I don’t think that’s a good comparison. The One healthy person existing isn’t making the other 5 people’s lives worse.
Whereas with private health insurance beholden to shareholders is a predatory system that enables systemic misery and death. UHG are particularly egregious in their denials.
I’m not saying it’s inconceivable that the murder of such a person could lead to positive change, but the murderer themselves should not be celebrated - they should be treated for what they are: a murderer. Encouraging vigilante justice will not create the kind of world people naively imagine. Not everyone agrees on who the “bad people” are.
This kind of violence will eventually be directed at our heroes too, and anyone celebrating people like Luigi will then have no moral ground to stand on from where to condemn that violence. It’s exactly what they asked for.
Sometimes a murder victim deserved it. As a CEO of a major private health insurance company, notorious in its own right for claim denials, Mr. Thompson was significantly responsible for a good amount of social murder. There are of course other social murderers out there, but we should be grateful this one was stopped.
Anyway, the working class is already disproportionately victimized by the bourgeoisie. They’re the ones with no moral standing. They’re the ones asking for it.
Similar argument can be used to justify the murder of many other people we would otherwise deem good. This is not the way. There’s a reason we no longer act like we did during the middle ages. It’s not for individual rogue actors to choose who gets to live and who doesn’t. That’s not a world anyone wants to live in.
Are you suggesting that that the nature of a murder victim shouldn’t be relevant in a murder trial? Killing a bad guy should be potentially completely mitigating. We have precedent for that. For example, Gary Plauché served no prison time for publicly murdering his son’s rapist.
![[OC] Best graffiti of the day](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/bb024bbf-b010-4431-9962-18791c27b9d1.jpeg){kind=link}
I don’t think that’s a good comparison. The One healthy person existing isn’t making the other 5 people’s lives worse.
Whereas with private health insurance beholden to shareholders is a predatory system that enables systemic misery and death. UHG are particularly egregious in their denials.
I’m not saying it’s inconceivable that the murder of such a person could lead to positive change, but the murderer themselves should not be celebrated - they should be treated for what they are: a murderer. Encouraging vigilante justice will not create the kind of world people naively imagine. Not everyone agrees on who the “bad people” are.
This kind of violence will eventually be directed at our heroes too, and anyone celebrating people like Luigi will then have no moral ground to stand on from where to condemn that violence. It’s exactly what they asked for.
Sometimes a murder victim deserved it. As a CEO of a major private health insurance company, notorious in its own right for claim denials, Mr. Thompson was significantly responsible for a good amount of social murder. There are of course other social murderers out there, but we should be grateful this one was stopped.
Anyway, the working class is already disproportionately victimized by the bourgeoisie. They’re the ones with no moral standing. They’re the ones asking for it.
Similar argument can be used to justify the murder of many other people we would otherwise deem good. This is not the way. There’s a reason we no longer act like we did during the middle ages. It’s not for individual rogue actors to choose who gets to live and who doesn’t. That’s not a world anyone wants to live in.
Are you suggesting that that the nature of a murder victim shouldn’t be relevant in a murder trial? Killing a bad guy should be potentially completely mitigating. We have precedent for that. For example, Gary Plauché served no prison time for publicly murdering his son’s rapist.