next time I hear “there is just too many (brown) people” i swear
Yeah, kinda like that time Brian Thompson got shot, and the next day United Healthcare ceased to exist.
Not saying that the general point of corporations doing more harm than people is wrong. Just that if you think that the corporation is just one person, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
if that continues to happen, trust me, eventually none of these fuckers will be left in line.
deleted by creator
United Healthcare’s stock is down 60% since the incident. United Healthcares board and new CEOs lowered the rejection rate of patients out of fear as well. Say what you want about the morality of what was done. The efficacy speaks for itself
Yup. After 9/11 for a while it seemed every week or two the news would report that “The leader of Al Qaeda” had just been killed or captured. Not a false statement, yet it happened again the next week.
Kemp is alive and governing Georgia as far as I know but I’m happy to be corrected if that’s wrong. You may be thinking of Brian Thompson who involuntarily resigned his position as the CEO of UnitedHealthcare on a NYC sidewalk.
Ah damn, you right. Should have Googled it. Too many Brian’s in the news, lol. Got the wires crossed.
Editing to fix.
You did have my hopes up for a moment.
… So kill the entire board.
That’d probably make a more uh, substantial material impact on their bottom line.
Oh, they keep doing evil shit with a new board?
… repeat.
Or, I guess you can just either … well, either try to run away and hide, pray to the normalcy bias gods that one of these days the legal systems they own will do something against them, or just resign yourself to a kind of smug, self defeating moral solace in being doomed, but being right while being doomed.
Maybe find an economic system not dependant on exploitation? There’s gotta be one out there somewhere
Sure would be cool if anyone had any realistic plans for achieving such a thing.
Which one of those things are you doing?
That’s a fed question.
It would be if the answer weren’t so obvious
You act like they’re doing any of it besides the smug moral solace
No I don’t.
I’m capable of being honest, and judging myself by thr same standards I judge others.
You just assumed that I’m not.
I didn’t “assume” that, it was indicated by the smugness of your keyboard warrior “just do such-and-such, or succumb to doomerism” argument.
No, you’re not getting it:
Yep, I am smug, hence the smug description of being smug.
Meta-smugness.
You’re assuming that I do not count myself amongst being smug.
I do.
Its also not the only of those 3 things I do, see my other comment where you decided to give a pretty good, though mostly off topic explanation of Nietzche vs Schopenhauer, totally missing the part wherr I established being smug is not the only thing that I do.
At the moment, a bit of the first, and a bit of the third.
Its hard to be an agent of one’s own will to power when one is seriously crippled.
So mostly what I am doing is physical therapy so that I can get back to being a more effective agent of my own will.
I prefer Schopenhauer’s Will to Life which Nietzsche plagiarized during his psychotic ramblings.
If Nietzsche was right about the Will to Power being the essence of life, then fascism would be justified. What is fascism besides an exercise in Will to Power devoid of empathy? Hitler loved Nietzsche. He corrupted a lot of the things Nietzsche said. Nietzsche wasn’t inherently fascist, and actually abhorred authority. But his Will to Power rhetoric did lend itself to the development of fascist ideology.
Life isn’t merely some competition between rivaling species of plants that will overwhelm the other if the other doesn’t overwhelm them first. That’s what happens when there’s an imbalance in an ecosystem, such as with the introduction of non-native plants. If that were perfectly fine as an analogy for human society and behavior, then what argument could be made against colonization and ethnic cleansing? The same argument would justify capitalistic exploitation, extractive industry, “infinite growth,” and zero-sum economic systems.
To be clear, those things are evil, but that’s why I don’t believe in the Will to Power. (True that Nietzsche didn’t mean it that way, because he personally was anti-authority, but he failed to consider what it would mean for an authoritarian figure with the intention and capability to enforce an evil Will to Power).
But in a balanced ecosystem, life isn’t a zero-sum game. Lots of species symbiotically work together to maintain the balance, a sort of ecological homeostasis. On the species level, even predator-prey relations are symbiotic (without wolves, deer overpopulate and overconsume, then they starve and experience population collapse).
So that’s why I favor Will-to-Life over Will-to-Power.
There’s also Will-to-Good, which sounds great on the surface, but “Good” is hard to define, so it’s mostly useless and can lend itself to corruption and perversity just as easily.
… Ok.
I didn’t mean to get into a philosophy argument, I meant to indicate my capacity to act in the world.
Bring crippled significantly hampers that, when it comes to most kinds of physical actions.
Okay, you can’t just mention a desire to be an agent of your own will to power and expect me not to discuss the differences between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer…
The phrase “will to power” has an origin, and it was coined by Nietzsche as an adaptation of Schopenhauer’s “will to life.”
In my view, power is a means to an end and not an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself and is an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake.
It makes sense to ask “Why do you want power?” But if you ask “Why do you want to live,” it seems kinda pointless like asking the wrong question.
This is because living is the reason for everything else that we do: work, get paid, buy food, eat. We fight for better systems because they’re more conducive to life. We might sacrifice our own lives for an ideal that makes life possible or better for others, presumably people we care about, and even then, life is the goal, just not for ourselves.
A will to power requires further justification. A will to life does not.
There is also a societal dependance on some of the status quo. The bigger issue is how hard they actively resist the change. A lot of places still rely on trucking at a minimum to fill the groccery store with food wrapped in plastic, most of which is powered or made by fossil fuels. We need to electrify and diversifying but they cling to oil and have way too much power in governmental decisions to prevent or reverse any reduction in dependance for their products.
the post is about who is doing it, who is responsible,
it’s supposed to make the problem less abstract
Operant conditioning, also called instrumental conditioning, is a learning process in which voluntary behaviors are modified by association with the addition (or removal) of reward or aversive stimuli. The frequency or duration of the behavior may increase through reinforcement or decrease through punishment or extinction.
Within a week of the killing, BCBS backed out on some of their upcoming bullshit and United Heathcare’s pre-authorization rejection rate has decreased dramatically in the aftermath.
Thimpson’s death (at the hands of someone whose identity we’ll never know for sure) was objectively good for the insured.
Still wrong, it’s capitalism. Without them, there would be different people in the same position. Hate the game, not the player. Well, hate the game and the player but don’t expect change from exchanging the player
They aren’t talking about expecting change. They are talking about demanding change at gunpoint, and honestly I can’t say I’m entirely opposed.
These people are completely unaffected by the law or any other form of consequences. They have removed our capability to peacefully take action, but the less-peaceful option is always there and there are legions more of us.
What’s your best, longest-lived example of a society without capitalism? Do you have any?
By capitalism, I mean
“private individuals or companies that own and control businesses and property”, the simplest definition of capitalism
Capitalism was literally invented in the last few hundred years.
Sure, but before that was feudalism, or similar systems where the state owned the means of production with no competition besides foreign powers and sometimes the church. Capitalism doesn’t give much power to workers, but it’s definitely more than serfdom.
any socialist society will be inherently disadvantaged by the fact that the global hegemon, the USA, is hellbent on destroying them. so, given that, maybe the soviet union? china? they certainly aren’t perfect, soviet union especially, but any future socialist project can (and should) learn from their successes and mistakes
You have mercantilism and other forms of private business without capitalism. A yeoman making something and selling it isn’t capitalism.
Your definition is intentionally bad because you do in fact have to separate capitalism from just the very generic concept of private enterprise.
“private individuals or companies that own and control businesses and property”, the simplest definition of capitalism
Bad definition of Capitalism. This existed in Feudal states. Simple definitions are rarely the ones to use.
Then provide your preferred definition of capitalism and answer?
Using your preferred definition of capitalism, what is the best, longest-lived example of a society without capitalism?
This is an honest question… I can’t think of any nation that has existed without it, so I asked.
By that definition, Roman Empire? Which lasted pretty damn long, by similar methods. Imperialism. A government that has at least a veneer of responsibility to the populace.
I mean there’s big differences, but more similarities imo.
“private individuals or companies that own and control businesses and property”, the simplest definition of capitalism
That’s not the simplest definition because it’s not the definition of capitalism at all. You can have property ownership without capitalism.
Collective ownership is very common (no pun intended) global and throughout history
No one ever does.
We need regulated capitalism. I don’t mind working for money. Most lemmys would like to smoke weed all day and not do shit. World dont work like that kids.
Capitalism with regulation and taxation of billionaires. Welfare state for the sick and elderly. Why is this so hard? We don’t need communism.
Okay how do you stop the capitalist who run our government and all of our economic production from getting rid of that welfare once their profits dry up? They own the military and all of its assets btw.
The treats they gave us have been a concession from the start. They were given because we put up enough of a fight that the capitalists worried not giving them to us would be worse. They will take them away if we don’t keep that fight, and its implicit threat, going. I don’t want all of our future generations for the rest of time to have to keep up that fight.
I’m pretty sure what most people are referring to here is unfettered capitalism. It’s not an on/off switch, you can have certain aspects of one thing combined with the other.
Tell me you’ve never studied history pre-1800 without telling me you’ve never studied history pre-1800.
Tell me you don’t have a clue without telling me you don’t have a clue
If you want actual examples, almost all societies before 1800 we’re not capitalist. Feudal society wasn’t capitalist, neither was Roman society. Hunter gather society by most accounts was a form of primitive communism, and that is the vast majority of human history.
Rome wasn’t capitalist?
What definition of capitalism are you using? They seemed very capitalist to me.
(I am using standard simple definition of “an economic system where private individuals or companies own and control businesses and property”)
You’re going to need a narrow definition of company for that definition to not be very broad, as Wikipedia defines company as:
A company is a legal entity representing an association of legal persons with a shared objective, such as generating profit or benefiting society.
So basically a company can be any group of people, separated from the state but still recognized by it. So is a commune a company then? If everything was controlled by communes would that be capitalist?
It’s better to use a more specific definition, again from wikipedia:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and its use for the purpose of obtaining profit.[1][2] This socioeconomic system has developed historically in several stages, and is defined by a number of constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
While all of these existed in Roman civilization, concentrated in the big cities such as Rome, the majority of the economy was slaves and peasants working the land to feed themselves while being forced to give a portion to landlords as rent and to the government as taxes, much like most agricultural civilizations. This sort of economy does not revolve around profit ie. Buying something, paying someone to improve it, and selling it for more on an open market so you can buy more and sell that and on and on… That is possible in Rome and there are capitalists, but that’s not the main mode of production in the economy so the economy isn’t capitalist. Just like there are communes in the US but the US isn’t communist.
I don’t need that narrow definition, as the definition I’m using is “…private individuals OR companies”, so no companies are required.
Are companies necessary with capitalism? Not per the definition. They CAN be a part of it.
There were TONS of “profit-motivated” Romans throughout their economy. I think that the definition you used from Wikipedia means that Rome was capitalist, as private property, profit motive, competitive markets, commodification, and wage labor were all a part of Roman civilization, and not a small part.
Centurions could own land and were paid a wage, etc. All existed under Rome.
Thanks for your answer, I am very familiar with Rome and at least I know where you’re coming from. In spite of your initial comment, I’ve read quite a bit about pre-1800s civilization. Perhaps more than you regarding Rome, as revealed by your response.
If only there was like a deck of cards with their faces on it.
Had a few seconds where I thought “Wired” was referring to the tech magazine and wondered what “Tired” is, who would choose name for their magazine or whatever?
It’s a reminder that large problems are often tied to concentrated power. Holding systems accountable while still pushing for collective change is probably the most constructive path forward.
They’ll find new executives, bud. Executives are just the lackeys for shareholders and the board of directors. A new one will grow for each one lost.
Giving up hasn’t worked yet.
I’m just saying the aim isn’t the most effective. Shooting someone’s foot certainly will hamper someone, but the pain will go away eventually. Gotta aim for a more lethal part of the body
Ok so not 90 people. But more like 2,000. Still a rounding error that is willfully exterminating the rest.
And?
Make them find new ones. And new ones after that. And after that.
Eventually that well will dry up.
that feels, for some reason, profound.
I mean, sure let it be 200 or 400, 1000. It’s still a rounding error compared to all of humanity.maybe that is why there is a period of prosperity after large wars. The losing side being wiped out reduces that number by half and everyone can breathe a bit more freely.
Those people never die in the wars. The reason there are periods of prosperity after wars is because when many young adults have died, labour has more bargaining power.
damn. somehow my version, which is pretty dark, is still not that dark.
There also tend to be periods of great prosperity following plagues, due to inheritances and what not. But capitalism has made sure to rinse you of every past penny to prevent generational wealth from being passed down to the poors… So that didn’t happen after COVID
Ps. Fuck magnum pi and kurt browning for scamming seniors out of their homes and into reverse mortgages
Wait what did Magnum PI do? We’re not talking about the mustachioed investigator, right?
Recycling is a con to make you feel guilty and let Chevron off the hook.
Solar energy used to be a similar con and look at it now.
How was solar a con? It produced energy, as intended. It’s gotten gradually even better at producing energy through better photovotaics, batteries, molten salt concentrated solar, and kinetic batteries (pumping water uphill during the day, running electro-hydralic power generation at night). But it was never a lie.
Plastic was never recyclable. It’s been burned in the open air in China and Indoneisa ab initio.
You can argue that glass, cardboard, and aluminum can be effectively recycled, but in the context of climate change and fossil fuels, we are taking about petroleum-based plastics. There are too many different kinds of plastic and the cost of recycling versus the cost of new material meant recycling was a chimera from the beginning.
Yes I’m sure the corporations beneath these people will simply evaporate and everything will go perfectly fine.
If you took out certain key people you would absolutely change the course of history. Probably a certain 5-10. Maybe less. Who? No idea.
Hell, look at all the shit epstein was involved with and think about how much better the world would be if he was baby hitler’d
Should I be worried that my initial response to this is “Hmm, so we might be able to improve the world with a serendipitously timed anthrax outbreak at the next WEF summit?”
I mean, somebody is going to have to do a little terrorism…
Just a little bit, as a treat.
About the response itself? No.
About the situation that made that response understandable? We’re way past “worried”.
These people have physical bodies
These few people / companies destroying the planet: BLAME THE CONSUMER!
The amount of fucking everything up they do in a day is more than I do in a lifetime.
I would get banned on Reddit if I said what I wanted to say about this situation, would I get banned here too?
Depends on the instance. For example: I can say, “we should all get together and murder these people for what they have done to us” and I would likely only get banned from this community or the instance that hosts it. My home instance simply wouldn’t care
Fired: adventurist action doesn’t end the system that created those 90 people
Couldn’t come up with much that rhymed with tired but that is probably because I am tired
