That’s an easy one to defeat. Just depends on how you define murder. Like no sane person would balk at killing someone in unequivocal self-defense. I would exclude that kind of act from the definition of murder. That gets dicey when you take something like Luigi. Can outright murder be acceptable given a failing system? No one is considering murdering healthcare execs in places with universal healthcare.
If corporations can make decisions which directly lead to the deaths of others then those impacted by those decisions should be able to respond in self defense. The fact that they’re killing people with a pen stroke instead of a weapon doesn’t change the life-threatening nature of the situation they’re intentionally creating.
If corporations can make decisions which directly lead to the deaths of others then those impacted by those decisions should be able to respond in self defense.
Especially when they have policies to automatically deny claims, require appeals, etc. regardless of whether things should actually be covered. That’s an explicit decision by the company to put those people’s lives in danger, solely for the financial incentive.
Perhaps we need to add that to the murder definition.
I was thinking more along the lines of people lynching David Duke or Steven Anderson, A hate preacher associated with the quiverfull freaks. But also generally speaking C-suites and politicians as well.
The way I see it there’s no point in offering civility to those who would kill me for fun or a quick buck.
That’s an easy one to defeat. Just depends on how you define murder. Like no sane person would balk at killing someone in unequivocal self-defense. I would exclude that kind of act from the definition of murder. That gets dicey when you take something like Luigi. Can outright murder be acceptable given a failing system? No one is considering murdering healthcare execs in places with universal healthcare.
If corporations can make decisions which directly lead to the deaths of others then those impacted by those decisions should be able to respond in self defense. The fact that they’re killing people with a pen stroke instead of a weapon doesn’t change the life-threatening nature of the situation they’re intentionally creating.
Especially when they have policies to automatically deny claims, require appeals, etc. regardless of whether things should actually be covered. That’s an explicit decision by the company to put those people’s lives in danger, solely for the financial incentive.
Perhaps we need to add that to the murder definition.
I was thinking more along the lines of people lynching David Duke or Steven Anderson, A hate preacher associated with the quiverfull freaks. But also generally speaking C-suites and politicians as well.
The way I see it there’s no point in offering civility to those who would kill me for fun or a quick buck.