Murdering any number of random people does NOT create a system like the rest of the developed world has. That is not how THEY got theirs to begin with.
Correct. Random murder would accomplish nothing. But that’s not what I’d call targeted assassinations of the most corrupt and evil people on the planet, who are profiting from untold suffering.
The corrupt evil people can reproduce faster than a few planned assassinations can cull, you also don’t get any say in who the next targets are, and even if the practices stop we have to implement actual legal policy changes to make them stop forever or they will return as soon as somebody figures out there is profit to be made.
Incorrect. The number of people willing to risk their lives for greed would naturally reduce as the risk grows. The unpredictability of targets would increase the risk factor for them.
And laws can be bought, as we’ve already seen. Making them fear for their lives will buy results like no laws ever could. That’s exactly how we got most of our labor protections.
It might as well have been the guy next to them and they still don’t care. 10 more won’t have any impact. 100 more and you’ll just invoke a strong resistance and crackdown.
You could stop an infinite number of bad things happening to bad people by just promoting progressive political reform, instead.
Let me compile a list of times a sequence of fringe nonpolitical group’s assassinations resulted in progressive reform out of all the many many countries with universal healthcare:
Murdering any number of random people does NOT create a system like the rest of the developed world has. That is not how THEY got theirs to begin with.
If I murder all Americans and took over the country I could do what I want, so there is absolutely a number of people you could kill to achieve it.
Correct. Random murder would accomplish nothing. But that’s not what I’d call targeted assassinations of the most corrupt and evil people on the planet, who are profiting from untold suffering.
The corrupt evil people can reproduce faster than a few planned assassinations can cull, you also don’t get any say in who the next targets are, and even if the practices stop we have to implement actual legal policy changes to make them stop forever or they will return as soon as somebody figures out there is profit to be made.
Incorrect. The number of people willing to risk their lives for greed would naturally reduce as the risk grows. The unpredictability of targets would increase the risk factor for them.
And laws can be bought, as we’ve already seen. Making them fear for their lives will buy results like no laws ever could. That’s exactly how we got most of our labor protections.
The people running UHC clearly don’t think so.
You’re right. One dead CEO can be written off as a fluke.
It might as well have been the guy next to them and they still don’t care. 10 more won’t have any impact. 100 more and you’ll just invoke a strong resistance and crackdown.
You could stop an infinite number of bad things happening to bad people by just promoting progressive political reform, instead.
I see you haven’t read much history.
Project much?
Let me compile a list of times a sequence of fringe nonpolitical group’s assassinations resulted in progressive reform out of all the many many countries with universal healthcare:
Many countries in fact had to kill a bunch of monarchists to get where they are today
Many countries live in Fascism
And the USA is the end result of the pipeline you described anyways