> vigilante justice (especially against nonviolent offenders) is wrong.
is it non-violent when they wield the system in a way to cause immense harm to the point where they are prolific killers indirectly and maybe even straight up directly? 90+ percent error rates in the AI that united used to deny claims is a violence. they denied 30+ percent of all claims.
No, violence is violence only when it's physical and direct. For example, mental violence doesn't exist. Verbal abuse does not exist. And in this case, United Healthcare had committed no sin at all, because due to being a non-physical entity incapable of physically interacting with the world, it didn't physically hurt anyone. Therefore it committed no violence. QED.
Strange rationale. By that logic you are also a prolific mass murderer as you have not paid physicians to provide medical care to patients. Indirectly you have killed, well, everyone because you didn’t pay infinite money to provide unbounded medical care for every person who has died.
This is strange logic because anyone who is insured pay for other indirectly - that’s how insurance works: pull the money together so that anyone that will have bad luck of getting sick will use money from that pull. The assumption is majority of people won’t get seriously ill but once ill normally it would be financially devastating.
Basically, it is your moral obligation to donate everything you have, except for what little you need to survive. If we put that essay into this context, then not donating would indeed be violence, such as not saving a drowning child just because you don't want to.
Applying moral and ethical justifications to an event that is fundamentally caused by an ever-widening social rift is pointless.
It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong or justified or evil or a saint. This happened because tensions among non-filthy-rich and filthy-rich people are increasing to a point of non return.
You are not replying to their point. It was not that murder was non-violent, it was that statistical violence is indeed violence. Even if you hold a “denied and go die bankrupt” stamp and not a gun.
not to justify murder in the street, but i'm fairly certain you'd be systematically prevented, logistically and businesswise, from building an alternative system.
Nope. You are free to establish an alternate system if you like. There are medical facilities that are flat rate and cash only, like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, https://surgerycenterok.com/. There are also many cost sharing services, like this one https://altruahealthshare.org. Ultimately you also have the personal option of becoming a physician and setting any rate you choose for your services, including $0.
If a terrorist is running down fifth avenue with a bomb, would it be justified to shoot and kill them? What if the shooter isn't a police officer, but a member of the public?
Oh please, like if it's 1930 and you're walking behind Hitler knowing the future, you probably stab him. Or maybe if you're walking behind Ted Bundy in 1970. At least if you're a future-knowing trolley problem type person.
It's obvious that there are plenty of situations where murder in the streets is justified. Just that we rarely know of them in the moment.
I think the people making those arguments are suggesting not that the murder that Luigi Mangione committed was is right, but that it was good. It is not right by the laws of our nation; it is illegal because it is not right. It is the government's function to investigate and prosecute that crime. The overwhelming popular support for Luigi suggests that there is a collectively-recognized significant justification for the crime. Like Ken McElroy, the town bully who was murdered in 1981, in broad daylight in the town square, by bullets coming in from different angles, and nobody saw a thing.
Hitler was well on his rise to power by 1930. None of us can know who the next Hitler is. We are all familiar with Ray Bradbury and Back to the Future, which told us about how you cannot really know the future or bend it to your will. Furthermore, vigilantism is against the law, and the justice system of the government also has the job of preventing violent uprisings for various and good reasons.
The collective feeling that everybody, and I mean everybody displays, and is clearly being censored on media, is that there is a weighing of the collective morality of the situation which does not add up. This young man has been charged with a multitude of crimes. He has been charged with terrorism. Like, I went to school for international law, and I am going back to my resources, looking at the definitions, and trying to figure out how that fits. To me, a terrorist is somebody who plotted or crashed the planes into the towers. The idea that Mangione's victim, through the decisions of the company, might have caused millions of unnecessary deaths, when there could have been different paths taken, it is an leap, but it is not abstraction that is out of the grasp of many persons who have faced the medical system, specifically with treatment denial letters, on an individual level. By the way, that school that I attended was in another country which gave me free public healthcare during the length of my studies.
New York Penal Law Section 490.25 "Crime of terrorism", which is one of the statues of the second count under which Luigi has been charged, reads: A person is guilty of a crime of terrorism when, with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she commits a specified offense.
I do not believe that the Luigi has intimated the civilian population. A shop in his hometown has a portrait of him depicted as Jesus. Luigi did not attempt to target a unit of government; he wrote an explanatory note to "The Feds".
I think that many what many people are saying is that universal, single-payer health care is expected to be a function of government, and in fact something like the opposite is being protected.
I really hope that the District Attorney has the argument for the second count pinned down, or that it is dropped. I think that is where the ethical test for this crime lays.
is it non-violent when they wield the system in a way to cause immense harm to the point where they are prolific killers indirectly and maybe even straight up directly? 90+ percent error rates in the AI that united used to deny claims is a violence. they denied 30+ percent of all claims.