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.
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.