When the laws don’t apply anymore, the law of the jungle will catch up to you.

Yes, we can’t afford to lose any CEOs because it might cause innocent people to be killed. Meanwhile those CEOs are stacking bodies through negligence and folks like you want to defend them. You just confirmed how you’d steer the trolley.

CEOs are already killing innocent people en mass. If you have a more effective way of doing things at this point I’m all ears.

Invest now! Wooooo, capitalism baby!

Knowing their hiring standards it sounds like a job there would be a ridiculously easy way to get privileged access to these people. Nah they’ll use higher quality than that.

Yeah but are other rich people staffing this corpos or just more plebs???

Asking for friend ;)

Yeah you’re right, CEOs should just be able to destroy the lives of Americans without any repercussion and anybody who tries to do anything about it is bad and wrong. Man, thank you for showing me my error! You truly are the only intelligent person here. You are the chosen one.

I feel like you are thinking about this wrong. From where I sit I think it’s more likely that you’re expanding the target list than helping put the brakes on this kind of vigilante behavior.

You aren’t wrong in a lot of what you’re saying though. Street justice rarely stays just for long. This may also be an isolated incident. However, some kind of pushback against this system is inevitable. If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety, and to be honest I don’t think meaningful change is possible until they are. Strikes, sit-ins, and protests have only ever been effective when paired with the implied threat of physical violence if demands are not met. Greed needs to be deincentivized in one way or another. Governments and corporations don’t seem interested in making that happen so action like this seems increasingly likely to me.

It doesn’t create good outcomes directly. It’s indiscriminate, highly subject to individual biases and extremely destabilizing to society. It’s definitely not a good thing if it keeps happening over a long time.

But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence. Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.

We could start with health insurance and pharmacy benefit manager companies, and then we can move onto “defense” contractors. If that’s not enough we can then move onto real estate investment companies and if there’s still time to make an even stronger point we can go after the greedflation grocery conglomerates. If that’s still not enough there’s the technofascists running the big tech companies and spying for the government. There’s plenty of targets out there who have it coming and I hope none of them every sleep peacefully again.

Already have. I think killing CEOs who contribute to endless human suffering is right, and defending those people from those who’s lives they’ve ruined unjustly is wrong. Next question.

kill everyone we don’t like

Kill people who purposefully, pointedly, and knowingly cause harm, human suffering, and sign death warrants for people who could have otherwise survived. Robbing life and money from families whose kids or parents need treatment, and sending these people into bankruptcy. Or straight-up denying life-saving treatments.

And these people know they’re killing people, but they don’t care because they’re making so much money off of it.

So no. It’s not “everyone we don’t like.” It’s people who purposefully profit from doing harm at the cost of human lives.

This isn’t a “Is killing a person that insulted you right or wrong?” moral conundrum, it’s a “If you could kill Hitler after he had started exterminating people, would that be right or wrong?” moral conundrum.

Most people who would say “it’s the wrong thing to do” for the first one would say “it’s the right thing to do” for the second.

Mind you, the really right thing to do on the situation with this CEO would have been for the State to do its fucking job and protect the people from mass murderers like him, but it refuse to do so, hence here we are in a bad situation.

It was a bit messy for the French but they haven’t had a king since.

The justice system should cast justice

Indeed, but it has failed to do so and now millions of people are suffering.

Y’all had 35+ years to do it the right way. Too late, we’re gonna do it the hard way now.