The writers of the beigeness might deny it, but assassination can work. Shinto Abe is just the most recent example. The "win condition" of the immediate destruction of the rentseeking healthcare-insurance complex in the US is a strawman. The killer achieved his goal and his success was greater than he probably imagined.

The truth is that the average person is indifferent to the murder, or right-down approving. HN is a bubble about this for obvious reasons. This a stronger signal for the power-brokers to take it easy and fix some of the perverse incentives than a long career in activism.

We live, and always have lived in a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re a bad person, and kill you. Knowing this reality isn't condoning it, or believing that common political violence is a good state of affairs.

The article seems quite level-headed and thoughtful.

That said, this jumps the gun:

> The idea that trauma is passed down epigenetically is not only unscientific, it’s also un-agentic; if you believe your trauma is hardwired into your DNA, you’re prone to passively accept it rather than actively trying to overcome it.

Recent research is pretty convincing that the "folk wisdom" of trauma being passed down to later generations is a real thing.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fearful-memories-...

https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3594

Edit: and I'll add that the mice were able to overcome the inherited trauma, too, so you could argue that it's actually an empowering concept. Even though we can't control what we inherit, this shows you can overcome it.

Vigilantism and violence is not merited because scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution.

At some level of oppression violence is obviously indicated. The whole of the current Western order is premised on that.

At some point it’s too far. Today is not that day.

> If UnitedHealth Group decided to donate every single dollar of its profit to buying Americans more health care, it would only be able to pay for about 9.3% more health care than it’s already paying for.

This is an absolutely massive number. It could easily prevent hundreds of unnecessary deaths per year.

I don't know the US deem assassination justified, or we're seeing the end of the world, but the descriptions of this guy reads like that of garden variety arrogant kiddo: one that label anything he hasn't seen as either aboriginal primitive isms or obvious display of neural deficiencies.

No, Luigi, that police officer wasn't being overly complicit, he's annoyed that you're not gathering bystanders around the man and calling 911(119) yourself, doubly so because you're not getting it.

So this guy had a few twitter exchanges with Luigi and he thinks the US healthcare system isn't that bad? Doesn't really seem like an article for HN. But as long as we're here I think, sort of like Luigi, I'll let other people argue about whether the US healthcare system functions well or efficiently. But as for this:

>While it’s true that UnitedHealthcare has the highest denial rate for medical claims, the CEO doesn’t set the approval rate of a health insurance company’s payouts — that’s done by the actuaries, who themselves are constrained by various considerations, such as the need to keep costs low, including for policyholders.

By this logic, what can Brian Thompson be said to be responsible for? It's very strange to me to assign more responsibility for a companies denial rates to its actuaries than the actuaries' bosses bosses boss. So why exactly does UHC have higher denial rates than other companies? It just happens to be that it's actuaries are more frugal? This explanation doesn't hold water and I think it's a strange response to the shooting of a CEO to say, well actually CEOs aren't responsible for the things their corporations do. Of course they are, now they aren't solely responsible, but they probably have more responsibility than any other single individual. It can be completely true that killing Brian Thompson was wrong AND that he was no saint, being responsible for (and getting rich off of) large amounts of human misery inflicted on UHC policy holders by the organization he headed.

It makes me livid when people write that vigilantism is never right. It speaks volumes about how little nuance there is in their own lives. I think these same people would denounce civil disobedience in the time of the civil rights movement and would joke about Seneca Falls if they were born a century younger. The overconfidence disgusts me.

Google reveals the CEO who died and other United Healthcare executive's are being investigated for insider trading, enriching themselves by many millions. (And conversely, others must have lost millions. ) Also being investigated for fraud.( I thought this may be possible cause for murder, but it appears not. )

  > Vigilantism is always wrong.

We should stop saying this because we can be nuanced. It's okay to have edge cases. There are circumstances where it is justified to run a red light or abandon a truck trailer. All rules are made to be broken, because no rule can be perfectly specified. Language is limited and time marches on. It does no good to continue saying this, in this way.

Vigilantism is __rarely__ justified, and this is not an instance where it is. But we also must admit that this instance has sparked a larger national conversation. One that was going on for a long time but was routinely quickly quenched. This action catalyzed the conversation and gave it much more fire. __THIS__, I feel deeply uncomfortable with. There's certainly ways to do this same thing without killing a person (even an evil person), and I would hope that we can do better as a society to do that (you, me, and everyone. Not just "them", "US"). We shouldn't need to kill someone to have a real conversation, to solve problems, to get angry, to make change. It's here and I don't want to kill that conversation now that it has catalyzed, but neither do I want that to be the lesson learned from this. Because if it is, then vigilantism is justified much more often, and __that__ is not something we want. That is precisely how we end up creating the reality that everyone wants to avoid when they say "vigilantism is _always_ wrong."

This is a sensitive topic, and I think we should be careful. There's always ways to misinterpret others, especially if you try. But it is hard to listen, to see past the words, and find the intent. It is easier to fight and pick sides, especially when we're on the same one, than it is to actually solve problems. Problems that are complex, nuanced, and need deep understanding and care to resolve. It is easy to make them simple and pick tribes on that. Many of us want the same end goal, and we can do better by focusing on that. If we reach an impasse, so be it, but we should at least try.

> when I asked him if he was voting in the presidential election, he scrunched his nose and said he wasn’t crazy about Trump or Biden, but liked some of the things RFK Jr. was saying. I regard RFK Jr. as a crank who regularly pushes harmful pseudoscience, but I didn’t mention it so as not to derail the conversation.

Interesting! I agrees he's a crank, but RFK jr seems to appeal to a specific personality type that's common among high-powered individuals. People that like to appear scientific, but hate going along with certain things despite a strong scientific consensus. I recently had a very surprising conversation with a company director where they sang RFK's praises, and came down firmly in the alt-right camp's position on classic trigger topics like Ivermectin, fluoride and COVID. This is someone who outwardly advocates being data-driven and loves phrases like "data doesn't care about your beliefs". And yet their entire view on these topics coincides with the cherry-picked data and misleading interpretations in RFK's book.

The author mentions his favorite philosophy is stoicism. A stoic could never hope to understand the motivations of someone like Luigi. A stoic could never bring about change.

> Vigilantism is always wrong. If you celebrate someone gunning down a defenceless person in the street, then you advocate for a world in which this is an acceptable thing for anyone to do.

I somewhat disagree, our democracies were built on violent, illegal revolutions. Vigilantism is not always wrong.

> I told him about my favorite philosophy, Stoicism, and how it could teach him to ignore distractions and focus his mind on living more deliberately.

It's funny how many of these online libertarian-ish guys preach "stoicism", a philosophy which famously asks you to be satisfied occupying your "natural" place in the universe, be it slave or Emperor or the Roman Empire.

Ultimately, I think this culture of "agentism" pushes some to a particular brand of individualism, in which it may seem that history is written by great men, heroes, who take actions in their own hands.