They are very similar, yes, but synonyms will often have subtly different definitions and connotations that mean you can’t just replace one with the other wherever you want. Frankly, the difference between murder and killing is something I learned in high school English so I understand that the difference might have been off your radar before now, but this is the way the words are used most frequently, they’re different words for a reason. Murder implies a moral or legal judgement on the action of killing, and killing is just dispassionately describing that something has died as a result of some other action. We all learn something new every day, it’s OK not to know something.
I do like to learn new things, particularly when it comes to the English language. Although I am English I kinda suck at it and was always better at Math.
Yes, one Luigi will not solve the problem. Once you get past 4 or 5, you’ll find less people willing to take on the risk of the job. You get to a dozen, and you’ll be shocked just how much progress we get.
If nobody does the job then nobody gets health insurance and everything is out of pocket for everyone, you realize? Even worse now that the USA Federal Government is freezing funds for Medicaid.
Murdering any number of random people does NOT create a system like the rest of the developed world has. That is not how THEY got theirs to begin with.
Correct. Random murder would accomplish nothing. But that’s not what I’d call targeted assassinations of the most corrupt and evil people on the planet, who are profiting from untold suffering.
The corrupt evil people can reproduce faster than a few planned assassinations can cull, you also don’t get any say in who the next targets are, and even if the practices stop we have to implement actual legal policy changes to make them stop forever or they will return as soon as somebody figures out there is profit to be made.
Incorrect. The number of people willing to risk their lives for greed would naturally reduce as the risk grows. The unpredictability of targets would increase the risk factor for them.
And laws can be bought, as we’ve already seen. Making them fear for their lives will buy results like no laws ever could. That’s exactly how we got most of our labor protections.
The end result is not that no one wants to be a CEO of a health insurance company, the end result is that health insurance CEO’s run their companies in a way that doesn’t increase the likelihood that some vigilante Luigi’s them. Either that or they switch to a company model that doesn’t need CEO’s, so there’s no one person to target as responsible. There’s a market niche that needs to be filled no matter how many CEO’s die. Obviously this isn’t the most desirable end state (public health care anyone?) but I think that’s where this system finds its balance rather than health insurance just going away.
That’s a nice theory but it relies on there only being a very small number of people who would abuse a gap in regulations to enrich themselves. I think the vast majority would take advantage of that sort of flaw if put in a position to do so.
Instead, why don’t you just organize the health insurance coop now instead of waiting for random murders to start happening?
The theory does not actually have anything to do with how many people are willing to abuse a gap in regulations for personal gain, it’s analyzing the dynamic between people who would abuse the system for personal gain, and that abuse causing a situation where people will enact vigilante justice against the first group. So people who are self interested will be less likely to abuse the system in ways that mark them as a target. All it requires is that the vigilantism is common and a known factor to the people abusing the system, so that the ways they choose to abuse the system are less obvious. Of course it could go any number of ways based on other factors, I’m just commenting on the dynamics of the interaction here.
Is murder always wrong?
Like the trolley problem. How is indifference to other preventable deaths any better than killing one dude.
I mean, definitionally yes murder is always wrong. Killing isn’t always wrong, but murder is when killing is unjustified so yeah, it’s always wrong.
Maybe in law speak, but murder and kill are synonymous.
They are very similar, yes, but synonyms will often have subtly different definitions and connotations that mean you can’t just replace one with the other wherever you want. Frankly, the difference between murder and killing is something I learned in high school English so I understand that the difference might have been off your radar before now, but this is the way the words are used most frequently, they’re different words for a reason. Murder implies a moral or legal judgement on the action of killing, and killing is just dispassionately describing that something has died as a result of some other action. We all learn something new every day, it’s OK not to know something.
Thanks.
I do like to learn new things, particularly when it comes to the English language. Although I am English I kinda suck at it and was always better at Math.
Luigi’s Trolly Problem:
2 separate tracks
Track 1 has Brian Thompson, pulling the lever kills him but he is immediately replaced by another guy
Track 2 has some unknown number of people who will die regardless of any action you take
Yes, one Luigi will not solve the problem. Once you get past 4 or 5, you’ll find less people willing to take on the risk of the job. You get to a dozen, and you’ll be shocked just how much progress we get.
If nobody does the job then nobody gets health insurance and everything is out of pocket for everyone, you realize? Even worse now that the USA Federal Government is freezing funds for Medicaid.
You’re forgetting the rest of the developed world has a different system. I wonder what that system looks like.
I’m British and never had to worry about healthcare because although we are USA Lite, we are not that bad.
Murdering any number of random people does NOT create a system like the rest of the developed world has. That is not how THEY got theirs to begin with.
If I murder all Americans and took over the country I could do what I want, so there is absolutely a number of people you could kill to achieve it.
Correct. Random murder would accomplish nothing. But that’s not what I’d call targeted assassinations of the most corrupt and evil people on the planet, who are profiting from untold suffering.
The corrupt evil people can reproduce faster than a few planned assassinations can cull, you also don’t get any say in who the next targets are, and even if the practices stop we have to implement actual legal policy changes to make them stop forever or they will return as soon as somebody figures out there is profit to be made.
Incorrect. The number of people willing to risk their lives for greed would naturally reduce as the risk grows. The unpredictability of targets would increase the risk factor for them.
And laws can be bought, as we’ve already seen. Making them fear for their lives will buy results like no laws ever could. That’s exactly how we got most of our labor protections.
The end result is not that no one wants to be a CEO of a health insurance company, the end result is that health insurance CEO’s run their companies in a way that doesn’t increase the likelihood that some vigilante Luigi’s them. Either that or they switch to a company model that doesn’t need CEO’s, so there’s no one person to target as responsible. There’s a market niche that needs to be filled no matter how many CEO’s die. Obviously this isn’t the most desirable end state (public health care anyone?) but I think that’s where this system finds its balance rather than health insurance just going away.
That’s a nice theory but it relies on there only being a very small number of people who would abuse a gap in regulations to enrich themselves. I think the vast majority would take advantage of that sort of flaw if put in a position to do so.
Instead, why don’t you just organize the health insurance coop now instead of waiting for random murders to start happening?
The theory does not actually have anything to do with how many people are willing to abuse a gap in regulations for personal gain, it’s analyzing the dynamic between people who would abuse the system for personal gain, and that abuse causing a situation where people will enact vigilante justice against the first group. So people who are self interested will be less likely to abuse the system in ways that mark them as a target. All it requires is that the vigilantism is common and a known factor to the people abusing the system, so that the ways they choose to abuse the system are less obvious. Of course it could go any number of ways based on other factors, I’m just commenting on the dynamics of the interaction here.
Ah so you’re saying IF the majority of the population would abuse the system, then you want to kill the majority of people.
I’m not actually indicating my personal preference on the situation at all, just my perception on the dynamics at play.