Yeah, but I don't understand how that relates to deciding that some "legal behaviour shouldn't be legal", as per @chrisstiles's phrasing.
I agree that the behaviour of the insurance companies should be legally curtailed. But what I had been directly debating with @Ruth was the circumstances in which it's fair to compare capitalists to serial killers.
This is another one of the things that we've been socialized not to see. The modern industrialized state is one of the most effective purveyors of violence to ever exist. In some political science formulations states are defined as entities having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Functioning states back up their laws with violence or the threat of violence. ("Force" is right there at the center of "enforcement".) We're willing to tolerate this because the kind of internal violence exercised by the state is preferable to the kind of violence that happens in the state's absence and if you're lucky enough to live in a democratic society you have at least some say in how that violence is directed, but I'm always somewhat awestruck at the way state enforcement mechanisms don't even enter most people's consciousness as a form of directed violence.
I will note that over in the Syria thread no one is claiming that "violence is never the answer".
Causing someone's death is not necessarily violence, as normally understood. I think we need to be careful about our use of words.
Well, I'm not sure anyone has said that the actions of greedy health insurers is violence, more that there's a moral equivalency between their actions and some violent actions.
As an example...
If a man gets into a fight with his son and drowns him in the bathtub, that's a violent action.
If a lifeguard sees someone yelling for help in the pool, but doesn't wanna get his newly sculpted hair wet so sits there and watches the person drown, that's not a violent action, but some would argue it's morally the same as the first case.
Causing someone's death is not necessarily violence, as normally understood. I think we need to be careful about our use of words.
Well, I'm not sure anyone has said that the actions of greedy health insurers is violence, more that there's a moral equivalency between their actions and some violent actions.
As an example...
If a man gets into a fight with his son and drowns him in the bathtub, that's a violent action.
If a lifeguard sees someone yelling for help in the pool, but doesn't wanna get his newly sculpted hair wet so sits there and watches the person drown, that's not a violent action, but some would argue it's morally the same as the first case.
Or, an example if someone holds someone under the water and won't let them up unless they pay a lot of money that's violence.
If the lifeguard let's someone drown unless they a lot of money to be saved ...
I think the issue with the way many US health insurance schemes work (especially as portrayed here in the UK, which I know is probably a very poor reflection of reality) is a bit like paying to use a swimming pool with a lifeguard on duty and expecting their fee to use the pool also covered the lifeguard, only to find that when that lifeguard is needed there were some extra payments that they should have made or that the lifeguard was only on duty for one end of the pool and there's no clear line to show those in the pool which area was covered.
Yeah, but I don't understand how that relates to deciding that some "legal behaviour shouldn't be legal", as per @chrisstiles's phrasing.
I agree that the behaviour of the insurance companies should be legally curtailed. But what I had been directly debating with @Ruth was the circumstances in which it's fair to compare capitalists to serial killers.
This is another one of the things that we've been socialized not to see. The modern industrialized state is one of the most effective purveyors of violence to ever exist. In some political science formulations states are defined as entities having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Functioning states back up their laws with violence or the threat of violence. ("Force" is right there at the center of "enforcement".) We're willing to tolerate this because the kind of internal violence exercised by the state is preferable to the kind of violence that happens in the state's absence and if you're lucky enough to live in a democratic society you have at least some say in how that violence is directed, but I'm always somewhat awestruck at the way state enforcement mechanisms don't even enter most people's consciousness as a form of directed violence.
I believe it's Weber who came up with the state being a monopoly on violence. And, yeah, I agree with that definition, and also that it's a good thing for the state to have those powers.
At the end of the day, the only reason I pay for the things I buy is because I know that if I don't, and I get caught, the police have the power to forcibly haul me to the police station, then to court, and then to prison.
So, let's say someone from South Africa who suffered as a result of the doctor-shortage gets the name of some Canadian bureaucrat who was involved in implementing the policy, and guns him down. Do you think it would be fair to say there's no difference between what shoiterbdid to the bureaucrat, and what the bureaucrat did to South Africans?
I don't know. I'm not going to make a moral judgement about something I only learned about on an internet discussion board a few minutes ago.
What I will say is that we are much better at identifying violence when it is on a small scale and personal than when it's on a large, impersonal scale. Numerous commentators over the last week have pointed out that UHC and other health insurance companies do violence and are rewarded for it.
Fair enough. I'll just leave for consideration my point that deciding which legally operating capitalists can be considered fair-game for the "white-collar serial killer" equivalency is a pretty slippery slope.
We decide that legal behaviour shouldn't be legal all the time.
Sorry. I honestly don't understand how that relates to what I wrote. Could you maybe re-phrase, with direct reference to my comment?
What Ruth said was:
"Numerous commentators over the last week have pointed out that UHC and other health insurance companies do violence and are rewarded for it."
Notice she is just talking about qualifying the behaviour itself, not necessarily endorsing a particular course of action. To which you responded:
"deciding which legally operating capitalists can be considered fair-game for the "white-collar serial killer" equivalency is a pretty slippery slope"
It's completely legitimate to look at the outcome of corporate actions and make judgements as to whether we want to continue to tolerate those things in a civilised society, that's how most industrial regulation and health and safety policy was created and advanced. A company doesn't get a pass simply because their current behaviour isn't illegal - and if you excuse the hyperbole, the argument that they should is a pretty sociopathic one.
I just saw someone on social media say "They never vilified Kyle Rittenhouse the way they're vilifying Luigi."
Who is "they" in this context. Rittenhouse attracted plenty of vilification, and continues to be thought of as a racist murderer by a significant fraction of the population. He's also been the darling of the gun rights right.
In terms of culpability, the shooting of Brian Thompson was a planned assassination in cold blood. That differs somewhat from Rittenhouse's case - much of the clear criticism of Rittenhouse centers on the choice of a minor to drive to a protest with an AR-15 in order to "guard businesses". His subsequent actions, including the shootings, are a rather neat encapsulation of why we prefer police officers to be trained and responsible, rather than being any old idiot with a gun.
Taking action to cause someone's death whether it be by shooting them or denying lifesaving medical treatment to them when you have it within your power to approve that treatment, but don't in order to make profit for your corporation, feeling morally equivalent to me.
Does that also extend to, for example, any individual who spent money on a vacation rather than on housing the homeless, or famine relief, or any other lifesaving endeavour? That would be a person who has it within their power to save someone's life, but doesn't, in order to take a nice vacation.
I think in general I'd distinguish between bureaucrats who honestly apply the rules (whatever the rules are), and those who attempt to find excuses to deny claims. So if you deny care to someone because they don't meet the threshold for their treatment being value for money, that's OK, but if you're merrily denying reasonable claims because some form wasn't filled out quite right, and generally seeking to make it difficult for people with valid claims to make them, then that's a rather more evil thing.
Who is "they" in this context. Rittenhouse attracted plenty of vilification, and continues to be thought of as a racist murderer by a significant fraction of the population. He's also been the darling of the gun rights right.
In terms of culpability, the shooting of Brian Thompson was a planned assassination in cold blood. That differs somewhat from Rittenhouse's case - much of the clear criticism of Rittenhouse centers on the choice of a minor to drive to a protest with an AR-15 in order to "guard businesses". His subsequent actions, including the shootings, are a rather neat encapsulation of why we prefer police officers to be trained and responsible, rather than being any old idiot with a gun.
I'm not sure there's that much of a difference. If you deliberately go to the site of civil unrest with a gun and the intention of restoring "order" it's a fair inference that you're planning on shooting someone. The main difference is that Mr. Thompson allegedly intended to murder a specific individual whereas Rittenhouse wasn't particular about who he shot.
So, let's say someone from South Africa who suffered as a result of the doctor-shortage gets the name of some Canadian bureaucrat who was involved in implementing the policy, and guns him down. Do you think it would be fair to say there's no difference between what shoiterbdid to the bureaucrat, and what the bureaucrat did to South Africans?
I don't know. I'm not going to make a moral judgement about something I only learned about on an internet discussion board a few minutes ago.
What I will say is that we are much better at identifying violence when it is on a small scale and personal than when it's on a large, impersonal scale. Numerous commentators over the last week have pointed out that UHC and other health insurance companies do violence and are rewarded for it.
Fair enough. I'll just leave for consideration my point that deciding which legally operating capitalists can be considered fair-game for the "white-collar serial killer" equivalency is a pretty slippery slope.
We decide that legal behaviour shouldn't be legal all the time.
Sorry. I honestly don't understand how that relates to what I wrote. Could you maybe re-phrase, with direct reference to my comment?
What Ruth said was:
"Numerous commentators over the last week have pointed out that UHC and other health insurance companies do violence and are rewarded for it."
Notice she is just talking about qualifying the behaviour itself, not necessarily endorsing a particular course of action. To which you responded:
"deciding which legally operating capitalists can be considered fair-game for the "white-collar serial killer" equivalency is a pretty slippery slope"
It's completely legitimate to look at the outcome of corporate actions and make judgements as to whether we want to continue to tolerate those things in a civilised society, that's how most industrial regulation and health and safety policy was created and advanced. A company doesn't get a pass simply because their current behaviour isn't illegal - and if you excuse the hyperbole, the argument that they should is a pretty sociopathic one.
Oh, okay. So you meant that the legally valid US health-care system should be changed via the law. Okay, I agree with that.
I once prosecuted a person in a position of trust who had stolen money from his employer's safe. He was sent to prison. His father, who worked for the same employer, could not bear the shame and killed himself. I was in the chain of caustaion that led to that man taking his own life. We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions. One could argue that I cause that death, in the course of duty, and I have in a sense trying to expiate that responsibility ever since (and I shall answer for it in due course), but violence, which I take to mean physical aggression, did not come into it.
I just saw someone on social media say "They never vilified Kyle Rittenhouse the way they're vilifying Luigi."
Who is "they" in this context. Rittenhouse attracted plenty of vilification, and continues to be thought of as a racist murderer by a significant fraction of the population. He's also been the darling of the gun rights right.
In terms of culpability, the shooting of Brian Thompson was a planned assassination in cold blood. That differs somewhat from Rittenhouse's case - much of the clear criticism of Rittenhouse centers on the choice of a minor to drive to a protest with an AR-15 in order to "guard businesses". His subsequent actions, including the shootings, are a rather neat encapsulation of why we prefer police officers to be trained and responsible, rather than being any old idiot with a gun.
Generally, when people say "they" in this sorta context, they're postulating a sociopolitical elite, holding to an ideology that the speaker dislikes. A British republican might say "They claim they don't got enough money for the schools, but look at how much they spend for the bloody coronation!!"
I believe that particular YouTuber thinks that a "woke" elite in America was unfairly demonizing Rittenhouse. My point was not that the guy was right, but that he's unlikely to listen to progressive proposals for reforming health care, despite his apparent opposition to greedy CEOs.
I do think there is a morally relevant difference between directly killing someone and deliberately letting them die.
That only matters if you think that if something's not as bad as something else it must therefore be ok.
Incidentally if you do the morally right thing I don't think you're to blame for how other people react.
I once prosecuted a person in a position of trust who had stolen money from his employer's safe. He was sent to prison. His father, who worked for the same employer, could not bear the shame and killed himself. I was in the chain of caustaion that led to that man taking his own life. We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions. One could argue that I cause that death, in the course of duty, and I have in a sense trying to expiate that responsibility ever since (and I shall answer for it in due course), but violence, which I take to mean physical aggression, did not come into it.
But in that case, you were doing something that everybody agrees needs to be done, ie. prosecuting theft, and the suicide occurred because of the father's irrational sense of shame. So, violence or no violence, you have nothing to "answer for" in that situation.
In the case of the CEO, there does seem to be a consensus that his policy of constantly trying to duck legitimate claims was extremely scuzzy, and ended up doing physical harm to people who were just trying to get the services they had paid for. Whether that qualified as violence, justifying outright assassination in return, is another question, but it's not really comparable to what you did in prosecuting the thief.
I'm not sure there's that much of a difference. If you deliberately go to the site of civil unrest with a gun and the intention of restoring "order" it's a fair inference that you're planning on shooting someone.
I think that's a bit strong. You might be under the impression that the sight of a teenager holding a rifle will be sufficient to persuade rioters to put down the brick and walk away. You'd be rather naive to think that, but I don't think that's the same.
I think there's a difference between being "prepared" to shoot someone and "planning" to shoot someone.
We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions.
Sometimes we can! When UHC denied coverage of drugs in the case discussed in the Propublica story I linked to on the first page of this thread, they knew what would happen to the patient. The Mayo Clinic doctor treating him warned them there could be life-threatening complications, and a doctor who works for a company they contract with to review denials said this:
Dr. Nitin Kumar, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”
When they got this report, they called up the company and got them to send the case back to a previous reviewing doctor (someone who hadn't actually practiced medicine for 20 years) who copied and pasted the UHC nurse's denial, and they buried this report.
The bill for a treatment was over $800,000 and the family consists of a student and two professors, so they knew that if UHC didn't pay, the guy wouldn't get treated. They knew what would happen to this guy: at the very least, he would go back to having bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day and spending most of his time curled up on a couch; he would very likely have had a severe complication at some point.
As I understand it, Jesus was referring to the force with which certain people (having recognized a Really Good Thing being given away for free!) were forcing their way into the kingdom. It's hyperbole, I suppose, but it's a real thing--rather like shoppers on Black Friday used to do, waiting for the doors to open because they knew the computers were half -off or whatever. You wanted to be very careful where you stood when a crowd like that got moving.
I think that it is reasonable to accept some risks If we have windows, people will be more likely to fall out of the windows than to fall out of the windowless walls. I think some centrists in the U.S. equate this to what insurance companies do. If we ever deny anyone any medical care they ever desire, we could cause their death.
However, our for-profit system in the U.S strikes me as more the equivalent of putting giant screen doors open on the 20th floor of a preschool and then charging the parents for access to existing safety nets. We have guaranteed that some people will die for profit. The only choice is how affordable (or otherwise) the safety nets will be.
What's the point of debating how evil Thompson and the rest of the system is? As Churchill didn't really say, "I know what you are. Now we’re just haggling over the [degree]" The fact is the Thompson and many others know their system is killing people and they don't mind. I'm not going to advocate murder, but I certainly don't see why I should mind about Thompson's murder. I have a very very very long list of more pressing problems both global and domestic.
I just saw someone on social media say "They never vilified Kyle Rittenhouse the way they're vilifying Luigi."
Who is "they" in this context. Rittenhouse attracted plenty of vilification, and continues to be thought of as a racist murderer by a significant fraction of the population. He's also been the darling of the gun rights right.
In terms of culpability, the shooting of Brian Thompson was a planned assassination in cold blood. That differs somewhat from Rittenhouse's case - much of the clear criticism of Rittenhouse centers on the choice of a minor to drive to a protest with an AR-15 in order to "guard businesses". His subsequent actions, including the shootings, are a rather neat encapsulation of why we prefer police officers to be trained and responsible, rather than being any old idiot with a gun.
Generally, when people say "they" in this sorta context, they're postulating a sociopolitical elite, holding to an ideology that the speaker dislikes. A British republican might say "They claim they don't got enough money for the schools, but look at how much they spend for the bloody coronation!!"
I believe that particular YouTuber thinks that a "woke" elite in America was unfairly demonizing Rittenhouse. My point was not that the guy was right, but that he's unlikely to listen to progressive proposals for reforming health care, despite his apparent opposition to greedy CEOs.
Sorry. @Gramps49's Styx thread prompted me to re-read this post, and I think I might've had a syntactical misfire. If the guy uses Rittenhouse as his example of someone who was improperly under-villified, then he's probably a Rittenhouse foe, or at least wants to have seen more criticism of him relative to Luigi.
Anyway, I couldn't find the YouTube comment again if I wanted to, so no way to do a proper re-read. I stand by the overall observation that the overwhelming majority of the commentary seems apolitical in nature.
I will note that over in the Syria thread no one is claiming that "violence is never the answer".
That is war, however, in which they were trying to overthrow an actual dictator. This is not.
What if Thompson had crushed his hand in a car accident, and while he's recuperating in the hospital, someone hacks into his insurance account and denies him coverage for the hospital stay, treatment etc?
IOW, still illegal, but probably not gonna kill him, and more in line with what he did to other people.
So, let's say someone from South Africa who suffered as a result of the doctor-shortage gets the name of some Canadian bureaucrat who was involved in implementing the policy, and guns him down. Do you think it would be fair to say there's no difference between what shoiterbdid to the bureaucrat, and what the bureaucrat did to South Africans?
I don't know. I'm not going to make a moral judgement about something I only learned about on an internet discussion board a few minutes ago.
What I will say is that we are much better at identifying violence when it is on a small scale and personal than when it's on a large, impersonal scale. Numerous commentators over the last week have pointed out that UHC and other health insurance companies do violence and are rewarded for it.
Fair enough. I'll just leave for consideration my point that deciding which legally operating capitalists can be considered fair-game for the "white-collar serial killer" equivalency is a pretty slippery slope.
We decide that legal behaviour shouldn't be legal all the time.
Sorry. I honestly don't understand how that relates to what I wrote. Could you maybe re-phrase, with direct reference to my comment?
What Ruth said was:
"Numerous commentators over the last week have pointed out that UHC and other health insurance companies do violence and are rewarded for it."
Notice she is just talking about qualifying the behaviour itself, not necessarily endorsing a particular course of action. To which you responded:
"deciding which legally operating capitalists can be considered fair-game for the "white-collar serial killer" equivalency is a pretty slippery slope"
It's completely legitimate to look at the outcome of corporate actions and make judgements as to whether we want to continue to tolerate those things in a civilised society, that's how most industrial regulation and health and safety policy was created and advanced. A company doesn't get a pass simply because their current behaviour isn't illegal - and if you excuse the hyperbole, the argument that they should is a pretty sociopathic one.
Oh, okay. So you meant that the legally valid US health-care system should be changed via the law. Okay, I agree with that.
Yeah, but I also believe that labelling white collar crime as such isn't a 'slippery slope'.
I will note that over in the Syria thread no one is claiming that "violence is never the answer".
That is war, however, in which they were trying to overthrow an actual dictator. This is not.
"Violence is never the answer, except when it is" doesn't have the same rhetorical force to it.
I'm just commenting on the way state-backed institutional violence is invisible to most of us, to a degree that politicians, who are agents of an entity that claims to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, can make statements like "violence is never the answer" and we'll both wholeheartedly agree and automatically read in a bunch of unspoken caveats like "except for wars" or "this only applies to violence by private actors". We very rarely note that there may be an element of self-interest in an institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence decrying private violence.
How about "violating the rule of law" is never the answer? Usually the rule of law is a doctrine that the law restrains the state, but I assume that it's equally violated if agents who aren't part of the state aren't restrained by the law.
(I'm not sure that I fully agree with the principle that it's never the answer in that I think revolution is sometimes justified.)
I will note that over in the Syria thread no one is claiming that "violence is never the answer".
That is war, however, in which they were trying to overthrow an actual dictator. This is not.
What if Thompson had crushed his hand in a car accident, and while he's recuperating in the hospital, someone hacks into his insurance account and denies him coverage for the hospital stay, treatment etc?
IOW, still illegal, but probably not gonna kill him, and more in line with what he did to other people.
I will note that over in the Syria thread no one is claiming that "violence is never the answer".
That is war, however, in which they were trying to overthrow an actual dictator. This is not.
"Violence is never the answer, except when it is" doesn't have the same rhetorical force to it.
I'm just commenting on the way state-backed institutional violence is invisible to most of us, to a degree that politicians, who are agents of an entity that claims to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, can make statements like "violence is never the answer" and we'll both wholeheartedly agree and automatically read in a bunch of unspoken caveats like "except for wars" or "this only applies to violence by private actors". We very rarely note that there may be an element of self-interest in an institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence decrying private violence.
I don’t hold this view of the state, of war, of law-enforcement, etc.
How about "violating the rule of law" is never the answer? Usually the rule of law is a doctrine that the law restrains the state, but I assume that it's equally violated if agents who aren't part of the state aren't restrained by the law.
(I'm not sure that I fully agree with the principle that it's never the answer in that I think revolution is sometimes justified.)
How about "violating the rule of law" is never the answer? Usually the rule of law is a doctrine that the law restrains the state, but I assume that it's equally violated if agents who aren't part of the state aren't restrained by the law.
(I'm not sure that I fully agree with the principle that it's never the answer in that I think revolution is sometimes justified.)
This gets a bit problematic if the law says things like "Negroes shall not attend school with whites" or "it is illegal to hide Jews from the SS".
How about "violating the rule of law" is never the answer? Usually the rule of law is a doctrine that the law restrains the state, but I assume that it's equally violated if agents who aren't part of the state aren't restrained by the law.
(I'm not sure that I fully agree with the principle that it's never the answer in that I think revolution is sometimes justified.)
This gets a bit problematic if the law says things like "Negroes shall not attend school with whites" or "it is illegal to hide Jews from the SS".
Doing the right thing morally does supersede the law, yes. But I don’t think murdering a company chairman counts as that.
How about "violating the rule of law" is never the answer? Usually the rule of law is a doctrine that the law restrains the state, but I assume that it's equally violated if agents who aren't part of the state aren't restrained by the law.
(I'm not sure that I fully agree with the principle that it's never the answer in that I think revolution is sometimes justified.)
This gets a bit problematic if the law says things like "Negroes shall not attend school with whites" or "it is illegal to hide Jews from the SS".
Doing the right thing morally does supersede the law, yes. But I don’t think murdering a company chairman counts as that.
My distinction would be "Is this a law you would normally favour being enforced?"
So, for example...
I am, on classical liberal grounds, morally opposed to the draft. Therefore, I would support the right of people to burn their draft notices.
However, I am morally in favour of everyone being being compelled to pay their taxes. Therefore, I do not support the right of someone to say "I object to this war, therefore I'm going withhold my taxes."
^ Just to be clear, in the case under discussion, since I generally support the homicide laws, I oppose the shooting of Brian Thompson, and support the arrest and prosecution of anyone legitimately deemed a suspect.
(That said, if people on social media wanna cheer on the assassin, there's not alot I can, or should, do about that.)
I don’t hold this view of the state, of war, of law-enforcement, etc.
There's all sorts of ideal constructions of the role of law-enforcement, the reality is that most law enforcement everywhere started off narrowly focused on protecting private property (typically of the rich).
Back during the time of the Vietnam War, there were instances of American soldiers resisting the war through violence. Ever hear of fragging? That was when certain soldiers would kill their officers or NCOs if they thought the officer (NCO) was not taking their interests into consideration or giving an illegal order or just being downright incompetent. Quite a few 2nd Lieutenants met their demise that way (see this article).
Back during the time of the Vietnam War, there were instances of American soldiers resisting the war through violence. Ever hear of fragging? That was when certain soldiers would kill their officers or NCO if they thought the officer (NCO) was not taking their interests into consideration or giving an illegal order or just being downright incompetent. Quite a few 2nd Lieutenants met their demise that way (see this article).
And what sort of legal consequences, if any, do you think the fraggers should have faced?
I don’t hold this view of the state, of war, of law-enforcement, etc.
There's all sorts of ideal constructions of the role of law-enforcement, the reality is that most law enforcement everywhere started off narrowly focused on protecting private property (typically of the rich).
We're so comfortable anymore with so much sanitized death. And we don't think/talk about it very much at all on its own terms (at least I don't). It takes unsanitized death like this CEO's or what is sure to be the next terrible school shooting to start or restart these conversations.
I don’t hold this view of the state, of war, of law-enforcement, etc.
There's all sorts of ideal constructions of the role of law-enforcement, the reality is that most law enforcement everywhere started off narrowly focused on protecting private property (typically of the rich).
Unless I've missed something, laws and their enforcement go back to beyond human history. The earliest evidence of laws we have go back to 2400 BC, but surely that was not the beginning of societies having laws, not even getting into the transcendence of law from on high in the first place.
I mean, when King Ur-Nammu, or someone writing in his name in 2100–2050 BC, says "I eliminated enmity, violence, and cries for justice," somebody had to actually carry that out, however imperfectly they might have done so.
There is nothing categorically different in my mind between Mr. Mangione, Mr. Rittenhouse, the young man that tried to assassinate Trump earlier this year, school shooters, and other young mass shooters motivated by racist ideology, being an incel (involuntary celibate), or no ideology in particular.
They are almost all young men. Mostly white. Many come from economically comfortable backgrounds, which is especially the case for Mr. Mangione.
Most of them seem to feel that some purgative act of violence can either redress some grievance arising from a sense of entitlement (even if it results in their own death or lifelong imprisonment). Or they think that one explosive act can give purpose to their lives.
Other races and cultures have other ways in which young men are drawn to violence, but there is some phenomenon among middle class and wealthy white men, in the US in particular, that draws more and more them to this kind of act. I suspect a much bigger number of them, even those who publicly condemn the attackers, fantasize about being one of them.
What disgusts me beyond words is that Mr. Mangione has achieved the public reaction that all of the others dream of. Not just notoriety and fear but sympathy and in particular sexual desire. I think the level of this kind of violence today is nothing like it is likely to become once more young white men with access to guns see how the world is talking about Mr. Mangione.
I don’t hold this view of the state, of war, of law-enforcement, etc.
There's all sorts of ideal constructions of the role of law-enforcement, the reality is that most law enforcement everywhere started off narrowly focused on protecting private property (typically of the rich).
Unless I've missed something, laws and their enforcement go back to beyond human history. The earliest evidence of laws we have go back to 2400 BC, but surely that was not the beginning of societies having laws, not even getting into the transcendence of law from on high in the first place.
You are projecting current society backwards in time, there was very little structure to enforce the 'Code of Hammurabi' - states at that point simply didn't function that way. Historians generally believe that the function of codes like these ones was largely ideological rather than legal.
What disgusts me beyond words is that Mr. Mangione has achieved the public reaction that all of the others dream of. Not just notoriety and fear but sympathy...
I think what distinguishes the NYC shooter from eg. the Columbine killers or the apolitical kid who tried to kill Trump, is that while, yes, he shared the typical demographics, he seems to have been motivated by the desire to avenge recognized injustices, which have inflicted severe financial and physical harm on many, many people. Rather than gunning down random kids in a school just for the lulz.
...and in particular sexual desire.
Well, I think that aspect of the cult is conditional upon his cause being seen as morally laudable in the first place. Sorta like: "He took out a heartless robber-baron who had caused untold misery for innocent people, and hey, he's cute to boot!!"
If he had just walked up to some old lady at the bus stop and blown her head off 'cuz he didn't like her purse, his groupie-dom would likely be minute.
I don’t condone the shooting. I am not even a US citizen so don’t have skin in the game. However, history tells us that where people are treated badly violence follows. Time and time again those who feel they are being treated appallingly turn to violence. Luddites vandalising machines, countries turning over a dictatorship. It seems to me it was only a matter of time before something like this shooting would happen. Add your gun laws to the situation and it could be seen as inevitable. That doesn’t excuse the action but it was foreseeable.
I don’t condone the shooting. I am not even a US citizen so don’t have skin in the game. However, history tells us that where people are treated badly violence follows. Time and time again those who feel they are being treated appallingly turn to violence. Luddites vandalising machines, countries turning over a dictatorship. It seems to me it was only a matter of time before something like this shooting would happen. Add your gun laws to the situation and it could be seen as inevitable. That doesn’t excuse the action but it was foreseeable.
You do have skin in the game insofar as a human life has been taken by violence, and that in some circles that act has been excused/glorified. Location is secondary, IMO.
I don’t hold this view of the state, of war, of law-enforcement, etc.
There's all sorts of ideal constructions of the role of law-enforcement, the reality is that most law enforcement everywhere started off narrowly focused on protecting private property (typically of the rich).
Unless I've missed something, laws and their enforcement go back to beyond human history. The earliest evidence of laws we have go back to 2400 BC, but surely that was not the beginning of societies having laws, not even getting into the transcendence of law from on high in the first place.
You are projecting current society backwards in time, there was very little structure to enforce the 'Code of Hammurabi' - states at that point simply didn't function that way. Historians generally believe that the function of codes like these ones was largely ideological rather than legal.
Again, the claim that the king has made these things happen leads to some people he told to go make it happen.
There have been people enforcing laws, arresting people, putting them on some kind of trial, and enacting at least an attempt at justice, for millennia, whether nuanced or rough, merciful or brutal.
How much any given society, past or present, succeeds at good justice or mercy, or protects the society and its members, will vary. But that doesn’t mean there’s not an attempt at justice that has been a throughline going all the way back. (And that’s not even getting into transcendent justice, or mercy.)
I don’t condone the shooting. I am not even a US citizen so don’t have skin in the game. However, history tells us that where people are treated badly violence follows. Time and time again those who feel they are being treated appallingly turn to violence. Luddites vandalising machines, countries turning over a dictatorship. It seems to me it was only a matter of time before something like this shooting would happen. Add your gun laws to the situation and it could be seen as inevitable. That doesn’t excuse the action but it was foreseeable.
You do have skin in the game insofar as a human life has been taken by violence, and that in some circles that act has been excused/glorified. Location is secondary, IMO.
The CEO of UnitedHealth Group, parent company of UnitedHealthcare, has an opinion piece in the NYTimes (free link) that's complete bullshit and has accumulated about 2500 comments telling him so.
That’s a desperate bit of spin isn’t it. Do they really think they can gaslight the whole population at the same time ?
Something of a tangent: I keep seeing commentators stating investors stepped over the CEOs body to get to the meeting he was going to (which went ahead on time) and that they advertised his post on LinkedIn within 48hrs - but I can not find the source of these claims in any reputable news source.
I don’t hold this view of the state, of war, of law-enforcement, etc.
There's all sorts of ideal constructions of the role of law-enforcement, the reality is that most law enforcement everywhere started off narrowly focused on protecting private property (typically of the rich).
Unless I've missed something, laws and their enforcement go back to beyond human history. The earliest evidence of laws we have go back to 2400 BC, but surely that was not the beginning of societies having laws, not even getting into the transcendence of law from on high in the first place.
You are projecting current society backwards in time, there was very little structure to enforce the 'Code of Hammurabi' - states at that point simply didn't function that way. Historians generally believe that the function of codes like these ones was largely ideological rather than legal.
Again, the claim that the king has made these things happen leads to some people he told to go make it happen.
But do you have evidence of that, or are you just assuming it must have been that way?
FWIW, my understanding is similar to what @chrisstiles has said. The king was the judge—there’s a reason th king’s counselors, etc., are called “the court.” (Or rather, there’s a reason modern judicial tribunals are called “courts.”) There’s also a reason Israel’s leaders before Saul were “judges.” The king made the laws, and people came to the king for judgment on the laws, as in the famous example of Solomon and splitting the baby.
Kings had soldiers, but they were primarily for wars and for defending the king. They might be sent to take action with regard to the people, but they weren’t anything like a modern standing police force.
Comments
This is another one of the things that we've been socialized not to see. The modern industrialized state is one of the most effective purveyors of violence to ever exist. In some political science formulations states are defined as entities having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Functioning states back up their laws with violence or the threat of violence. ("Force" is right there at the center of "enforcement".) We're willing to tolerate this because the kind of internal violence exercised by the state is preferable to the kind of violence that happens in the state's absence and if you're lucky enough to live in a democratic society you have at least some say in how that violence is directed, but I'm always somewhat awestruck at the way state enforcement mechanisms don't even enter most people's consciousness as a form of directed violence.
I will note that over in the Syria thread no one is claiming that "violence is never the answer".
Well, I'm not sure anyone has said that the actions of greedy health insurers is violence, more that there's a moral equivalency between their actions and some violent actions.
As an example...
If a man gets into a fight with his son and drowns him in the bathtub, that's a violent action.
If a lifeguard sees someone yelling for help in the pool, but doesn't wanna get his newly sculpted hair wet so sits there and watches the person drown, that's not a violent action, but some would argue it's morally the same as the first case.
If the lifeguard let's someone drown unless they a lot of money to be saved ...
I think the issue with the way many US health insurance schemes work (especially as portrayed here in the UK, which I know is probably a very poor reflection of reality) is a bit like paying to use a swimming pool with a lifeguard on duty and expecting their fee to use the pool also covered the lifeguard, only to find that when that lifeguard is needed there were some extra payments that they should have made or that the lifeguard was only on duty for one end of the pool and there's no clear line to show those in the pool which area was covered.
I believe it's Weber who came up with the state being a monopoly on violence. And, yeah, I agree with that definition, and also that it's a good thing for the state to have those powers.
At the end of the day, the only reason I pay for the things I buy is because I know that if I don't, and I get caught, the police have the power to forcibly haul me to the police station, then to court, and then to prison.
What Ruth said was:
"Numerous commentators over the last week have pointed out that UHC and other health insurance companies do violence and are rewarded for it."
Notice she is just talking about qualifying the behaviour itself, not necessarily endorsing a particular course of action. To which you responded:
"deciding which legally operating capitalists can be considered fair-game for the "white-collar serial killer" equivalency is a pretty slippery slope"
It's completely legitimate to look at the outcome of corporate actions and make judgements as to whether we want to continue to tolerate those things in a civilised society, that's how most industrial regulation and health and safety policy was created and advanced. A company doesn't get a pass simply because their current behaviour isn't illegal - and if you excuse the hyperbole, the argument that they should is a pretty sociopathic one.
I don't. What @Ruth said.
And Jesus in counter to it.
Who is "they" in this context. Rittenhouse attracted plenty of vilification, and continues to be thought of as a racist murderer by a significant fraction of the population. He's also been the darling of the gun rights right.
In terms of culpability, the shooting of Brian Thompson was a planned assassination in cold blood. That differs somewhat from Rittenhouse's case - much of the clear criticism of Rittenhouse centers on the choice of a minor to drive to a protest with an AR-15 in order to "guard businesses". His subsequent actions, including the shootings, are a rather neat encapsulation of why we prefer police officers to be trained and responsible, rather than being any old idiot with a gun.
Does that also extend to, for example, any individual who spent money on a vacation rather than on housing the homeless, or famine relief, or any other lifesaving endeavour? That would be a person who has it within their power to save someone's life, but doesn't, in order to take a nice vacation.
I think in general I'd distinguish between bureaucrats who honestly apply the rules (whatever the rules are), and those who attempt to find excuses to deny claims. So if you deny care to someone because they don't meet the threshold for their treatment being value for money, that's OK, but if you're merrily denying reasonable claims because some form wasn't filled out quite right, and generally seeking to make it difficult for people with valid claims to make them, then that's a rather more evil thing.
I'm not sure there's that much of a difference. If you deliberately go to the site of civil unrest with a gun and the intention of restoring "order" it's a fair inference that you're planning on shooting someone. The main difference is that Mr. Thompson allegedly intended to murder a specific individual whereas Rittenhouse wasn't particular about who he shot.
Oh, okay. So you meant that the legally valid US health-care system should be changed via the law. Okay, I agree with that.
Generally, when people say "they" in this sorta context, they're postulating a sociopolitical elite, holding to an ideology that the speaker dislikes. A British republican might say "They claim they don't got enough money for the schools, but look at how much they spend for the bloody coronation!!"
I believe that particular YouTuber thinks that a "woke" elite in America was unfairly demonizing Rittenhouse. My point was not that the guy was right, but that he's unlikely to listen to progressive proposals for reforming health care, despite his apparent opposition to greedy CEOs.
That only matters if you think that if something's not as bad as something else it must therefore be ok.
Incidentally if you do the morally right thing I don't think you're to blame for how other people react.
But in that case, you were doing something that everybody agrees needs to be done, ie. prosecuting theft, and the suicide occurred because of the father's irrational sense of shame. So, violence or no violence, you have nothing to "answer for" in that situation.
In the case of the CEO, there does seem to be a consensus that his policy of constantly trying to duck legitimate claims was extremely scuzzy, and ended up doing physical harm to people who were just trying to get the services they had paid for. Whether that qualified as violence, justifying outright assassination in return, is another question, but it's not really comparable to what you did in prosecuting the thief.
I think that's a bit strong. You might be under the impression that the sight of a teenager holding a rifle will be sufficient to persuade rioters to put down the brick and walk away. You'd be rather naive to think that, but I don't think that's the same.
I think there's a difference between being "prepared" to shoot someone and "planning" to shoot someone.
The bill for a treatment was over $800,000 and the family consists of a student and two professors, so they knew that if UHC didn't pay, the guy wouldn't get treated. They knew what would happen to this guy: at the very least, he would go back to having bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day and spending most of his time curled up on a couch; he would very likely have had a severe complication at some point.
They knew. They just didn't care.
As I understand it, Jesus was referring to the force with which certain people (having recognized a Really Good Thing being given away for free!) were forcing their way into the kingdom. It's hyperbole, I suppose, but it's a real thing--rather like shoppers on Black Friday used to do, waiting for the doors to open because they knew the computers were half -off or whatever. You wanted to be very careful where you stood when a crowd like that got moving.
However, our for-profit system in the U.S strikes me as more the equivalent of putting giant screen doors open on the 20th floor of a preschool and then charging the parents for access to existing safety nets. We have guaranteed that some people will die for profit. The only choice is how affordable (or otherwise) the safety nets will be.
What's the point of debating how evil Thompson and the rest of the system is? As Churchill didn't really say, "I know what you are. Now we’re just haggling over the [degree]" The fact is the Thompson and many others know their system is killing people and they don't mind. I'm not going to advocate murder, but I certainly don't see why I should mind about Thompson's murder. I have a very very very long list of more pressing problems both global and domestic.
That is war, however, in which they were trying to overthrow an actual dictator. This is not.
Sorry. @Gramps49's Styx thread prompted me to re-read this post, and I think I might've had a syntactical misfire. If the guy uses Rittenhouse as his example of someone who was improperly under-villified, then he's probably a Rittenhouse foe, or at least wants to have seen more criticism of him relative to Luigi.
Anyway, I couldn't find the YouTube comment again if I wanted to, so no way to do a proper re-read. I stand by the overall observation that the overwhelming majority of the commentary seems apolitical in nature.
What if Thompson had crushed his hand in a car accident, and while he's recuperating in the hospital, someone hacks into his insurance account and denies him coverage for the hospital stay, treatment etc?
IOW, still illegal, but probably not gonna kill him, and more in line with what he did to other people.
Yeah, but I also believe that labelling white collar crime as such isn't a 'slippery slope'.
"Violence is never the answer, except when it is" doesn't have the same rhetorical force to it.
I'm just commenting on the way state-backed institutional violence is invisible to most of us, to a degree that politicians, who are agents of an entity that claims to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, can make statements like "violence is never the answer" and we'll both wholeheartedly agree and automatically read in a bunch of unspoken caveats like "except for wars" or "this only applies to violence by private actors". We very rarely note that there may be an element of self-interest in an institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence decrying private violence.
(I'm not sure that I fully agree with the principle that it's never the answer in that I think revolution is sometimes justified.)
I don’t hold this view of the state, of war, of law-enforcement, etc.
This.
Exactly.
This gets a bit problematic if the law says things like "Negroes shall not attend school with whites" or "it is illegal to hide Jews from the SS".
Doing the right thing morally does supersede the law, yes. But I don’t think murdering a company chairman counts as that.
My distinction would be "Is this a law you would normally favour being enforced?"
So, for example...
I am, on classical liberal grounds, morally opposed to the draft. Therefore, I would support the right of people to burn their draft notices.
However, I am morally in favour of everyone being being compelled to pay their taxes. Therefore, I do not support the right of someone to say "I object to this war, therefore I'm going withhold my taxes."
(That said, if people on social media wanna cheer on the assassin, there's not alot I can, or should, do about that.)
There's all sorts of ideal constructions of the role of law-enforcement, the reality is that most law enforcement everywhere started off narrowly focused on protecting private property (typically of the rich).
I tend to agree with Poulantzas.
And what sort of legal consequences, if any, do you think the fraggers should have faced?
Including Slave Patrols.
We're so comfortable anymore with so much sanitized death. And we don't think/talk about it very much at all on its own terms (at least I don't). It takes unsanitized death like this CEO's or what is sure to be the next terrible school shooting to start or restart these conversations.
Unless I've missed something, laws and their enforcement go back to beyond human history. The earliest evidence of laws we have go back to 2400 BC, but surely that was not the beginning of societies having laws, not even getting into the transcendence of law from on high in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes#:~:text=The oldest evidence of a,Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
They are almost all young men. Mostly white. Many come from economically comfortable backgrounds, which is especially the case for Mr. Mangione.
Most of them seem to feel that some purgative act of violence can either redress some grievance arising from a sense of entitlement (even if it results in their own death or lifelong imprisonment). Or they think that one explosive act can give purpose to their lives.
Other races and cultures have other ways in which young men are drawn to violence, but there is some phenomenon among middle class and wealthy white men, in the US in particular, that draws more and more them to this kind of act. I suspect a much bigger number of them, even those who publicly condemn the attackers, fantasize about being one of them.
What disgusts me beyond words is that Mr. Mangione has achieved the public reaction that all of the others dream of. Not just notoriety and fear but sympathy and in particular sexual desire. I think the level of this kind of violence today is nothing like it is likely to become once more young white men with access to guns see how the world is talking about Mr. Mangione.
It makes me want to cry.
You are projecting current society backwards in time, there was very little structure to enforce the 'Code of Hammurabi' - states at that point simply didn't function that way. Historians generally believe that the function of codes like these ones was largely ideological rather than legal.
I think what distinguishes the NYC shooter from eg. the Columbine killers or the apolitical kid who tried to kill Trump, is that while, yes, he shared the typical demographics, he seems to have been motivated by the desire to avenge recognized injustices, which have inflicted severe financial and physical harm on many, many people. Rather than gunning down random kids in a school just for the lulz.
Well, I think that aspect of the cult is conditional upon his cause being seen as morally laudable in the first place. Sorta like: "He took out a heartless robber-baron who had caused untold misery for innocent people, and hey, he's cute to boot!!"
If he had just walked up to some old lady at the bus stop and blown her head off 'cuz he didn't like her purse, his groupie-dom would likely be minute.
You do have skin in the game insofar as a human life has been taken by violence, and that in some circles that act has been excused/glorified. Location is secondary, IMO.
Again, the claim that the king has made these things happen leads to some people he told to go make it happen.
There have been people enforcing laws, arresting people, putting them on some kind of trial, and enacting at least an attempt at justice, for millennia, whether nuanced or rough, merciful or brutal.
How much any given society, past or present, succeeds at good justice or mercy, or protects the society and its members, will vary. But that doesn’t mean there’s not an attempt at justice that has been a throughline going all the way back. (And that’s not even getting into transcendent justice, or mercy.)
Agreed.
Something of a tangent: I keep seeing commentators stating investors stepped over the CEOs body to get to the meeting he was going to (which went ahead on time) and that they advertised his post on LinkedIn within 48hrs - but I can not find the source of these claims in any reputable news source.
FWIW, my understanding is similar to what @chrisstiles has said. The king was the judge—there’s a reason th king’s counselors, etc., are called “the court.” (Or rather, there’s a reason modern judicial tribunals are called “courts.”) There’s also a reason Israel’s leaders before Saul were “judges.” The king made the laws, and people came to the king for judgment on the laws, as in the famous example of Solomon and splitting the baby.
Kings had soldiers, but they were primarily for wars and for defending the king. They might be sent to take action with regard to the people, but they weren’t anything like a modern standing police force.
At least that’s my understanding.