These CEOs have found a way to game the system, but the system presupposes mutual respect. If one side reneges on this contract and says that technically they're following the rules, well, the other side will just disregard the rules. It's like the kid at the playground who won't play fair but insists that technically they follow the rules, ignoring completely the outcome -- kids just don't want to play with them anymore, and will probably be mean to the `cheater'.

That may feel acceptable, but I hope those people remember it when someone controversial they admire meets a similar fate, greeted by applause from the other side.

Once we start tacitly approving of extrajudicial killings, it doesn’t stop with just those you dislike or even just the outspoken figures. Consider how many completely innocent civilians died during the Troubles or the French Revolution, or how easy it would’ve been for someone completely innocent to get harmed here.

It’s easy to approve of this in a vacuum, it’s just a path full of extreme cognitive dissonance.

One of the many purposes of the justice system is to serve "justice" so people don't feel the need to take it in their own hands. The fact that so many people feel this murder is justified shows a clear breakdown of the justice system. Which should give everyone pause because that path does lead to the terrors you describe.

But the path to solving that has to involve adjustments to the system that address this mismatch, not just condemning the act or creating some huge diversion in the hope people will forget about it.

I would say that this is not only one of its proposes, but by far the most important. The system primarily prevents violence by convincing people they don’t need to commit violence to achieve justice.

If that starts to break down, people in power need to wake up and fix it. The system does not, cannot, protect them from the masses entirely by force. I fear that they have forgotten.

I’m not disagreeing.

I don’t think we should rejoice that justice has failed so miserably that people are applauding extrajudicial killings.

It’s a really, really, really bad thing.

It is absolutely not the duty of citizens to bend to an unjust system, but rather that of the justice system to reflect the ethics of its citizenry. Clearly there is a severe disconnect and "civil society" reached a breaking point around this issue.

What do you mean, “once we start”? It has always been. The only really unusual thing about this instance is that the target was not the sort of person who’s traditionally been seen as deserving it.

Things have notably gotten worse over the last decade or so, if that hasn’t been made abundantly clear.

Perhaps, but on a longer time horizon none of this is new.

On a longer time horizon the norm is brutal warfare that leaves many innocent people dead.

I don’t think we should be so keen to embrace that.

Even in times of peace, Americans love our righteous killings and murderous folk heroes.

I’m not keen to embrace it. But I think the finger-wagging is idiotic. Chastising people will accomplish nothing except for making them think you’re out of touch.

Folks disturbed by this outpouring of support for this murder should instead be asking why people feel that way. Maybe it’s because of a system that treats their lives as an expense to be minimized and gives them no recourse. If wide support for Luigi Mangione worries you, maybe look at fixing that.

Seems like you’re awfully annoyed by this conversation so I’ll let it go, but I hope you remember this convo the next time this happens to someone.

Right now, Daniel Penny is being celebrated by half the country for killing Neely, and the other half wishes something like this would happen to him.

I keep getting this response and I do not understand it. Why would I change my opinion just because other people might disagree?

It’s especially bizarre here because I haven’t even expressed an opinion about the killing. All I said is that love of killers is nothing new, and if you want it to stop then you need to change the circumstances that make people like killing, rather than just telling them that they’re bad.

There is a belief that Daniel Penny acted in the direct defense of those in the area. That is quite different than killing a CEO who is probably going to be replaced by the same type of person.

That's already happening. Just yesterday someone got acquitted of murdering a homeless person in NYC. The only thing that's different here is that it was a CEO who got killed instead of one of the peasants.

Murder wasn't even one of the charges, so even if he had been found guilty on all counts it still wouldn't justify you calling him a murderer

I don't think that the law necessarily defines whether or not someone is a murderer.

Stated another way, the law's job is to act in accordance with right and wrong, not to define it.

Yes, near 50% of the country is cheering that he was acquitted and someone was killed. The other 50% would be glad if he faced extrajudicial punishment.

Not a good state to be in.

Thankfully don’t admire anyone that kills people to boost profits

You might! You’d be surprised how many people have ties to the “defense” industry.

I mean, we’re already there. There wasn’t a shared reality in the past few years, and now we even have the generative tools to ensure there is even less shared reality.

Don’t be too glad to celebrate it, is my point.

> greeted by applause from the other side.

Considering the other side is a minority of top-level executives and media outlets, I wouldn't bank much on that.

People are going to celebrate killers regardless, as they always have, when the perpetrator shares the viewpoint of the majority. It happened with Jesus and Barabbas, it happened with Cromwell and Charles I, it happened with Louis XVI and the French revolutionaries.

In fact, I'm not surprised that Luigi has a bigger fanbase than the Trump shooter. The majority then were in awe of Trump, if not openly cheering him. Here, they're cheering Luigi, with some even insinuating that it was his plan to get caught (something which might as well be true).

> Considering the other side is a minority of top-level executives and media outlets, I wouldn't bank much on that.

The other side is often 50% of the country. Whatever controversial figures you like, near 50% of the country would gladly applause or at least quote Clarence Darrow if they were brutally murdered.

Something to keep in mind.

Trump just got elected and is appointing a cabinet of billionaires.

It should be noted that the context with Jesus and Barabbas is probably the failed Jewish revolt against Rome that led to the destruction of the temple in 70CE, with the gospel accounts looking to separate the emerging gentile Christian movement from the Jewish rebels.

It's similar to war heroes. Yes, Abraham Lincoln killed people. Yes, we could avoid glamorizing him and empathize with the poor southerners. But generally, war heroes are idolized. This guy is like a war hero who killed someone on the other side.

A CEO like this is an employee. He didn’t invent private insurance. He doesn’t get the 50 billion a year. He is a symbolic scapegoat.

Every person with a 401k probably owns UHC somewhere, and they expect it to increase every year. He is merely part of the system to help make that happen.

Try going into work tomorrow and saying “boss I think our VP’s initiatives are wrong and I’m going to take us in a different direction”.

There are good reasons to oppose his murder, but they are not found within him.

I don’t have to defend anyone against murder, it’s illegal and wrong.

Usually illegal, not always wrong.

I would prefer to see a distasteful person sent to retire to rural North Dakota, rather than murdered, but maybe I’m a little soft.

Just a cog, is your defense of him.

Do you think UHC is bad because the CEO happens to be a uniquely evil person and if it was someone with a good heart it would be good?

What kind of alternate reality would that be? The people heading these companies are good at rationalizing why they are not evil. Don't play their game.

The interesting question to me is where murder is justified in your ethics. You came in with absolutes, after defending him.

> He is merely part of the system to help make that happen.

Yeah, we saw that defense at Nuremberg. Didn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

I’m sure you never do anything because it’s enforced by the systems you are a part of. Always an independent thinker, looking out for your personal integrity.

You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.

The serious point is that blaming individual moral character is not going to fix healthcare. We need systemic change.

> I’m sure you never do anything because it’s enforced by the systems you are a part of.

I mean, I can quite confidently state I've not received tens of millions of dollars for my role in denying medical care to millions of people.

> You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.

I'm saying "I'm just a little peon in the system!" isn't a good defense. Doubly so for C-suite level folks. This wasn't some call center drone following a script.

> The serious point is that blaming individual moral character is not going to fix healthcare. We need systemic change.

Systemic change often requires individual people to be ashamed of the current setup.

Ok just to be clear: Your position is that UHC is bad because of the exceptionally poor morality of the CEO? And that if we name, shame, and threaten we will hopefully get a moral one who will turn it around?

> I'm just a little peon in the system!" isn't a good defense.

I agree. It’s not a good way to morally justify to yourself why you killed someone.

My position is that a CEO of a large publicly traded company doesn’t get to shimmy out of responsibility by going “woe is me, it’s the system’s fault!”

I think if the system keeps refusing to change something breaks. We just saw that in Syria. I think people are unsympathetic in this case because health insurers have already broken the social compact they’re supposed to operate within.

> woe is me

Who is saying that? I’m advocating for the change that will fix the system. Not the one that gives warm fuzzy feelings from righteous bloodlust.

But nothing is keeping you from working for that change, certainly not the fact that so many people want it so badly that they even cheer over the murder of a healthcare CEO. It's not a dichotomy; you can do either of these things, both, or none.

This idea of there being a "game" that just magically is, while players that cannot be blamed for playing, nonsense. We need to change the system people with low individual character created for their own benefits, yes. But that's still why we have those systems in the first place, that wasn't an accident or oversight or lack of an effort of common people to try and make the world better. They fight and struggle every day, against the efforts of people the likes of which Brian Thompson played willing executive for.

> You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.

They're comparing an excuse. It would be the same correct comparison if it was about someone parking illegally. And accepting and enabling suffering and death of people for profit rather than out of fear of being shot isn't exactly better.

There are two separate ideas here:

1. Wanting to determine blame, and assign good and bad morality labels.

2. wanting to make healthcare better.

1. is merely psychosocial. It’s ultimately to make you feel better by constructing a revenge justification narrative.

Murdering administrators does nothing to fix 2. They will just replace him with the next guy in line.

No matter how you construe it, he didn’t make healthcare bad and he is not empowered to fix it.

This just occurred to me though. Is UHC going to have a hard time finding a CEO that continues this practice? Have they actually been given any reason to change? Any reason to believe they won't just double down?

If this murder doesn't change anything, was it justified? I just don't know.

Ironically, the net result may be an increase in CEO compensation.