Fully agree with you, vigilante justice should not happen because we have a system protecting the citizens and doing them justice. Wait, do we actually have such a workable system? Because if not, vigilante justice is just around the corner.
being legal doesn't make it right or ethical though.
the legislators clearly think the system is fine and workable as evidenced by the legislature passed to allow profits over, quite literally, anything else in this country.
whilst i don't condone murder or vigilantism, i fully expect more of this because this is exactly what the 'system' has wrought. when you have nothing to lose, all options are on the table.
But don't you think that a more civilized way to solve it is by voting and changing the legislators who think this is right?
I mean, the issue is when it goes from a sacrificed lamb CEO from a very disgraceful industry and replicates to the rest of society.
But don't you think that a more civilized way to
solve it is by voting and changing the legislators
who think this is right?
Rule of law is a precious thing, even if it’s imperfect, as all human systems will inevitably be. We shouldn’t be cavalier about discarding it. The alternatives are much worse.
Back on topic...
The relevant campaign spending figures here would be "minimum amounts of funding to run a viable campaign" and not "how much did the winner spend."
What I, unlike our recently deceased strawman, was pointing out is that without backing from corporations and the people who own them, your chances of winning elections to higher offices (congress, presidency) are close to zero. And the odds of enough similarly-untainted, like-minded people getting elected concurrently (or at least running campaigns popular enough to pressure those in office) is even more astronomically low.
But....
Campaign funding issues only scratch the surface of what it would take to achieve any kind of real reform re: freeing the government from corporate influence.
Because even if you, say, pull off some kind of underdog miracle and get elected to Congress without completely selling out... you're not going to accomplish shit without political capital, somehow bucking the other 534 members of Congress who have sold out.
I guess the truth of that statement depends on whether or not you consider the $36 billion dollars that Musk has lost on Twitter to have been "spent" or not.
It's also not just funding. It's funding, gerrymandering, the electoral college, lobbying, the Supreme Court, voter suppression, etc.
There's just scads of historical evidence to support what a bad idea that usually is.