[wakawaka28]

>I feel like the murderer wouldn't be so widely commended if that were true. Justice is what is supposed to prevent vigilantism, and apparently lots of people here felt that the murder was just.

OK then, what crime did the CEO commit? Simply presiding over a business that people don't like, which he has no real power to change, is not a crime in any sense.

Vigilantism only makes sense when there is no justice for real obvious crimes with known guilty parties. And even then, it has many downsides.

A loud minority (or even majority) of people condoning this does not make it right. In the absence of an articulable crime for which the victim is responsible, this is simple murder. You can rationalize it all you want but your logic could be used to justify lynch mobs.

[stavros]

Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives? The Nazis couldn't claim "I was just running the concentration camp" as a defense. The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO".

[s1artibartfast]

>Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives?

Because the publics and their representatives made the law that this is a perfectly legal and acceptable thing to do.

Killing a CEO does very little, as there are hundreds of millions of people lined up to take their job.

It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject things like single payer healthcare or reform.

[wakawaka28]

>It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject things like single payer healthcare or reform.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not but I'll argue as if it isn't. First of all, nobody knows if single payer or any reform would lead to anything better. It's a complex issue that boils down to trying to get something for nothing (or at a price lower than the limited supply of healthcare dictates), which leads to enslaving other people to pay for one's own needs. You can do something about corporate corruption such as in the insurance industry. But state corruption is much more insidious. If you feel that strongly about state-sponsored healthcare then there are lots of other countries you can choose to live in that allegedly have the benefits you want, rather than just hating or doing harm to your neighbors. Furthermore, the MAJORITY of people who approve of the current system aren't going to stand by helpless as random wannabe tyrants attack them.

[s1artibartfast]

Not a joke, but a critique of CEO assassination as a tool for reform. My central point is that this is a political and legal dispute. Agreement amongst voters is the bottleneck, not some CEO

[wakawaka28]

I said joking but I meant exaggerating. At least I hope it's hyperbole. Even contemplation of killing your neighbor because they don't support your particular views about the solution to a complex issue is batshit insane.

[s1artibartfast]

And I'm saying it is less insane than shooting CEOs and expecting change.

[wakawaka28]

Comparing a CEO of an insurance company to a Nazi officer running a concentration camp is so stupid I don't even know where to begin.

Insurance companies aren't overtly or covertly killing people. They might not be paying for their healthcare in every single instance where they should. As a business, they must decide what services to cover and at what price or they won't be in business for long. They face extensive regulation to ensure that they are not doing exactly the thing you're accusing them of. Yes that means everything has a limit.

Luigi was a rich kid. Neither he nor his family had any business with this insurance company or the CEO, as I understand it. So this action on his part is the result of some insanity plus radicalization, perhaps by people like yourself who have the gall to compare 100% legal businesses to Nazi concentration camps. Our political discourse has really degraded in my lifetime, with one large faction now frequently accusing everyone they disagree with of being Nazis. No good can come of this.

>The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO".

Perhaps he could change something but you can't articulate what that is exactly, because you don't care. You just hate the industry as a whole. Even if the industry needs a lot of improvement, it is entirely legal and regulated, and not a charity. The CEO has no reason to leave because he's got a great job at what most people regard as an upstanding business.

It could be argued that Luigi's murder of this CEO and the public reaction to it could make insurance worse. How? Think about it. What competent CEO-type would want to work at a company if it might put a target on his back? A lot of normal people would not want to. So you're less likely to get a competent and relatable CEO, and more likely to get a cutthroat or incompetent one. The kind of person who doesn't care that lots of people would celebrate his death just for having held the position. And an incompetent one could lead to more deaths, because insurance is basically a finance business that must make enough money to cover its expenses. If they go broke, then nobody is getting covered.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

> ...perhaps by people like yourself who have the gall to compare 100% legal businesses to Nazi concentration camps.

At the time of Nazi rulership in Germany concentration camps were 100% legal.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filbinger_affair

[wakawaka28]

OK but it's still an incredible stretch to compare murders of prisoners to some company that isn't giving you all the wildly expensive benefits you think you're entitled to. There is also a big difference because most Germans were unaware of what concentration camps were doing, whereas everyone with basic awareness knows what an insurance company is and can choose to not do business with them.

Health insurance is a modern invention. People lived for thousands of years without it, and even in recent times most of the world does not have it. If you don't like insurance, you have the option of saving and investing your money to pay for whatever you can. Some people cannot afford to pay their expenses by saving, but those people cannot afford insurance either. Someone has to pay for whatever is on offer. I don't think insurance should be used for common health care, only for catastrophic things that you can't anticipate. Imagine how expensive car insurance would be if you insisted on having it pay for oil, tires, carwashes, etc. That is how people treat health insurance and it's stupid.

[antifa]

> some company that isn't giving you all the wildly expensive benefits you think you're entitled to

nice strawman