[EDIT] Inb4 more people try to suggest that I’m mourning the loss of this scumbag capitalist fuck: No, I’m not sad he’s dead. No, I don’t think corporate murder is acceptable and no, I would not ever rat to police if I knew the shooter and yes, I believe the punishment fits the crimes he’s committed against untold thousands of people. THAT SAID…
I’m not down with vigilante murder or anything because it seems like the slipperiest of slopes toward chaos, but what other option is there in a situation where someone seeks to make an impact in this way? You can’t just beat up evil CEOs and let them go back to work. It would be naïve to expect them to change their ways when faced with consequences for their actions and then promptly let go. It just seems like the chances that it emboldens their penchant for exploitative behaviour and disdain for people in need are too high.
We’re just born into and strapped to this capitalist ride and expected to sit quiet and make these leeches their billions. How else can this cancerous greed possibly be dealt with? Is vigilante murder the only effective option? Honest questions. I’m terribly conflicted and I’m genuinely curious what more reasonable and intelligent minds than mine think about this because I can’t think of an alternative to murder in this case.
Ideally, we wouldn’t have to resort to vigilante killings to level the playing field but I 100% understand that we don’t live in a society where the rich will ever give a fuck about the rest of us or would ever sacrifice their power over us in the name of goodwill.
OP, can you please edit your question to make it clearer. Remember, open-ended and thought provoking.
I tried. Not sure how much clearer I can make it if this doesn’t do the trick.
The closest thing to a real answer that i can come up with is to remove money from politics. That itself seems near impossible a goal, but in order to start making better decisions you have to improve the decision making process that got us to this point.
Taking money from politics is like taking food from cooking. Not compatible.
The whole point of politics is power, influence, assignment of scarce resources. I don’t mean this in a bad way, it’s literally what politics is about: you want your government to make laws that influence your community, to collect taxes and use them in a certain way, to regulate certain things the way you’d like. Without those things politics are meaningless.
Money is just power that you can measure and trade, it will always be part of the equation. Removing money from politics is nonsensical.
Justice Thomas? Is that you on Lemmy?
There’s few countries where the effectiveness of electoral campaigns are measured in the amount of money raised.
It is possible to regulate the amount of money in politics, there’s plenty of examples.
Party funding and salaries are not “the money” that is in politics, those are peanuts. Do you think Elon musk is interested in a government job because he wants the paycheck?
I wasn’t taking about that at all.
I’m most countries there time of money in politics is way healthier than in the us.
So it’s possible to regulate that better.
Yes but you are talking about party funding. Politicians are not into it for the funding, that’s peanuts.
The relationship between politics and money is already regulated, that’s what embezzlement laws are about. They can be improved, but you’ll find it’s harder than you would think.
Surely decoupling money from politics is not possible, which is what I was answering about.
No I was talking about electoral funding, through super PACs and the like. How individuals and companies can buy their way into politicians favor.
I was talking about that the dollar amount raised during elections is a measure of success. That’s not the case in almost all developed countries. And it’s wrong.
Aha, gotchu now
The whole point of politics is compromise. Finding solutions that the most people can accept.
Compromise is the… point, of politics? Are you sure? At best it’s a mean to an end, and only in democracy. We’re not taking moral judgement here, just what is what.
When the justice system no longer provides justice, justice will be sought elsewhere.
If any other avenue existed: it would long have been tried and replicated. They have the judiciary, they have the legislative bodies, they have the senates, they have the presidencies/head of states whatever.
For now… Eventually the bastards will basically be like D&D liches and can only be destroyed if you find their phylactery: Their consciousness uploaded to a computer kept in a fortified bunker, miles underground.
See: the recent fallout show
This situation is the result of them facing literally no consequences ever for tons of exceeding evil shit. It appears to be the only form of justice available
Thats what the comment above yours said.
Over the last several years, I have had opportunities or at least contemplated opportunities to make lots of money while exploiting others or being a completely useless finance bro.
The thing that keeps me from moving in those directions is moral character. If you can’t bring yourself to bullshit your fellow human and take from them to enrich yourself without providing any real value, you won’t get as rich as a CEO. Think of all those get rich quick YouTubers who do nothing but sell digital bullshit or ebooks about how to sell ebooks or some other digital bullshit to get rich quick.
There are, of course, exceptions, but what did Brian Thompson really do for society? Moreover, what harm did he cause to society?
These people know they are doing the wrong thing and are cashing in on their ability to take from society while enriching themselves. In the context of health care, they’re literally hurting and killing people.
Remember when the arguments against nationalized health care were mostly about how we would have death panels? How fucking ironic.
There are so many more of us than there are of them that a general strike would bring about swift change without us stooping to their level of harming others to gain and wield power.
Unfortunately, we’d have to stop all the infighting and work together. We couldn’t be bothered to do that for the latest US presidential election, so I’m not sure we’d do it in this case.
I have even less hope that violence and threats of violence will do any good at this point. They have so much money, they can buy invincibility. And that’ll be even easier under the next administration. Vigilantism is a feel-good revenge fantasy rather than it leading to anyone’s life improving. If it was effective it would be much more common. We’ve got the guns in America, but their use has not yet caused a utopia.
Best answer here
I mean the labor movement that lead to humane labor laws was very much violent. Compared to what insisting on nonviolence would’ve accomplished, the modern US is indeed a utopia. As for why, well, count the number of children you know who work in coal mines.
Unfortunately, we’d have to stop all the infighting and work together.
Given all the divisions in our society, it’s remarkable how unified people seem over cheering this CEOs murder. I think we may have unlocked a common cause.
They have so much money, they can buy invincibility.
There is no such thing. Even the secret service drops the ball sometimes. Also, more security means more potential for betrayal. If the demand for security personal goes up, the quality will go down.
Killing in the defense of others is a legal defense to homicide.
If the guy were attacking people with a machete, nobody would dream of prosecuting the person who put him down.
The fact that he’s doing it slightly more slowly, but on a massively larger scale should not change anything.
The fact that he’s doing it slightly more slowly, but on a massively larger scale should not change anything.
This is something that I hope society learns to comprehend and act on more effectively in the future.
A lot of today’s huge problems we’ve known about since I was a kid 30 years ago - climate change, corporate greed, housing crisis, immigration, etc. I spent most of my times growing up arguing with adults, having my lived experience questioned. I thought there would be a tipping point when I started working, or paying my own way through life, where the condescension would stop but it never did.
The current older generation has lived longer than any other in history, and they’ve clung to control for as long as possible. Even when younger leaders come in, they’re still trapped in these outdated values—Victorian at best—that keep pulling us backwards. Somehow, they’ve convinced themselves that investors deserve their returns more than people deserve to live. It’s soul crushing.
immigration
Is it really a big issue or are you just internalizing the language of the oppressing class, putting common people against each other?
The current older generation has lived longer than any other in history, and they’ve clung to control for as long as possible.
And now you’re adding ageism to the mix. It is not old people who are the problem! Keep your eyes fixed on the real enemies and don’t target your exploited fellows.
The current older generation has lived longer than any other in history, and they’ve clung to control for as long as possible
And they’ve used that time to change laws and tax codes to ensure their power and money will pass to their children, forming lasting dynasties who will continue their extortive behavior.
$1000 says Baron Trump will be president someday, no laws required (just idiots)
We’ve become too soft, and we need to get used to harsh realities. What was done was a perfectly acceptable and reasonable response. May this be the beginning of something new.
tldr: there is the electoral system.
governments change because of who leads/ represents the people in their governments.
in the US, “the people” have little to no understanding of their government(there have been studies about this for the last 60 years), and because conservatives campaign on emotional bigotry, which is immediately hard-hitting and compelling versus waiting 2 years to receive a tax decrease(which works, but takes 2 years), undereducated and unsupported American citizens have been put into increasingly untenable situations where they are struggling to survive while working themselves to the bone and receiving lower compensation, and if an emergency arises, they are denied basic services.
when you have no other options to support yourself, murder becomes an option, since nothing else has worked and they are provided with no other options they are comfortable with.
there are some civil services, and the government can always change, regardless of what popular opinion fashions, but right now in the US you have a couple hundred million people desperate to survive in a country that provided survival wages, and now that they have reelected Trump and he’s already before even taking the White House began turning against unions and civil rights, those wages will probably lower again, living cost increasing and civil benefits decreasing.
out of 200 million desperate people, some of them are willing to take the most drastic measure because maybe it’ll make a difference, who knows.
i mean, lots of people know, but most Americans have been clinging to the edge of a cliff by their fingertips for years or decades, so they don’t have the perspective that others may.
People vote for greed because schooling indoctrinates hierarchy: https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-public-schools-in-your-country-are-designed-to-make-kids-docile-obedient-workers-for-the-upper-class/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen
How schools should be: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-one-thing-that-should-be-taught-in-school-that-isnt-already/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen
Schools have leaned hard into producing victims over the last few decades. They promote policies that ensure nobody ever learns to defend themselves, or fight back against bullies or the system. They actively punish kids who recognize they have a right to defend themselves.
Without knowing why he did what he did, we can speculate, I can not judge him for his actions.
I can make assumptions, as many have done, as to why he felt it justified to take the life of another.
If we are to assume the shooter to be sound of mind and logic, we can only assume his actions to have been taken in a just morality.
He must have known that killing one man could never right or prevent the wrongs he experienced. He didn’t kill someone irrefutably innocent. He didn’t kill a random person. He didn’t kill the messenger. He killed the person at the top to send a message. Points off for his message not being excruciatingly clear in motive. Points for his execution, thus far.
He scared people of a similar position to try and wipe their names from the internet, lol they don’t know how the internet works. They are scared, but they will need to be more scared into correcting the wrong that the shooter experienced. They have operated with the feeling of impunity from the consequences of their actions. If one death can correct the course of things, that death is justified. Unfortunately, we do not live in a just world.
If his, or other’s ambitions are greater, there can be a horrible justice done in this world if those in power are unwilling to do what is right.
I don’t want another person to die when they can be saved, but I don’t cry for a life lost to save many more.
Profit < people. If you feel otherwise, you deserve a one gun salute.
Don’t kill people and don’t be a dick, but I wouldn’t see or say a damn thing if you do the right thing in the wrong way.
Do you feel that the words he etched into the shell casings that he left behind still leave questions as to what his motive was? It seems pretty clear to most of us.
The deceased was almost certainly killed because of his position as CEO. We don’t know if the killer did it because he lost a loved one, is going to lose a loved one, was wronged by the company, did it as a sense of justice, worked for the company at some point, or if the message is a red hearing and he was a hitman or jilted by a cheating spouse/gf.
Thanks to everyone that spent time writing in response to this. This added context from so many perspectives really clears a lot of things up for me. 🙏
imo, the cancerous greed is unchecked capitalism.
when the whole system is designed to gain power thru money, it’s money that is needed to fight back. this is all just my two cents but, people that do not vote for increasing minimum wage policies are losing their biggest bargaining chip.
I’m sorry, but we could increase minimum wage to $400 per hour, and an entire lifetime worth of work wouldn’t equate to what these people make in a single quarter. Yes, we should improve the system for the working class, but working alone will not even get a person 0.01% of what they would need to fight powers such as these. It takes organizations. It takes a movement.
yes, it is indeed a sorry state. even i don’t think minimum wage policies could take effect with oniy one person voting in.
but what other option is there in a situation where someone seeks to make an impact in this way?
You can form an organization that gathers evidence and levies lawsuits in an effort to expose and stop their abhorrent practices. You just need to make it your sole purpose in life. It only took Rob Bilott 30 years to get DuPont to stop knowingly poisoning 99.9% of all life on planet earth. DuPont was even fined 3% of their annual profits from a single year. Other than that? Nothing. They have their hooks into the politicians, the legislators, the judges, the regulatory agencies, and the police forces. How do you fight that without making it your entire life’s work?
That is a great question. Thanks for the link. I only know the surface level basics of the DuPont story.
One would need to forge a dominant unified labor union or labor union network that has the sole purpose of representing the worker. Unions would need the power to cripple a company. It will cost everyone more at first, but it could eventually claw back the salaries of c-level executives.
Six words:
soap box
ballot box
ammo box
more words than that:
First you try talking. You campaign, you protest, you petition. None of that has worked during my lifetime.
So you turn up to the polls to vote. Because of how elections work in this country there are only two actual choices, one wants to actively destroy the healthcare industry and the other isn’t all that bothered by the destruction of the first. Everybody in congress owns stock and they get paid for fucking over the citizens. When the citizens say “give us healthcare” and the Republicans say “no” and the Democrats say “No. 🏳️🌈 #BLM” We’re kind of past it.
The only option left is violence. Isn’t it amazing how much unifying power there is to be found in the act of putting three little bullets in one little executive?
