this article is academic mental masturbation and morally ridiculous.

he has it completely flipped. the author claims if UHC was doing crimes or breaching a contract or something, then it’s easier to morally justify vigilantism. a kind of two wrongs make a right sophistry. and conversely, he claims that if UHC was not “commiting crimes” then vigilantism is indefensible. mmkay…

here’s my take instead: if the actions of Thompson and UHC were illegal, there’s little moral justification for using violence because there are in fact non violent enforcement mechanisms which can be directed to restore justice and reduce future harm to society. we can use protest, the courts, and legal principles to go after the criminal CEOs.

conversely, if the day-to-day normal operations of UHC under Thompson were completely LEGAL AND ABOVE PROSECUTION - then there is no process or remedy using laws available to restore justice and reduce harm. they will just keep killing people slowly forever. legally. in this scenario, (which is actually the situation as it exists in reality - oligarchical late stage capitalism), illegality and even violence become the only remaining available mechanisms to prevent harm (in this particular scenario, not universally). we are forced to either seek redress outside the law or accept unending harm to future generations.

violence must always be a last resort which should morally be avoided when other choices remain. it is precisely because the system has taken away all our power to legally correct these injustices, that actions such as corporate assassination can be morally justified.

succinctly: it is the combination of Kennedy’s ‘Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’ with the moral principle that violence must only ever be used as a last resort in defense of self/others.