.
in context crosspost from infinite thread:
Our organization condemns violence. There should have been effective recourse and resources available to him to get effective healthcare. And, he should have used legal recourse before committing murder.
However, emotionally, knowing first hand, how murderous insurance companies are, I felt no sorrow over the death of the uhc ceo.
More importantly, the mainslime media has devoted hundreds of hours of insipid reporting on the Luigi Mangione uhc ceo story.
However, if it weren’t a rich, powerful insurance company ceo and was just some ‘average’ person that was shot and died, we probably wouldn’t even hear about it!
shermanj@#59
Absolute truth! You want proof? Simply revisit the various school slaughter-fests we’ve suffered through over the years. They’re in the news for a couple of days, republicans do their “thoughts and prayers” song-and-dance, democrats do jack, and all that remains is the pain and suffering of the families of the victims. That never goes away.
As someone who was alive when the civil rights movement was happening, yes, the violence of the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers (and the FBI who did most of the bombings, and National Guards, and the police who if they killed someone were better at hiding it and freely beat the living shit out of everyone else) was in everyone’s minds whether or not they were pro-opression or not. It did matter. And it ended when TPTB systematically assassinated everyone who could lead it. That is what it looked like, to me.
As for ‘justice system’? Hrrm, are we sure about this?
If there was such a thing the current president-elect serial sexual abuser, financial fraudster, and convicted felon would be rotting in jail for the rest of his life. If there was such a thing corporations would not be people. If there was such a thing, federal agencies would be able to act in a sane and reasonable manner instead of waiting for delicate details from a pissy congress. If there was such a thing the court who rules on all of it would not allow bribes.
…did those things happen when I wasn’t looking?
@chrislawson #46, the Velvet Revolution was nonviolent, but that was only because the communist government recalled the army and People’s Militias at the last moment. I heard anecdotes, from people directly involved, that this was because a significant portion of the militias and army made it clear that they did not want to attack civilians, especially children (students were a major component of the protests). So the party leadership did try to avoid the one mistake that a leader of armed forces absolutely must not do – to give a command that won’t be obeyed. However, there is no official source recording this (the refusal to fight), so I am not sure if it is entirely true.
Had the party not withdrawn the army and militias and had the armed forces obeyed the order, it is most probable that people would have fought back. Then the Velvet Revolution would look more like the Euromaidan.
Oh, and one other thing helped – the Soviet regime was failing and thus was not able to prop-up the communists with their military. Soviet soldiers would not have the scruples that local ones did, as we learned in 1968.
In short, I think the Velvet Revolution was a lucky fluke.
@chrislawson:
You and that cretin John Morales did not actually read what I wrote, which was “at least the credible threat of a violent alternative”. Amassing an army of civilians to march through the capital is a credible threat of violence. Having a group at the top of the military hold a coup is a credible threat of violence. If the students had not been marching through the capital — if they had instead stayed home and run a letter-writing campaign, say, or sent a small party of representatives to present their demands without the march happening first — do you really think they would have been listened to? If so, you’re just a fool.
I must say it’s absolutely fascinating to watch people who were perfectly okay with a year-long actual we-hung-Nazis-for-this-crime-at-Nuremberg genocide, a genocide committed against people who were overwhelmingly innocent, massive numbers of toddlers and babies who didn’t even know we existed and wouldn’t have been able to harm us if they had, and even telling us that we had vote in support of the genocide as “the lesser of two evils” and “harm reduction”, these same people are now calling for fainting couches because a CEO in the US who was de facto a murderer and thief got what he richly deserved.
(The “murderer” part has already been discussed, but it’s worth noting that not only was UnitedHealthcare already heavily punished for massive fraud about 6 months back, they are also now accused of straight-up making up Medicare patients with HIV in order to defraud the government of the costs of HIV medication, which are of course extremely high in the US. Apparently the overwhelming majority of claims for treatment made by them were fraudulent, which of course was all done in the tenure of — and presumably by order of — Thompson. You could feed the entire corporation into a meat grinder and be doing nothing but good — and the same goes for all private health insurance companies. Their sole reason for existence is to extract money by denying care. They don’t improve the quality of care, ease of access, or anything else; they are purely there to make life worse for everybody in order to turn a profit.)
In fact, I’m in favor of this assassination on principle. I’ll go further: if everybody in the 1% (including the Democratic politicians who sold us out over the last 32 years — nearly every one of them who has national name recognition is in the 1%) were killed by assassins tomorrow, it would be nothing but beneficial for not just the US public at large but the entire world. And those of you who were happy to look the other word for fucking genocide and support Biden or Harris do not get to register disapproval of that stance. You forfeited any moral authority you might ever have had, you hypocritical ghouls.
Well, I may be a cretin, but I know this is in no way a social movement.
It’s a “Falling Down” moment, no more.
Exactly the feeling those who laud Kyle Rittenhouse’s murders have, just with a different polarity.
Nope. Moral authority is not granted, it is exhibited. It is inalienable.
[I’ve always used iodised salt, FWTW]
Vicar, seriously, you have a long history of bad faith arguments, but redefining peaceful protests as “a credible threat of violence” is possibly the worst. And for the record, accusing me of not reading your comments while you literally invent opinions of mine so you can rail against them is, frankly, why you get zero traction even in spaces like this. I mean, why do you even bother? As far as I can tell the only reason you comment here is for the sole purpose of screaming that nobody ever listens to you and everyone but you is a genocidaire.
Except, of course, that Rittenhouse was punching down rather than up …
@63. The Vicar (via Freethoughtblogs) : “Amassing an army of civilians to march through the capital is a credible threat of violence.”
Huh? No. Its not. By definition an army is NOT composed of civilians so what exactly do you refer to there?
Do you mean civilians en masse peacefully protesting?
Where do peaceful non-violent protesters like Extinction Rebellion blocking roads or the Martin Luther King’s Million Man March or Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt Tax March fit for you here?
Oh & voting for say Kamala Harris over Trump given those were the ONLY two alternatives is NOT “looking the other way on genocide” for the umpteenth gazillion time, you genocide enabling,, fascism assisting, Trump-voting, tankie troll.
PS. Vicar you are a massive hypocrite who voted in favour of genocide yourself. More genocide and worse genocide – longer genocide,genocides killing more people, genocides, plural in more places, Frex in Ukraine as well as Gaza and likely many other places because Putin won’t be satisified with just wiping out Ukraine.* All the regulars here know this even though you refuse to face that reality yourself. You now dare lecture the rest of us after doing that? Self-awareness isn’t your strong suit is it troll?
So you’d like to see Rashida Tlaib murdered? AOC murdered? Ilhan Omar murdered? Even Bernie Sanders – yeah “Indpendent” but ran for Democrat party nom and considered Democrat becoz you know two party binary means you HAVE TO be one or t’other in political reality — murdered? You sure don’t actually think too well do you?
.* Perhaps Biden’s last act as POTUS should be given Ukraine a nuclear WMD arsenal to stop Putin? Horrible thought but betas the alternative?
It occurs to me that if hypothetically there was a secret organisation whether govt or NGO that made a deliberate policy goal of wiping out every greedy toxic billioanire CEO it woukd have one hell of a lot of support form a huge number of people and could make a pretty plausible case for self-defence and acting in the best intrestsof Humanity..
Of course, the problems include that once started such violence seems to be very hard to stop (eg French Revolution -> Reign of Terror, Russian Revolution -> Stalinism, Pol Pot’s revolution, well.) and, of course, the oher already sociopathic ally brutal side will also respond in kind amd assassinate people we approve of and like. The violent breeds violence and ends up with unpredictable outcomes issues.
“It occurs to me that if hypothetically there was a secret organisation whether govt or NGO that made a deliberate policy goal of wiping out every greedy toxic billioanire CEO”
Psst… this guy got $10M/yr — that’s like, um, 100,000,000 years’ worth of income before reaching billionaire status.
More to the point, if it’s an organisation, there will be some sort of Chief Executive Officer at the helm, no?
(They’d have to be the very last victim, no?)
(People truly have a hard time grasping $BIGNUM$)
You surprise me Morales. You’ve clearly been losing your marbles for a long time now, but being out by a factor of a million is striking even for you.
[Sheesh, Bobiferant. Way to spoil things!]
Fine. Only 100 years’ worth.
Righto.
“It occurs to me that if hypothetically there was a secret organisation whether govt or NGO that made a deliberate policy goal of wiping out every greedy toxic billioanire CEO it woukd have one hell of a lot of support form a huge number of people and could make a pretty plausible case for self-defence and acting in the best intrestsof Humanity..”
So, this murdered guy, he was a CEO, and possibly greedy, and possibly ‘toxic’ (whatever that means), but not a billionaire.
It follows there is no pretty plausible case for self-defence and acting in the best interests of Humanity under the specified criteria.
@ ^ John Morales : As the song goes two outta three ain’t bad. The United healthcare CEO Mr Thompson meets two of thsoe criteria.
Anyhow, I pointed ut a few other reasons there why suchan organisation would NOt be a great idea.
JM@71–
To be fair to StevoR, the conversation had moved beyond the specifics of Brian Thompson and onto the general issue of plutocrats. Even so, I think it’s fair to say that many of the multi-millionaire CEOs around the world owe their positions to a demonstrated willingness to serve billionaire interests without regard for morals or ethics.
Sure.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/
—
It’s OK, StevoR.
Just have a think about this: if someone told you they’d whack some CEO if you signed a permission letter for that whacking, would you sign it?
(Words mean things)
@24. ducksmcclucken : “Don’t murder people. We have systems of justice, if you don’t like it, change it, if you can’t change it, maybe you are wrong.”
Or maybe you aren’t. Salvery and feudalism existed for a long time without change, it isn’t easy for people to change systems like that as history proves.
Justice is subjective and a legal system often isn’t just.
Captialism ditto here. That there are oppressive systems that can’t be changed easily doesn’t make it okay to NOT resist them by a lot of means including at times murder maybe?
@ 77.. Depends
Let’s cut down the unknowns.
Say the murderer who wanted your permission made a pretty plausible case for self-defence and acting in the best interests of Humanity by that murder; would it still depend?
(We know any two of the three conditions are fine by you, right?)
Cats and dogs living together… truly, we are living in end times. Or else someone slipped something in my drink. I had to read that sentence a few times but no, it’s apparently a real thing.
https://harshbarger.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-harshbarger-introduces-legislation-eliminate-pbm-monopoly-pharmaceutical
https://www.newsweek.com/senators-turn-screws-health-care-industry-ceo-shooting-fuels-scrutiny-1999390
And apparently Luigi Mangione is getting gifts as well.
https://6abc.com/luigi-mangione-defense-fund-supporters-suspected-unitedhealthcare-ceo-killer-crowdfund-raise-50k/15647310/
And the cherry on top
https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/stocks/unitedhealth-stock-falls-as-lawmakers-eye-insurers-pbms
@ silvrhalide
Nevermind – invest in corporations providing personal security services to random corporate flunkies. It’s a growth market.
(/snark)
Honestly, you USAsians and your batshit gun culture. I used to think that was a thing of the right and the left were opposed.
Silly me. *ka-pow*
Owen Jones here – How Luigi Mangione Became Hero To So Many: The CEO Killer And The Health Killers -nearly 15 minutes long.
Someone mentioned there raises the possibility that Biden pardons Mangione. I doubt he will but..?
@77 & #80. John Morales : “Just have a think about this: if someone told you they’d whack some CEO if you signed a permission letter for that whacking, would you sign it?”
That’s a very Sam Harris-eque utterly improbable scenario.
As i said it would depend very much on the specifics. Which CEO precisely, why they needed “whacking”, why there weren’t better alternatives to that available? Et cetera.
I guess it boils down to the question of does person X (hah!) deserve to die?
Often the answer is or could be subjectively said to be Yes.
Then the next bigger question yet is would I actually like to or approve of assassinating them? Maybe? In a very few handful of cases where better options have either failed or not been available? Maybe? Dunno but I won’t rule out in a least a few cases of sufficiently evil people that are still doing harm to the world I might well say yes.
Of course, as Gandalf notes in LOTR many that live deserve death and many that are dead deserve life and we cannot give it to them and so we shouldn’t be quick to dish out death.
But I don’t think that means we cannot do so at all ever for a sufficient level of evil and people that are causing sufficient harm to us all.
[You can ignore my follow-up, StevoR, but there it is nonetheless.
Cowardice suits you]
Gee, I wonder what specific example might apply.
I wonder what it must be like to be so cowardly.
Well, how much harm did this dude cause you or me? Go on.
(Like, we live in Oz! No insurance from that mob, right?)
—
Words mean things. ‘Us’ is not normally used in the John Donne sense.
Such abstractions!
In this case.
Dude doing his job.
Accountable to the board of directors and to the shareholders.
Not actually, you know, doing the determinations on specific cases.
That’s for the flunkies. The functionaries, not the executives.
Deserved to be murdered, right?
(That’s OK, keep vacillating. I get you)
@ ^ John Morales : In this specific case of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, a man who caused incalculable but huge amounts of human suffering and misery for his own profit and gain?
Yes.
In fact, there’s a case that the deserved far worse than he got.
Ideally he’d not have been allowed to cause the harm and suffering to others that he caused.
Ideally, he’d be prevented from doing so by a different system – like the one we have in Oz. Thank Fuck we have Medicare here.
Ideally, Brian Thompson would face judicial punishment and years in jail for causing grevious bodily harm, needless pain, grief and torment to so many other human individuals.
But that was never going to happen in the extremist capitalist system of the USoA was it?
Oh. That makes it all okay then does it?
No. Nuremberg trials decided that.
Some jobs eg torturer, executioner, priest, Pope, Ayatollah, Healthcare Insurance CEO just should NOT exist.
Pol Pot’s henchmen, Stalin’s underlings, Assad’s torturers were just their jobs too – probly with less choice and options than Brian Thompson had.
Brian Thompson deserved a lot harsher penalty than he got. My view.
Yours here, John Morales is _________?
@87. John Morales : “Cowardice suits you.”
Cowardice? What cowardice? I gave you a direct, carefully considered answer and that was that it depends upon the specifics of each case and that – honestly – I don’t know but, maybe, sometimes. In some specific cases, yes.
To a ridiculous hypothetical that will never occur in reality.
That’s “cowardice” huh?
Which follow up? What part of it exactly am I ignoring?
Lessee # 80?
Depends on what things are, circumstances, context, specifics.
So, yeah, it depends.
It would need to be more than just a plausible case. It would have to be a very convincing one indeed.
Is that impossible? No.
Is it likely? Well, I’d need sufficient evidence, logic, reason but .. perhaps?
If I get enough of that evidence, a strong enough case? Yes. If I don’t, no.
So its a case of “Ï’m alright Jack! Fuck everyone else.” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_alright,_Jack )
Huh, Seems that’s a British saying not the Aussie one I always thought it was..
In essence, I do NOT think that we do need to be hurt directly ourselves to call out & oppose and think critically and act upon things that cause needless pain, torment and suffering for others.
There but for luck of birth go we.
Cross post – Novara media discussion linked here :
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2024/10/04/infinite-thread-xxxiii/comment-page-6/#comment-2246162
“Yours here, John Morales is _________?”
No, I would not sign off on his murder purely because he is a CEO of a heal insurance company.
What, he should have been abducted and tortured unto death?
(No doubt his family and dependents are over the moon he got off so lightly)
“To a ridiculous hypothetical that will never occur in reality.”
Um, you are as morally responsible for signing his death warrant either way; that you’ve done it post-mortem rather than pre-mortem means nothing. You deem it moral that he was murdered.
(At least you found that much bravery)
I find it highly amusing that the self-proclaimed moral absolutist, who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton and for Kamala Harris because he did not want to compromise his moral principles by voting for the lesser evil, is now proclaiming that an extra-judicial killing by a vigilante, a morally wrong (i.e. evil) thing, is completely OK and should be promoted because that is the lesser evil when compared to the deaths inflicted by the corporations.
What he is most emphatically not doing is something meaningful. When he could do something meaningful – vote for the less harmful of two only inevitable options – he did nothing. And now he is still doing nothing since he is not out there risking prison by enacting his violent vigilante fantasies either.
All he is doing is staying home and running a comment-writing campaign and pointing at imagined inconsistencies in other people’s moral reasoning whilst being blind to his own. Anyone who still thinks this is an effective use of their time that will accomplish anything is a fool.
“Some jobs eg torturer, executioner, priest, Pope, Ayatollah, Healthcare Insurance CEO just should NOT exist.”
StevoR, I asked my AI toy, and it done tole me:
“Sure thing! Here’s the list of private healthcare insurers in Australia, with their CEOs in parentheses:
Medibank (David Koczkar), ahm (David Koczkar), Bupa (Hisham El-Ansary), HBF (John Van Der Wielen), HCF (Sheena Jack), nib (Mark Fitzgibbon), CBHS (Andrew Smith), Defence Health (Scott Moffitt), Doctors’ Health Fund (Dianne Kitcher), GMHBA (David Greig), Peoplecare (Michael Bassingthwaighte), Latrobe Health Services (Ian Whitehead), Mildura Health Fund (Steve Moneghetti), AIA Health Insurance (Damien Mu), Navy Health (Martin Edwards), Teachers Health Fund (Brad Joyce), Phoenix Health Fund (Anita Stankovic), Police Health (Scott Williams), Queensland Country Health Fund (Aaron Newman), Westfund (Matt Banning).
Would you like any more details on these insurers or their CEOs?”
Also, single-point failure modes by loss of personnel are rare in big businesses.
“Here are some job titles akin to a CEO:
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Chief Marketing Officer (CMO)
Chief Technology Officer (CTO)
Chief Information Officer (CIO)
Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO)
Chief Compliance Officer (CCO)
Chief Product Officer (CPO)
Chief Revenue Officer (CRO)
Chief Investment Officer (CIO)
Each of these positions involves executive-level responsibilities within an organization, focusing on specific areas of expertise.”
Nope. Here, with emphasis:
It’s a case of “people that are causing sufficient harm to us all“, and if he did neither you nor I any harm, then he cannot possibly meet that criterion.
You keep saying stuff you then ignore, like that “two out of three”.
In short, you vacillate, and you adapt your position to each moment, instead of remaining on track.
Each such instance weakens your case.
(Words mean things!)
[you clearly failed to grok my allusion to Donne, StevoR. Insular]
I don’t think anyone generally deserves to die. But there aren’t always bloodshed-free alternatives, indeed once some group has decided to use lethal force there rarely are. In that case it amounts to a trolley problem: let it hit thousands of people who don’t deserve to die, or divert it to hit just one.
In this case, approval amounts to stochastic terrorism.
Less than admirable.
For one thing, this idea that it might frighten other CEOs into doing the right thing is balanced by the idea that they will figure it’s a bad thing to yield to such coercion lest it become normalised, and so double down on their performance-driven policies to prevent that outcome.
@ ^ & various John Morales : In this case, disapproval amounts to supporting an evil system that kills and causes enormous suffering including bankrupting and tormenting innocent people for the non-crime of getting sick.
Less than admirable.
Fixed it for you.
@99. : I know the poem.
https://allpoetry.com/No-man-is-an-island
Its message is generally spot on. It also applies to those vastly many more people United Healthcare and other companies have killed and had their lives ruined. What those “healthcare” insurance companies do is evil and diminishes us all. The loss of Brian Thompson has got people talking about that evil, has drawn attention to the issue, might hopefully get some things fixed when it comes to this issue and might hopefully deter United Healthcare and other such companies from continuing to act as they do.
The billionaire predator class has gotten away with so much it has become an oppressive ruling class especially under Trump. It isn’t sustainable. It needs to stop and peaceful means including elections have failed. So what is to be done? If non-violent methods have proven utterly ineffective and things continually get worse then what is left to people?
I think the lack of action to stop these people who get ever richer, ever more powerful, stamp their feet ever harder down on the necks of those with ever less wealth and power is going to inevitably (?) lead to some sort of peasants rebellion. Some sort of revolution. Then again, I don’t really know. Feudalism lasted a fuck of a long time and caused a fuck of a lot of human suffering. Ditto slavery. Still. Opposing feudalism and slavery is the right thing to do. I support slaves killing their masters historically and currently and I think this situation is analogous.
We’re talking about other people in another country. This isn’t relevant to Aussies albeit there are some who want to follow America’s example here in Oz and they have a lot of cultural influence. That it doesn’t hurt me or you directly doesn’t change the situation being what it is. I don’t quite see what your point is here.
Ditto for the list of Aussie private healthcare directors & companies in #96-97. We have a different and much better system of healthcare here so we’re talking very different things and I don’t see their relevance to this discussion. That said, I’d be fine with Australia insisting on stricter rules to stop our health insurance and healthcare companies going down the USA’s road and using the example of the USoA’s extremes as a point in bringing our exploitative health profiteers to heel. Again, thank fuck for Medicare and our public health systems which prevents these companies for doing the damage they would if we didn’t have Medicare.
The 2 outta 3 thing was me being flippant I’ll admit. But if something meets enough specific criteria well it crosses a threshold and goes from one category into another.
I don’t think I’m “vacillating” here what I’m saying is that specifics and context matter and there are cases where its justifiable.
Think about this there’s a reason people consider Robin Hood a hero and cheer for those who stand up for the poor against the rich and oppressive rulers and that’s why Luigi Mangione is being celebrated. Its why people love to see villains get their comeuppance and think or wish that karma was a real thing.
Brian Thompson died quickly, he probly never knew a thing about it. Walking down the street one second, dead the next. His victims OTOH, well, they really suffered often for years and decades. My empathy and sympathy is with them.
<
blockquote>In this case, disapproval amounts to supporting an evil system that kills and causes enormous suffering including bankrupting and tormenting innocent people for the non-crime of getting sick.
Yeah, you have nothing.
Well, not true. I am quite helpful, ofttimes.
You have a list of CEOs and a way to find out about other top executives.
(You, being you, of course missed that they are all accountable to the Board and to the shareholders.
They are very much not the top dogs)
Yeah, you have nothing.
Well, not true. I am quite helpful, ofttimes.
You have a list of CEOs and a way to find out about other top executives.
(You, being you, of course missed that they are all accountable to the Board and to the shareholders.
They are very much not the top dogs)
—
Who else do you reckon should be murdered?
Ah well, allusion is wasted on you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man_Is_an_Island
The category of meriting being murdered, specifically.
Well, fine. You have certainly revealed your moral character.
Excuse my effusiveness, but I am quite disappointed, StevoR.
Murder is fine, if it fits with some slogan in your head. Got it.
You do get functionaries are the ones who sign off on actual assessments, no?
The office managers who approve decisions. The staff who file the records.
Do they also deserve to be murdered, by the sort of perversion of the Nuremberg events you espouse?
The office workers, the receptionists, all those are also necessary for the operation to go on, no?
(On your adduced basis and reasoning, they too deserve being murdered, maybe even more so. No?)
Also, it’s not a poem. Prose, rather.
Here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII
It’s like you’re pretending you’re meeting him for the first time. X-D
Stevo has form Morales. Like yourself.
We may forgive. We don’t forget.
It’s a trite cliché, I know, but since both Stevo and Morales seem to think almost exclusively in trite clichés let’s revisit it once again:
dialog from A Man for All Seasons (1968)
The point, boys and girls and non-binary siblings, is that if you excuse cold-blooded vigilante murder – as long as you hate the fellow enough – quite apart from the moral repugnance; it will not end well for you.
It won’t matter either way. It’s a nothing-burger.
(You’re buying into the hype)
Implausible. We can rely on these CEOs to act solely on their own perceived interests and here that would be to take action which makes them, specifically, less of a target. That will include increasing their own security, but also making at least a gesture toward treating claimants more decently. Notice that Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield reversed their attempt to limit the hours of anesthesia they would pay for the day after the assassination. Could possibly be coincidence, but it looks like yielding to coercion, so if they were bothered about normalising the murder of health insurance CEOs they would have delayed the change if it was already scheduled, if not cancelled it altogether.
John Morales@various
You seem remarkably insistent that the assassination will not have any beneficial effects, John. In reality, it’s just too early to tell. You can still disapprove of the killing even if it turns out to have positive consequences.
Here is a provocation.
Calculate the income mode for the country. Mode is the most common value, a better measure than average.
Now declare that anyone whose income is 10 times the mode or higher can be killed and it will not be considered murder. It will be no form of crime at all.
What does that world look like? How does it play out?
Close.
What I am is remarkably insistent that these claims of the CEO class being ‘shook’ and this being a seminal moment is rather speculative and, most likely, just wishful thinking.
Each claim can be countered by another, and that’s what I’m doing.
In another thread about this, USAnians were telling me how these insurance companies effectively function as a cartel. A tacit agreement to maximise profits. All sub rosa.
“What does that world look like? How does it play out?”
It looks like a wishful fantasy, and since “income” can be super-well hidden and untouchable, futile.
If a trust fund provides for your living stipend and expenses, or your corporation does it as a business expense or as non-taxable fringe fenefits, or whatever… well, that’s not actually income.
—
Now, if corporations weren’t people, or if directors and executives wore personal responsibility, or suchlike… well, that would be a lot closer to our reality. Almost conceivable, though infinitesimally likely.
Oh, right — and some confounding factors, of course:
—
Cost of Living in San Jose, CA is 38.9% higher than in Rochester, NY (without rent)
Cost of Living Including Rent in San Jose, CA is 59.3% higher than in Rochester, NY
Rent Prices in San Jose, CA are 106.5% higher than in Rochester, NY
Restaurant Prices in San Jose, CA are 11.2% higher than in Rochester, NY
Groceries Prices in San Jose, CA are 43.1% higher than in Rochester, NY
Local Purchasing Power in San Jose, CA is 8.6% higher than in Rochester, NY
You would need around 9,237.0$ in San Jose, CA to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 5,800.0$ in Rochester, NY (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses our Cost of Living Plus Rent Index to compare the cost of living and assume net earnings (after income tax). You can change the amount in this calculation.
(https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=United+States&city1=Rochester%2C+NY&city2=San+Jose%2C+CA)
@ 107. John Morales :
No, you haven’t because that is NOT what I wrote or meant.
“Some slogan” NO.
An evil person who is causing enormous harm and torment to innocent poeple just becuase they get sick is NOT the same as some slogan – which anyhow would be what in your mind?
No. Not if they aren’t the one’s setting the polciies and making the decisions. Decisisons that cause incalaculable pain and harm to other human beings.
No! Of course NOT!
Because they aren’t the ones causing the problem and making the choices here.
Stealing is usually wrong – but there’s exceptions if a personis starving and has to steal to live.
Murder is usually wrong -but there are exceptions in cases of self-defence, war, juystifiable homicides. I think maybe taking out an exemplar of evil who has hurt somany others and who isotherwise above the law might count a sjustificale homicide? maybe? I could be wrong.
“An evil person who is causing enormous harm and torment to innocent poeple just becuase they get sick…”
Remarkable, the way you wind yourself up.
(You know zero about this person, other than his job description)
I was hoping to find it on his home website here :
https://www.lelievrecartoons.com/
But couldn’t. Glen LeLivre has a cartoon here :
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=8913183115431865&set=a.102831893133742
On fb which seems to sum this up pretty well.
Luigi Magione slew a monster – a human being but also someone who did monstrous things to other human beings and was evil.
Murder is wrong. Clearly wrong.
What United Healthcare did was wrong as well.
The anger at them and their CEO’s and polciies and obscene cruelty is justifiable.
See PBS newshour interview here :
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ceo-murder-reveals-simmering-anger-with-american-health-care-system
Among so very much more.
How are they to be stopped if the law protects them and not their victims? Wgat better alternative stops the sort of thing that these evil companies are doing? Ends the harms they causing so many others? When the legal (NOT justice!) system fails everyone?
The whole situation is extremely fucked up.
What “Healthcare Insurance” companies do is legally allowed but ethically criminal.
What Luigi Mangione did in response was legally criminal but ethically .. maybe (?) just?
I do not pretend to be perfect or flawless and will allow that I might be wrong here but this is how it seems to be to me.
Broad policy and oversight is set by the board of directors and then, ahem, executed by the CEO — and not only that, UnitedHealthcare is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group#Organizational_structure), so he had a boss as well.
If he didn’t do what they want, he’d be out of a job. It’s how those things work.
So, again, you make a pronouncement you then ignore; the ones making the choices are the Board of directors, and they kinda like to keep the shareholders happy.
(Basically, the problem is the profit-driven model in the USA, not the executives; it’s the system itself)
Your overwrought purple prose is ridiculous.
Sure seems to me you’re trying really, really hard to rationalise your condoning of murder by demonising the victim.
@119. John Morales : Are you disputing his evil? Are you saying what United Healthcare did to its victims was okay?
&
Source : https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/06/business/insurance-claim-denials-unitedhealthcare-ceo/index.html
Plus
&
As well as :
Source : https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/diseases-and-conditions/americans-share-devastating-healthcare-horror-stories-in-wake-of-unitedhealthcare-ceo-assassination/ar-AA1vpD76
All that is okay for you John Morales? What the Healthcare CEO chose to do wasn’t evil? Didn’t cause immense human suffering, misery and death, far worse than what he suffered?
Then there’s Kyle Kulinski’s disciussion here – Bernie BREAKS HIS SILENCE Over United Health CEO Kílling with the note that yeah, no shit, murder is bad but we also have to talk about the systemic murder committed by the US “health” system. WARNING : Swearing, well justified swearing.
One murder here, 68,000 murders there and countless bankrupcies as Kyle Kulinski notes.
Oh & your failure to answer my questions to you in # 120 & #102 is noted.
“Frustrations” is one fuck of an understatement BTW.
@ 121. John Morales :
Oh noezz!! Ultra-rich man might lose his job and have to find another more ethical one!!!1ty!! Teh Horreur! Teh Horreur!?
Sucjh pain!!!!1ty!! Sch grief for him!!ty! Can’t have that can we?
Okay, I’ll admit I didn’t know that.
I did think the fucking CEO was the fucking CEO and thus in charge.
Perhaps Luigi Mangione shot the wrong man? I dunno.
Am I wong? Quite possibly. Sure wouldn’t be the first time.
But what, what exactly are people supposed to do here given the fucked up, evil system that is hurtinmgand killing them?
What John Morales do you suggest they do?
How do you suggest they change it?
Drats. If only we could murder the right people. That way lies paradise.
@ ^ Silentbob : No it doesn’t and no it won’t* for the reasons I mentioned in #70 upthread. :
I don’t advocate for murder just as I don’t advocate for stealing – except there are certain very specific and desperate, exceptional circumstances eg if someone is starving to death and cannot otherwise get food then I don’t blame them for stealing.
I would natch, vastly prefer they had better options available to them and didn’t face that necessity; its a situation that in a reasonable society** doesn’t arise but if they don’t then, it is at very least understandable that they steal as a last resort to survive.
This seems analogous to me. Perhaps I’m wrong.
I’ll ask you the same question Iasked John Morales in #125 :
What do you suggest people do faced with the blatant cruelty and obscene injustice of the heathcare system and the seeming lack of effective ways to change it?
How do you suggest they change things, SilentBob?
How long have things been going as they are in the USA’s obscenity of a “healthcare” system, how many many deaths, how much human greif, suffering and torment has been caused by United Healthcare & their like and the system there so far and what other peaceful means have managed to .., well, turns out, NOT change things. Leaving us with what? Leaving us where and facing what trends and what outcomes for how very many others? For how much longer?
At least people are now talking and thinking about this in ways they weren’t before.
Helluva nasty way to raise awareness but what other ones have been tried and failed (?) before.
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right and just because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong. Vast gulf between ethics, law and what is effective or not in specific contexts and circumstances.
.* Plus I’m NOT saying otherwise. Not saying it will.
.** Most rerasonable advanced and prosperous nations and societies – indeed many that are less advanced and prosperous – provide far better “socialist” National; universal healthcare for their civilians. Like Australia with Medicare, Britain with their system, most western European and Scandanavian nations, Iceland, etc ..