Well, yes, you're right. People will continue to do it forever. So long as accumulating capital is the goal of the country, companies like United Healthcare will exist, and will be free to ruin people's lives in the name of gaining more capital. However, unless we literally overthrow the system, it too will never change. Currently, the only viable solution that I can see actually happen is that every few years we need to remind the CEO's that they're not entirely safe by culling a few. Because we literally have no other way to influence them - the law is on their side, and we would need to overthrow the law itself to change that.
Your solution is only the right one in a hypothetical world where a legislative change is possible, but we do not live in that world. We might be able to change the world to make it a viable option, but to do that would require a lot more killing of a lot more powerful people, otherwise known as a revolution. Even then, in the scenario where we tear down this system and build a new one, greed will always exist in society, and those that seek power will always eventually worm their way into powerful positions. The new system would work for a while, but when greed and power inevitably come back together again, we'll need to tear that system down and start over once more.
A legislative solution? The people making legislature literally work with CEO's, accepting their money in exchange for enacting policies that benefit them. They're partners. I'd love a country where the government works for the people to hold back corporations, but this country specifically believes the opposite should be true. There will be no legislative solution insofar as capitalism is still the American system. There is no way within the current system for rich people to be brought to justice, only people working outside the system can make that happen.
Brian Thompson made a living making people blind, sometimes even literally, and it was all well within his rights in the eye of the law. Us giving him a taste of his own medicine is already showing results in those other CEO's that don't want to suffer the same fate. We're literally already seeing what "an eye for an eye" gets us, and it's fear among those who have been free to blind people for decades without ever worrying about being blinded themselves before now.
An eye for an eye doesn't make the whole world blind. It makes a few people blind until they wise up and realize "Wait, I like making people blind, but I don't want to be blind!" And then they stop blinding people, thus removing the need to blind them in return.
Correct. Those people, who were doing all that anyway. I'm not saying they were good people, but their revolution had nothing to do with the indigenous genocide. I do know that a lot of people were hurt or killed from "being too apologetic to British forces." I don't personally know enough about the French revolution to know about the amount of innocent casualties, but 30,000 doesn't surprise me.
Things are bad over here, and they're only getting worse. If I end up being one of the people killed during the - at this point - inevitable uprising, whether from fighting or from being mistaken as being too friendly with the corrupt elite, at least I could be happy that there would be a light at the end of the tunnel for those who do survive.
Yeah, I mean, look what happened in the late 1700's. A bunch of people in the new world did a kind of "kill the oppressors" movement, and then they had to start a whole new country with a new set of ideas - what a pain. Then people in France caught wind of it and decided to start the movement there, too! It was a whole mess for the bourgeoise of the time.
I never understood how our country - proudly founded through the uprising of the downtrodden to overthrow their oppressor with violence - could ever honestly think that violence is never the answer. Our national anthem has a stanza specifically dedicated to the rockets and bombs "we the people" used against the British.
Which is part of the problem. This whole expectation that our leaders should hide their true feelings and motivations behind a veil of niceties only serves their goals of hiding such things from the people trying to figure out who to vote for. We should know who our politicians are as actual people, since it's the person they are in private that will motivate their actions within the government, not the nice face they put on for the public.
This is honestly the reason why I don't think we can achieve a successful uprising anymore. Probably not a nuke, but drones definitely could and would be used to tear through even the largest of mobs if they formed today. Marie Antoinette would be happily eating her cake watching her people get mowed down by autonomous turrets if the French revolution happened today.
Bud, you can't post a map showing that, if everyone voted, would-be nonvoters would have the power to change over half of the states' electoral college results, then pair it with the statement "Potential voters feel their vote literally doesn’t matter and statistically and practically speaking they are not wrong." You're literally providing the statistical proof that they are wrong.
Sounds to me like the kid is also having some feelings surrounding the breakup and subsequent remarriage that aren't being addressed. Why does he want you to come too? Is he hoping it might bring you and his mom back together? Does he feel uncomfortable around the new stepdad, and wants you around because he's more comfortable when you're around? I think if you have a conversation with him as to why he's asking for you to come too, it might influence how you approach the situation, or at least give you a better way to explain why you can't come due to your own reasons.
I know this is a difficult decision on your part for how it affects you, but your son is also in a very vulnerable position right now, and needs both of his parents paying attention to him and the feelings he's having, even if he doesn't know how to express them directly. My parents broke up suddenly due to cheating when I was around the same age, and it was a traumatic time in my life because my parents both assumed I was old enough to "get it." I wasn't. Family is one of the main sources of stability in a young person's life, and to have it fall out from beneath you isn't something you get over on your own very easily.
This is the whole reason we have strict building codes for door hardware. Locks have to be able to open in a single action, and room with a larger occupancy have to have panic devices that can open the door just from falling on them. The panic devices were invented after a major theater fire killed a bunch of people thanks to their stupidly-designed fancy locks that nobody could figure out how to open during the panic.
Hardly semantic. The way you fix a broken system is by working within the system to gradually shift it back to normal. The way you destroy a working corrupt system is by literally tearing it down French revolution style. Which path are we going to take? It's only semantic if we ultimately decide to take no path at all, and simply lay down and die.
Stage 2 generally means that the cancer hasn't yet spread, except maybe to very nearby lymph nodes, meaning treatment can be very successful so long as its somewhere accessible by surgery and you don't wait too long. Stage 2 treatment is very different from stage 4 treatment, but if you wait, that's where it'll get to.
Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee Posts 1Comments 485Joined 2 yr. ago
Well, yes, you're right. People will continue to do it forever. So long as accumulating capital is the goal of the country, companies like United Healthcare will exist, and will be free to ruin people's lives in the name of gaining more capital. However, unless we literally overthrow the system, it too will never change. Currently, the only viable solution that I can see actually happen is that every few years we need to remind the CEO's that they're not entirely safe by culling a few. Because we literally have no other way to influence them - the law is on their side, and we would need to overthrow the law itself to change that.
Your solution is only the right one in a hypothetical world where a legislative change is possible, but we do not live in that world. We might be able to change the world to make it a viable option, but to do that would require a lot more killing of a lot more powerful people, otherwise known as a revolution. Even then, in the scenario where we tear down this system and build a new one, greed will always exist in society, and those that seek power will always eventually worm their way into powerful positions. The new system would work for a while, but when greed and power inevitably come back together again, we'll need to tear that system down and start over once more.