And that’s because it’s not his job to do so. Not every problem needs to be solvable by any given individual.
If he really was that passionate about the problem, he should’ve run for office to get into a position to solve the problem, or at least joined forces with some group that pushes for causes he believes in. Or started a business to compete with those businesses he disagrees with. Those would all be proactive steps he could take. Killing a CEO doesn’t solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.
Running for office wouldn’t have stopped the CEO from continuing to murder thousands, since the CEO and his shareholders literally spend billions making sure people who would stop them don’t get elected.
Killing a CEO doesn’t solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.
Yeah, this is why adventurism doesn’t really work. The guy’s actions were ineffective at systemic change, however just they may have been.
You’re right, and neither does this extrajudicial killing. Nothing changed in insurance policie, and nothing will likely change. But running for office has a much better chance of helping people in the future than murdering a CEO.
And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that’s why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that’s how the game is played, but there are options if you’re laser focused on one type of policy.
however just
Justice is the lawful administration of law, and extrajudicial killing is, by definition, unjust. Depending on your moral code, I also argue it’s immoral, because it’s only moral to kill to protect innocent lives, and retribution isn’t protection.
If killing this person was likely to actually change company policy, I could see it as moral, but there’s absolutely no way a reasonable person would think that. This was a crime of passion, not of justice.
Sure, and the solution to that isn’t murder, but holding them accountable to things like contract violations or unreasonably complicated contracts. That’s an issue for the DOJ/AG, not vigilantes.
And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that’s why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that’s how the game is played, but there are options if you’re laser focused on one type of policy.
I agree with the sentiment, but all the labor unions in the country couldn’t hold a candle to the potential damage a billionaire could do to an independent campaign, let alone a cabal of them. They don’t play fairly in politics, and they’re not above using advertising and media to direct a narrative that benefits their interests.
That’s not to say I’m endorsing violence. After seeing Bezos and Musk manipulate news media and social media, respectively, I just don’t have much hope in the system anymore.
And that’s because it’s not his job to do so. Not every problem needs to be solvable by any given individual.
If he really was that passionate about the problem, he should’ve run for office to get into a position to solve the problem, or at least joined forces with some group that pushes for causes he believes in. Or started a business to compete with those businesses he disagrees with. Those would all be proactive steps he could take. Killing a CEO doesn’t solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.
Running for office wouldn’t have stopped the CEO from continuing to murder thousands, since the CEO and his shareholders literally spend billions making sure people who would stop them don’t get elected.
Yeah, this is why adventurism doesn’t really work. The guy’s actions were ineffective at systemic change, however just they may have been.
You’re right, and neither does this extrajudicial killing. Nothing changed in insurance policie, and nothing will likely change. But running for office has a much better chance of helping people in the future than murdering a CEO.
And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that’s why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that’s how the game is played, but there are options if you’re laser focused on one type of policy.
Justice is the lawful administration of law, and extrajudicial killing is, by definition, unjust. Depending on your moral code, I also argue it’s immoral, because it’s only moral to kill to protect innocent lives, and retribution isn’t protection.
If killing this person was likely to actually change company policy, I could see it as moral, but there’s absolutely no way a reasonable person would think that. This was a crime of passion, not of justice.
What this CEOs and others like him do is a crime of greed. Which is infinitely worse and they get away with it. No Justice.
Sure, and the solution to that isn’t murder, but holding them accountable to things like contract violations or unreasonably complicated contracts. That’s an issue for the DOJ/AG, not vigilantes.
How did those go? These people has been running this scam for decades, with zero results.
I don’t think the DOJ/AG are looking into it, but they should.
I agree with the sentiment, but all the labor unions in the country couldn’t hold a candle to the potential damage a billionaire could do to an independent campaign, let alone a cabal of them. They don’t play fairly in politics, and they’re not above using advertising and media to direct a narrative that benefits their interests.
That’s not to say I’m endorsing violence. After seeing Bezos and Musk manipulate news media and social media, respectively, I just don’t have much hope in the system anymore.
We all know that doesn’t work.
Killing a CEO certainly doesn’t solve anything…
We’ll see about that.