Violence ends when non-violent reforms are able to succeed. The real value of violence is that it makes the non-violent option palatable to the political center.
The problem with the fetishization of non-violence is that it ignores that most transformative non-violent social movements have occurred concurrently with violent co-movements. Ghandi preached non-violence, but at the same time, violent Hindu radicals were running around slitting the throats of every British official they could get their hands on. MLK preached non-violence, but the Black Panthers were waiting in the wings, offering a much more unpleasant option if MLK failed.
Violent social movements have very real tangible value, but their value isn't in the violence itself. We're not going to change the health insurance system through pure violence, no matter how many CEOs lay dead on the streets of Manhattan.
On the other hand, non-violent social movements rarely succeed either. Even the most modest, centrist, and conciliatory of reforms are derided as extreme or "Communist." Look at Obamacare, a reform designed from the ground up to NOT disrupt the profits of the insurance or healthcare industries. This was a modest market-based reform that was originally a Republican reform plan. The right spent a decade going nuts calling it the second coming of Mao. And they still oppose it to this day. In the end it tinkered around the edges, but it was hardly transformative change.
The real value of violence is that it makes modest peaceful reforms much more palatable. The civil rights amendments and acts passed in the 1960s and 1970s would have never passed if there were only peaceful movements behind them. They amended the damn constitution! That took people on both sides of the aisle saying, "damn, we really need to change some things. This is getting out of hand."
And that kind of broad bipartisan consensus that reform was needed was only possible because of the threat of violence. Violent radicals like the Black Panthers made MLK palatable to middle America. Without them, MLK would have just been another radical socialist to be demonized. And even then, they still killed him anyway.
The real value of violent social movements is that they make non-violent social movements possible. In fact, without violence, non-violent social movements rarely succeed. You need BOTH violence and non-violence if you want to make substantial change to the system. The violence puts the fear of God into the placid middle classes and wealthy corporate interests. This allows the non-violent reformers to show up with a solution to the problem that allows these centrist factions to feel that they're not giving in to the violent radicals. Violence and non-violence are two sides of the same coin. And they are both essential.
We used to make fun of Chinese social media censorship. Soon sharing images of Nintendo's Luigi will be as censored as sharing images of Winnie the Pooh in China.
Front line worker: "I have no moral culpability, I'm just doing what my manager tells me to."
Manager: "I have no moral culpability, I just do what the executives tell me to."
Executives: "I have no moral culpability, I just maximize shareholder value."
Shareholders: "All I did was buy an index fund in my 401k. Why you trying to pin this on me?"
186 people murdered by the health insurance companies every day, yet somehow not a single human being involved has any moral culpability.
This is why Luigi did nothing wrong. If there is one person who has moral culpability, it's the CEO. They justify their obscene salaries by taking credit for a company's performance. They can accept the moral culpability as well.
We should erect a giant bronze statue of Luigi. Put it in a road right near UHC's headquarters in Minnesota. Make them all drive past it each and every day on the way to work.
I have a better idea for a crypto plan. Let's chain crypto bros to their mining rigs and throw them both into the ocean. Take out two pieces of trash at once.
What I don't understand about this... If illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, doesn't that make them immune from all state and federal law? Isn't this arguing that they effectively have diplomatic immunity? So an illegal immigrant could come to the US, murder a healthcare CEO in broad daylight, and all we could do is deport them.
Seriously. There have been profiles of his online interests. He clearly was not a political partisan. What he was more than anything was anti-establishment. He was a big fan of both AOC and Joe Rogan. However, the corporate media is doing what it always does - try to divide us along artificial partisan lines.
Here's an idea I've been kicking around, something to really send a message. What would y'all think about a crowd funding campaign to erect a life sized bronze statue of Luigi, to be commissioned and installed in NYC as close to the shooting site as possible? Alternatively or in addition, a statue could be installed somewhere near UHC's headquarters in Minnesota.
Some googling suggests a statue like that will cost between $25k-250k. That seems quite doable as far as crowd funding goes.
I'm not particularly partial to statues myself. I would see its value mainly as a means of sending a message, keeping the topic of health reform in the headlines, etc.
You mention the Gulf of Mexico. A friend of ours recently has his whole family catch cholera from swimming on the beach in Galveston. They're fine and all made full recoveries, as it isn't lethal if properly treated. But yes, in the Year of Our Lord 2024, you can catch literal cholera just by going to the beach in Texas.
And yet, Brian Robert Thompson will never kill again.