Recent searches
Search options
@pluralistic "Solving this politically" is spot on.
UHC's and the other's sociopathic shareholders will haunt them, if they reduce the profits. They need regulation, so they can turn around and say: "We have no other choice."
At least in my opinion, that's their only way to live without constant fear.
@h0ru2 @pluralistic Is the problem not enough convenient government regulation to obscure accountability or too many sociopathic shareholders?
@grumble209 @pluralistic If I understand the first point correctly, it's the latter, but not only. Usually shareholder are both detached (by having asset managers) and fractured (if the numbers I found online for UHC are correct), so it's hard for the shareholders to tell the company anything specific. Which they could, because they own the company.
Thus, what's left as the common goal is: Make as much money as possible (shareholder value, this also means bonuses for the C-suites).
1/2
@grumble209 @pluralistic But, if there are laws, the companies are usually expected to adhere to them. So, if there were laws to limit UHC's appalling behavior, I'd expect very few shareholders to tell the C-suite to just break them, if only because of liability.
2/2
@h0ru2 @pluralistic I'd prefer laws, with vigorous enforcement, over vigilantes gunning down CEOs of companies that they feel have wronged them.
But given our political climate, I'd prefer vigilantes over nothing.
As for shareholders... they can certainly say "we're not going to approve any executive compensation package that includes bodyguards, so conduct yourselves accordingly."
But would they really trade profits over ethics? I doubt it.
Perhaps the next vigilante will bomb a shareholder meeting and not merely whack the CEO on the street. May we live in interesting times.
@pluralistic We're at a point where it's not merely that the problem hasn't been solved politically, but that a political solution now seems impossible. Trump saw no consequences in four years, and now he's been re-elected. He has a trifecta to support him, if a weak one. He's recruiting a nightmare gallery of billionaires for his cabinet. He wants to "fix things" so "you won't have to vote anymore". Given that, who in their right minds would expect to see a political solution happen now?
@504DR @pluralistic has he really? Or did they just grab someone in an attempt to look like they made progress? Wouldn’t be the first time this happened in a high profile case.
Always a possibility with a crooked justice system.
Reports are that he had the gun and silencer on him, as well as some writings pertaining to the incident/greedy HC system.
I'm sure DNA will come into play.
Here is a supposed post of his, regarding Ted Kazinski's manifesto:
@504DR @pluralistic Yeh, this was the kind of reasoning I was expecting to see from whoever did this.
@pluralistic
Those 40 years also coincide with a historical moment where, at least in the West, the left has exclusively pursued a strategy of nonviolence. Like most of my left-leaning friends, I grew up with that nonviolent ethos, I dislike guns, and can't imagine using one to solve what I've been taught are *political* problems. But if you go back just a bit further in history, that nonviolent culture wasn't a consensus for groups like the Black Panthers or Gilded Age anarchists...