People say violence is never an option and that you should use your words. Those people are lying violence is ALWAYS and option (not always the best) this violent act of murder has done more towards equallity of healthcare for americans than thousands of people speaking could have hoped to achieve.

The french did not get liberty by asking the lords, the rich, and the king for rights. They took their liberty by forcfully exercising violence to remove the heads of the ellite.

Is murder inherently wrong? I would argue no (its ok to murder hitler etc) so where do we draw the line on accepted murder? By applying a utilitarian perspective of least harm then it could be argued that the murder of this ceo and potentially others is mortally required.

Remeber the best definition of a country is the group who holds a monopoly power for a specific area. Violence is the only message that has reliably worked throughout history.

Ps. I do not support or encourage anyone in enacting violence upon anyone else.

On Lemmy?

Lemmy has a bias against the ceo so you’ll just have a thread of everyone (including me) agreeing with the sentinment that the ceo deserved it, so it wouldn’t really be a debate.

Reddit will have less of a bias, but then reddit doesn’t really like you talking about this topic, and your thread will mysteriously get deleted. Honestly I’m not sure theres really a place on the internet where you actually have an unbiased audience to debate this, and not get censored. You’ll have to look IRL for people to debate.

You can try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world

or !AskUSA@discuss.online actually nvm, they don’t like overtly political posts… 🤷‍♂️

or !chat@beehaw.org

but, again, you’ll get a very biased audience

1. The difference is Brian Thompson deserved it. Brain Thompson was a legitimately evil person who - in a system where consequences can happen to the rich - would have been severely punished and/or executed for the harm he has done.

And therein lies the problem. We are not in a system where consequences can happen to the rich. People like Brian Thompson can abuse the public at large for his own gain. They’ve purchased congress, they have purchased the white house, they have purchased the courts, they have purchased the police.

All legal recourse has been denied to the average citizen. Voting, writing congressmen, petitioning, picketing, protesting…these things have no effect on public policy or corporate behavior. The rich own the government, the government will do what the rich people want it to do. They’ll never arrest a rich person for, say, torturing millions of people.

The soap box fails, the ballot box fails, what’s left is the ammo box. The men who wrote our founding documents fought a grape shot, musket ball and bayonet war for the chance to write them; the idea that - when all else fails - things sometimes have to get fucking ugly was on their minds. Hence the constitutional right to bear arms in this country, with the implication being sometimes you’ve got to walk up to a rich and powerful person who is doing a lot of harm and catastrophically damage his vital organs.

I’ll leave this topic with this: I’ve seen topics of discussion here on Lemmy that read something like “You say marriages used to last before no-fault divorce? Naw, it’s just women used to murder their husbands a lot more.” And the comments section of these were nothing but cheers and applause. The overall Lemmy community is perfectly fine with that. A person in a lower position of power and an intolerable position takes the opportunity to end the life of a person in higher power over them to escape that intolerable position. It’s okay when a wife kills her husband because he’s beating her, right Lemmy? So it must also be okay when an ordinary citizen kills an oligarch because the oligarch has been denying them necessary healthcare. “He was beating me so I killed him.” “He was keeping me from getting treatment, so I killed him.” The difference I see is there are people who aren’t saying “You go girl” to the second one.

2. Probably but whatever.

Would you kill a mass muderer? Because that’s what an insurance CEO is. I’d argue the existenc3 of any millionaire CEO begets mass social murder