[martin-t]

Why do you call them "leaders"? They are "people in positions of power".

I don't understand where this desire to be led comes from. Other people do not have your best interest in mind. I want others to get out of my way, unless we have a conflict of interest and then we _might_ need a third party to resolve it. But I certainly don't need or want to be led.

[zaphar]

Because I fundamentally disagree with the whole "power" is everything dynamic that seems to crop up here. They are leaders because people follow them. The only power they have is the power that others give them. Leaders captures that better than "people in positions of power".

[martin-t]

Almost all power is like that. Power comes from the ability to do violence (or threaten/imply it) and there's only so much guns and ammo you can carry. Not to mention the attacker has the advantage here and full-body ballistic protection would be too cumbersome and still wouldn't stop an IED. I mean, the IRA mortared Downing Street and that was 1990s tech.

To amass enough violence to control large numbers of people, you need to incentivize other people to apply violence for you. Dictatorships are more honest in this regard - they reward such subservients with the opportunity to abuse others for pleasure and material benefit.

Democracies OTOH tell people that we're all better off if the system works and anyone upsetting it hurts everyone so it's everyone's best interest to "pacify" them.

You're right that many people are very submissive though and just do what they are told even it it harms them long term. Usually the forcing mechanism is other people would punish you if you didn't punish the person you are supposed to. I mean, most of the cops who hunted down Luigi benefited from the CEOs death, yet they still did it. Because the benefit is too indirect and delayed and the punishment for getting caught not doing your job on purpose is immediate and direct.

I still object to the term leader because they don't lead, they tell people what to do. Not all leadership has to be be example but it implies some participation in the activity, its benefits and its dangers. Modern politicians are too well-shielded from the reality of working people.

[zaphar]

No cop who hunted down Luigi benefited from the CEO's death. Not a single one. Unless by benefit you mean "felt good about the death". Which, is lame and sad for anyone who thinks that. No policy changes were made as a result of the death. No systemic changes are going to happen as a result of the death. Pretending like there was something to gain from it is at best naive and at worst actively harmful to society.

[martin-t]

AFAIK two effects were immediate.

1) Some CEOs stopped posting their photos and other information online, clearly understanding they too could become targets and somewhat lowering the social prestige of that position.

2) One insurance company backed down from its attempt to decide how long anaesthesia should last instead of the doctors.

A long term effect is that many podle feel empowered to talk about how big companies and abusing the system and what they think should happen to people controlling those companies.

Look how many doctors and nurses started taking about the abusive practices of insurance companies. Hopefully it leads to change, otherwise it's likely events like this will keep happening, especially when the abused are people who have little to lose.

[zaphar]

The first as an effect is negligible and likely extremely temporary. The second I'm unfamiliar about and also likely extremely temporary. Your long term effect I disagree with. I don't think the murder made people feel any more empowered than they were before. But if you want to make that as an example then I think I have roughly about as much evidence that it empowers people to think murdering cops for the same power dynamics at play.