Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcuskane2 | Hacker News Reader

> Or terrorists who kill people

Your post is ironically just a pro-terrorism argument. You want terrorism targeted at CEOs to change their behavior.

There are a million different viewpoints on what acts are harmful and how to minimize or prevent those harms. It's better that we use things like voting and laws and courts to collectively reach consensus on when to use violence, rather than individuals killing people who disagree with them.

You can argue that this CEO should have been arrested for some crime and you can argue that said crime should carry the death penalty upon conviction. But that doesn't mean it's valid for a random person to be judge, jury and executioner based on their own personal concept of justice.

View on HN

Sorry to be pedantic here, but terrorism has multiple definitions, all of which include the keywords 'for political goals'. This doesn't seem political to kill the person responsible for the death of one of your loved one. Sure the event itself is politic, sure it breaks the social contract, but this isn't political by itself,so it isn't terrorism.

I suppose the way to ascertain whether this incident was terrorism is the ask the person whether it was revenge or to effect structural change in healthcare.

"deny" "defend" "depose"

sure looks personal

Terrorism is a catch-all word. And it's quite an effective one at making blanket statements with no nuance.

You are literally making the case that if CEOs are scared they will change their behavior. You shouldn’t even have to squint to see how that’s terrorosm.

Okay then. Provide any definition of terrorism and I will tell you how the system takes part in terrorism against ordinary citizens every day.

How about 14 random people, randomly selected? That's a full Jury, a Judge, and an Executioner, worth of people.

Not endorsing the practice, merely pointing out that to put someone to death in the U.S. defined notion of due process, no more than about 2 dozen key people's assent/cooperation need be attained.

> Not endorsing the practice, merely pointing out that to put someone to death in the U.S. defined notion of due process, no more than about 2 dozen key people's assent/cooperation need be attained.

Surely you mean no less than two dozen?

Terrorism is political policy designed to make everyone terrified "they could be next". If a random person on the street gets shot that's terrorism, but if Adolf Hitler gets shot that isn't terrorism since most people aren't Adolf Hitler and don't have to worry about being treated the same way. Somewhere between these two points is a dividing line.

Yeah, if we extend this into a gotham esque deterioration of society and slippery slope ourselves into gibberimg carnal terror that they might come for us next. But for this case, who exactly disagrees that this man was leading a harmful and terrible system? It seems to me like every single person who's ever had insurance difficulties (98%) is very much in complete agreement about the crimes of this man. And the rest are simply inempathetic, privileged people who've been lucky enough to not encounter the real insurance industry. This isn't about Healthcare, this is about insurance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com