Corporations will beef up security and keep doing what they were doing before. Police and government will increase surveillance budgets, citing this event as reasoning. And no one will interpret this act of violence as anything other than a random event to prevent.
You don’t get structural change by extreme singular events. That’s not how it works.
The word _singular_ is doing a lot of work there.
Historically 'propagande par le fait' has had a massive effect on policy.
The implication that you have to not only focus on EBITDA but also on social responsibility (in a real non-PR way) is ever lasting if this propagates to more than a single occurrence.
Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.)
What examples are you thinking of, exactly? When, precisely, did a person/group assassinate someone and have that act push forward their cause?
Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.)
Or, maybe the idea that killing a random healthcare CEO and acting like that will solve the healthcare disaster is a childish idea that belongs in a movie like The Purge or a Marvel film?
The world isn't that simple. It's incredible that people have such a one-dimensional moral worldview.
We have trials to apply justice because it's not always clear who did what and it would be terribly unjust to lock someone up for something they didn't do.
The answer is: none. This wasn't some elaborate ethical act, nor is the pathetic justification of it online. It is boring old mob mentality, combined with class resentment and a number of other things.
Imagine someone murders your brother. They are friends with the judge so they are let to walk. Have you been denied justice?
Again, the reason not to shoot people on the street is not because it is always unjust but because its not always clear what is just and we would like a fair consistent way to decide that, in a way that's legible to other people.
If you think the death penalty is fair, then you admit that you are fine with people being killed in the name of justice. The only question is, is the person the one who did the crime. Normally a judge would decide that but I don't see why that's a prerequisite
And there's still the question of exactly what culpability a CEO of a major insurance corporation actually has, what supposed crime he has committed, and what the appropriate punishment should be. As far as I can tell, pretty much no one applauding this act has any real understanding of how corporations actually work, or what this specific CEO did that warranted him being murdered. As I said above, there is no intelligent defense here. It's just populist street violence.
It devolves if its unclear, or someone takes it too far and then there's a reprisal etc.
And to use the recent situation as an example: no one other than the shooter decided that the victim was guilty, or what his punishment ought to be.
That's why its illegal and I agree it should be illegal.
I personally feel like the CEO was guilty and the punishment was deserved. That it was just. Based on what I've heard, a lot of other people agree too.
This is irrespective of whether the prescident is good etc. All I'm trying to say is that this is what the guy deserved and its a failing of our government that these types live as lavishly as they do on our backs. That is unjust. We willingly trade some justice for social stability and that's a good thing and I hope there's not follow ups to this with more sympathetic targets. I don't want to be subjected to everyone's conflicting ideas of justice.
I'll ask you this before continuing to argue:
Can you imagine any situation where the courts are not willing or able to supply justice? Is there any other country or hypothetical country where the courts are corrupt enough that something could happen outside of the courts and you would approve? Should one ever trade political stability for justice?