I wonder if the original commenter would have put the same comment if the article were "man shoots his wife and her lover on discovery of adultery"
People demand justice, whether they're right to is a secondary concern, as is the methodologies they choose to seek it. Some become activists. Some become politicians. Some pick up guns.
That is a true, but We should discourage and condemn them picking up guns. There is a feedback loop at play
Nonsense. They will and should pick up guns if the entrenched systems no longer serve the purpose of the majority. Sure, it's not ideal.
But sometimes it's the only way to enact change. Some of the most important rights we have today were won with violence.
The ammo box is not justified and should not be tolerated simply because someone doesn't get what they want. That route is a quick decent to societal collapse.
That is how you end up with your incels, anarchist, communists, and Christian fundamentalists shooting anyone who doesnt agree with them.
-Random Internet comment in response to the colonial uprising and Declaration of Independence, circa 1776
- random Internet comment in response to the execution of John Brown, 1859
It's not one we like, but nonetheless.
My point is that healthcare reform is obstructed by the fact that everyday American citizens want very different things and cant agree.
Like this is pure speculation right? But I have a strong feeling that, should the person be caught, we'll learn that they have or had a family member or even themselves insured with UHC who has suffered some harm, and that person felt UHC was responsible. Whether they were correct or not is immaterial: the CEO paid the price.
And you can feel whatever you feel about that, like I said, I don't want to live in a world where healthcare CEOs get gunned down in the street. But I also am acutely aware of how abusive insurance companies are, both from reading about those abuses in the news of others, and experiencing a handful of my own, and I also don't want to live in the status quo, where unelected, unaccountable private companies get to decide who lives, who dies, and who goes bankrupt via inscrutable bureaucratic practices.
In my ideal world, accountability would be these rich bastards getting hauled into congress and charged for the abuses their companies inflict on American citizens. But since our system seems unwilling to do that, if the alternative is they get to walk around just a bit scared that someone will [ censored for HN ]? Well, probably won't fix anything, but I'd be a liar if I said I'd lose a wink of sleep over it.
>But sometimes it's the only way to enact change.
>In my ideal world, accountability would be these rich bastards getting hauled into congress and charged for the abuses their companies inflict on American citizens.
My point is that these rich bastards are playing by the rules the American citizens set up. American citizens have the power to change those rules if they want, but cant agree on anything they think is better. People like to imagine a grand corporate conspiracy while ignoring half the population that want the opposite thing.
In my mind, it is the same type of vigilantism that justifies shooting up a school, LGBT club, or killing women who wont date you.
Mmmmmmm.... yes and no? Like it's cliche to blame everything on Reagan but the number of modern social ills that can be directly traced to the Reagan admin and the political movement behind it really does baffle the mind. Ills such as, for example:
- The deregulation of corporate finances, that permits the massive stock buybacks that allow corporations to kick absolutely stressful amounts of money to their shareholders and executives
- The tying of the hands of the FTC regarding anti-trust/monopoly regulation, which has led to the greatest era of corporate consolidation since Standard Oil, and all the problematic things that come with it
- The citizens united decision, which unleashed the ability for corporate America to pump shit fuck tons of money into political parties that would then work for their interests
- The repeal of the fairness doctrine, which let an entire wing of disinformation networks form and spread, masquerading blatant propaganda as news (sorry, "entertainment")
And like, you're right in one way, because the Republicans didn't come out to the American people and say "hey we want to enable corporations to rat fuck you for every dollar you have, along with every dollar you don't have, and to make them effectively the funding that both parties need to accept in order to have a snowballs' chance in hell of winning an election. Sound good?", obviously. But the various "mandates" that they've received from conservative voting blocs over the years are dubious as fuck, and if you scratch them just a little bit, you oftentimes find that their voters are so incredibly bullshitted at this point that they don't even truly know what the fuck they're voting for. Citation: literally in the last presidential race, there was a shit ton of people after the fact who both:
- Didn't realize tariffs would drastically increase the cost of goods in the United States, because exporters do not pay them, importers do (and in fact, if the rumors are to be believed, neither did their candidate)
- Voted for the party promising to repeal "Obamacare" despite receiving benefits from and in fact, needing the Affordable Care Act, not realizing that Obamacare is literally a made-up bullshit name given to the ACA by Republicans.
So like... yes, technically, the Republicans (and Democrats, make no mistake, their fingerprints are all over this shit too, just to a lesser degree) have built exactly the America that Americans want. However, it is impossible to fully divorce that from the just incredible amounts of propaganda Americans injest, both from the political parties who decide what is "feasible" to the corporate media.
It is like there is a deep denial that real humans often want something different, and that we are forced to share a democratic society with them, which means losing on issues where we think we are right.
"You rule because they believe," in essence.
(This is why, historically, you'll often see societies keep their pattern of government until, say, famine comes along. Because if you're going to starve to death, the likely outcome calculus on picking up a 2x4 starts to change drastically and quickly).
Why wonder if someone would make the same comment in entirely different circumstances? Why does it matter?
Increasingly, though, people in the United States feel that the rich and powerful have become effectively insulated from the legal system, such that the common person is denied any redress. At that point, one no longer feels any reason to continue working within the legal framework, because it seems clear that the framework is not at all "equal" under the law.
Hence, when all other options feel exhausted: murder.
And, frankly, I imagine this will only continue with time, unless this country decides to actually provide some mechanism to hold people in power accountable. Like, I'm frankly surprised no one has attempted to assassinate members of the SCOTUS yet recently, given that they enjoy a lifetime appointment to make wide-impacting, scrutiny-free decisions.
They're not insulated from the legal system, the problem is the public is being misled.
It works like this: The media lies to the public and tells them that a CEO or Public Figure is getting away with X, so they get some washed up lawyer to do an opinion piece on it, a politician or two co-opts it, and possibly throws in some bait about the working class being screwed over, and then the public buys the made-up story- hook, line and sinker.
Since TV Law is not the same thing as real law, the person in question is put through actual due process and the allegation or accusation turns out to be unsubstantiated. The public then feels outrage because "The man on TV said this person was a criminal and he got away!".
Consider the Yotta/Synapse situation. Many people have lost a huge sum of money and the two companies involved are simply shrugging and saying they have no clue where it went. In many countries, either this problem would've never been allowed to occur in the first place or the government would start jailing people from the top down until someone starts to talk.
Fundamental to this is that people are increasingly siloed and have little idea how closely the legal system reflects the will of the majority. They just think that their opinion is the majority and anything that deviates is the product of a corrupt system and public disenfranchisement.
Furthermore I'm quite wary of hand waving arguments about the "will of the majority". "The majority" just complained about price inflation, while electing the former president that approved most of the monetary inflation they were complaining about, while he was actively promising even more inflation. And that is on a topic the average person should be able to understand! Never mind more subtle points about the downstream effects of more abstract policies. The way I see it, most everyone is extremely frustrated with the current system (hence spitefully voting for more destruction by President Inflation). But most of the energy gets used up arguing about which direction we should go, while the corporate machine stands ready to latch onto and nullify whatever attempts at reform that may arise.
Furthermore even taking that argument at face value, it takes for granted how much we still do enjoy - even people on the shit rungs of society. The US military and world alliances making it so that we don't have to worry about military invasions, USD as the reserve currency making it so what we consider high price inflation is actually quite tame, bureaucratic authoritarianism keeping corporate authoritarianism from completely taking over, federal law enforcement keeping armed gangs in check. The economic meat grinder wealth/hope extraction machine is abjectly terrible, but also things can be so much worse.
Rightly or wrongly, we now have a situation where a lot of people believe that they no longer benefit from society, and are in fact harmed by it, while they also see a few benefit greatly. I believe this is why many people who understand the implication of that choice would still rather vote for Trump, who promises to break things, than for Harris, who would have only made minor changes.
This is not advocacy for anything. I think these people are perhaps not exactly wrong, but they don't correctly estimate the cost of breaking a democratic system, even a poorly working one.
The point is just that it's a tale as old as human civilization itself. It would be disappointing if we've not yet learnt enough from our history to avoid more change via trauma.