Luigi Mangione

[Microbeman]

I could do a better job reading sometimes. Apparently you could do a better job writing what you mean.

You DID say, free market when you described your idea originally, (above) when you now are saying you meant something like the crony capitalism that exists today.

In this circumstance, I DID actually read what you said, and if you intended it to mean something different, it would have been helpful if you had said "crony capitalism" rather than free market, in your post above.

I failed to see where continuing crony capitalism is a free market economic evolution. The reason why is crony capitalism and an actual free market are distinctly separate things, which I've mentioned ad nauseum.

Please actually WRITE, using the terms that apply to your idea.

Also, I'm smoking some killer free market weed now, and if any of my statements above can be proven inaccurate, that's my alibi.

The way I communicated this was by marking 'free market' with speech marks and indicating a transition to the free market which you hypothesize. When it comes to typing I apply energy frugally, as I can only type with one finger with great deliberation. Succincticity.

 

[Microbeman]

The way I communicated this was by marking 'free market' with speech marks and indicating a transition to the free market which you hypothesize. When it comes to typing I apply energy frugally, as I can only type with one finger with great deliberation. Succincticity.

When I taught elementary school and college, I employed as much as possible the dialectic method.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Among these changes, it is worth highlighting, in the case of Spain, how regional governments with powers over health are increasing service provision agreements with private entities.

Given that, by definition, private, for-profit companies only have a reason to exist if they can make a profit, it remains to be seen whether the problem of poor service is structural and therefore uncorrectable. If this is confirmed, it should lead to a focus on improving (and not replacing) the public health service model by treating patients as people and not as clients.

Having a government involved in healthcare and calling it "private" isn't what I'd do. The article treads into the waters of word smithing by inference and by assisting a popular misconception.

It claims something is "private" yet admits government is involved. I think that's a sleight of hand and is either ignorant or more likely intentionally deceptive. I think articles like this with an intended bias "capitalism bad", "more government good" help perpetuate the erroneous linking of crony capitalism and an actual free market.

For the millionth time, Crony capitalism , which is the progeny of government and special interest privateers is NOT a free market.

The article doesn't talk about an actual free market, as being an option, I wonder why?

Also, I have a problem with the characterization in this laughably blind propaganda line from the article (in bold below)

If this is confirmed, it should lead to a focus on improving (and not replacing) the public health service model by treating patients as people and not as clients.

The line above is an appeal to emotion, but makes no mention that the State treats its owned subjects like serfs when it decides for them, whether some captured individuals like it or not. how healthcare will be administered.

Forcing State choices on unwilling people is not evidence that State directed models are more compassionate, it's evidence of the opposite.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

The way I communicated this was by marking 'free market' with speech marks and indicating a transition to the free market which you hypothesize. When it comes to typing I apply energy frugally, as I can only type with one finger with great deliberation. Succincticity.

Thanks for mentioning that you used quotation marks. You did do that in a subsequent post .

There was an earlier dated post I had responded to, which did not have "quotation" marks around it.
The earlier post simply said free market, without any quotes, which was why I responded as if that was what you meant. I had no reason to know you may have meant something else.

All good.

 

[Microbeman]

Thanks for mentioning that you used quotation marks. You did do that in a subsequent post .

There was an earlier dated post I had responded to, which did not have "quotation" marks around it.
The earlier post simply said free market, without any quotes, which was why I responded as if that was what you meant. I had no reason to know you may have meant something else.

All good.

 

[Eltitoguay]

Having a government involved in healthcare and calling it "private" isn't what I'd do. The article treads into the waters of word smithing by inference and by assisting a popular misconception.

It claims something is "private" yet admits government is involved. I think that's a sleight of hand and is either ignorant or more likely intentionally deceptive. I think articles like this with an intended bias "capitalism bad", "more government good" help perpetuate the erroneous linking of crony capitalism and an actual free market.

For the millionth time, Crony capitalism , which is the progeny of government and special interest privateers is NOT a free market.

The article doesn't talk about an actual free market, as being an option, I wonder why?

Also, I have a problem with the characterization in this laughably blind propaganda line from the article (in bold below)

If this is confirmed, it should lead to a focus on improving (and not replacing) the public health service model by treating patients as people and not as clients.

The line above is an appeal to emotion, but makes no mention that the State treats its owned subjects like serfs when it decides for them, whether some captured individuals like it or not. how healthcare will be administered.

Forcing State choices on unwilling people is not evidence that State directed models are more compassionate, it's evidence of the opposite.

...I don't know if the electronic translation has altered the original spirit of the article ("translators = traitors," Agusto Monterroso used to joke), either you are mistakenly referring to parts of the article other than those you quote, or you do not understand what you are reading, or you are simply using the old and hackneyed technique of the most populist and demagogic cheap rhetoric (so in vogue again) of twisting anything in order to once again "sell your book"...

My intuition points to one of the last two, if not directly to the last one, as I believe someone has already pointed out before.
And on this last point, before I answer you specifically about the topic and (real) content of the article, let me invite you to follow Microberman's advice about trying to apply Dialectics...
Try "with a little" of Aristotelian Logic, of Dialectics, to analyze the "incontestable" arguments that you use, and I quote you only from memory:
"Would you lower the height of the basketball hoops so that the (I don't remember if "children" or "people", but it doesn't matter) short and chubby white people could shoot?"
(and you don't have to be white or short or fat to not shoot well, by the way)

If I were to "lower" myself to using your same bar counter rhetoric, and put forward the example of the groups of "people in wheelchairs + lame people + blind people + elderly people" asking if the sidewalks of the streets could be lowered at each corner of the block...:
I see two possible responses on your part: Either modify your argument, or maintain it.

If your answer is to repeat the same thing again, I earnestly beg you to tell me: that would finish defining your desired model of society, and it would save me the effort of explaining to you what the previous article really says...(you already know the capitalist rule that any investment and effort is only worth it if it gives sufficient benefits)

 

[Eltitoguay]

...By the way, I was wondering if an "anarcho"-capitalist is something very different or very similar or the same thing as an "ultra-neo-liberal" like Elon Musk...(?)
What is your opinion, Cannavore?
...like Elon Musk type, or the like "chainsaw man" type... He's going to chop Argentina into mincemeat, to sell it later...

 

[mean mr.mustard]

He had hashbrowns.

FFS you ask one damn question and everyone just quits caring about the importance of a good breakfast...

 

[armedoldhippy]

Look at what you are doing here. You are just 'picking cherries' to try arguing about. You portray someone only interested in winning, not discussing potential tactics of positive change.

I envision no rulers, which isn't the same things as "no rules".

bullshit. rules have to have an enforcement mechanism.

 

[Eltitoguay]

Why did Luigi Mangione become a myth?​

CEO murder exposes US healthcare system's cruelty. Social crimes, remedies and placebos.

Celeste Murillo
Tuesday, December 17th



· On 4/12 Brian Thompson, CEO of the largest healthcare company in the United States, United Healthcare, was shot and killed in New York. Thompson was in that city for a meeting of the company's shareholders, a meeting that went ahead after the announcement of the CEO's death.

· If Thompson had not been CEO of a health company and his death had not sparked celebrations on social media, perhaps it would have been a case of urban violence that the police would have investigated more or less. But nothing of the sort happened.

A mug and a sticker of the CEO killer​

· Before the police arrested Luigi Mangione (presumably responsible for the murder of Thompson) in Altoona (Pennsylvania) the myth had already been born: Who was this young man that nobody knew but had killed someone who symbolized something as hated as the health companies in the United States?

· Within hours, T-shirts, stickers and mugs about the CEO killer and playlists inspired by his escape appeared. Once his face was known, there was no turning back: Luigi Mangione symbolized revenge against a cruel and unjust system.

· Why was there no sadness and indignation, and instead many people celebrated the death of the executive? A quick and perhaps overly simple answer: because the whole country hates health companies. Because unless you are part of the small millionaire elite of the United States, you, someone in your family or your friends had a problem with these companies.

· According to a 2023 study : Half of working-age Americans said it was very or fairly difficult to afford their health care expenses.

· Even with a health insurance plan, one third of adults have health debts and 85% owe 500 dollars or more (between 500 and 600 thousand pesos in addition to paying the health insurance plan).

· Also during 2023, 2 in 5 adults delayed or avoided going to the doctor or buying a prescription drug because they could not afford it (even if they had health coverage).

· To complete the picture, there is no public health care in the United States (only in certain cases, very poor people have basic access).

Natural Born Killers​

· Hatred of health companies is so popular that there are series like Breaking Bad that share the public's inability to pay for health treatments as a trigger. This hatred also inspires (literally) episodes of another popular series like Law & Order (Uninsured), such as one in which a desperate father murders an executive for denying health coverage to his sick son.

· Companies are also hated for their methods: imposing hours-long waits on the phone and endless bureaucratic procedures, using any excuse to deny medical treatment and even speculating on death to reduce costs.

· At the scene of the crime, three bullets were found with DENY, DELAY, DEPOSE written on them in indelible marker, closely related to the health industry in the United States.

· United Healthcare's earnings in 2023 exceeded $280 billion. Brian Thompson himself took home a $10.2 million bonus (in addition to his salary).

Social crimes, remedies and placebos​

· This combination fueled a national debate: Should we mourn the death of the CEO of such a company? Is it wrong to rejoice? Is murder legitimate?

· The first thing to say is that many people experienced this event as revenge for the constant humiliation by companies and executives who are responsible for the suffering and death of many people.

· Something Nathaniel Flakin from Left Voice says about this is interesting , when he brings up the idea of “social crime” from Friedrich Engels, a partner and friend of Karl Marx. Engels explains that when an individual kills another with premeditation it is a crime, it is clearly a murder. But when society exposes workers to premature death, “to a death as violent as death by bullet”, when it takes away their means of subsistence, we are faced with a social crime. And he also says that it is very difficult to defend oneself against these crimes because in capitalist societies it is something that is naturalized and we do not see the murderer (he is made invisible).

· Thinking about it this way, thinking of executives as responsible for a social crime. Who would object to the motive and how? But another big question arises: whether it represents a solution.

· And the truth is, no, because Brian Thompson was one of many, perhaps thousands, CEOs. And if they didn't even cancel the meeting he was going to attend, his death probably won't change much.

· Companies will continue to deny medical care, people will continue to die because they deny treatment or cannot afford their medications.

· To change this, many more things are needed: first of all, the world must no longer be organised so that some CEOs earn a lot and most people have to work a thousand hours to buy a medicine. Priorities must be reversed and the objective must be that all people have access to health care but also that all those people live a dignified life. That would be the real remedy and not just a placebo.

¿Por qué Luigi Mangione se transformó en un mito?

El asesinato de un CEO desnuda la crueldad del sistema de salud en Estados Unidos. Crímenes sociales, remedios y placebos.

www.izquierdadiario.es

 

[Captain Red Eye]

bullshit. rules have to have an enforcement mechanism.

You're half right, which is half better than usual. For rules to be effective, some mechanism for enforcement is a good idea.

Are you under the impression there can't be an enforcement mechanism or two or three unless there is a permanent ruler that dictates most aspects of your life?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

...By the way, I was wondering if an "anarcho"-capitalist is something very different or very similar or the same thing as an "ultra-neo-liberal" like Elon Musk...(?)
What is your opinion, Cannavore?
...like Elon Musk type, or the like "chainsaw man" type... He's going to chop Argentina into mincemeat, to sell it later...

Thank you for asking! If you want to learn my motives etc. just read what I've written below.

I'm not an Anarcho Capitalist per se. I am a Voluntaryist Panarchist, first and foremost.. A Voluntaryist believes human interactions are best when all concerned parties have their consent respected. We believe in peaceful means to achieve our goals. If you genuinely want to know more, just ask.

I've used some info. created by an Anarcho Capitalist to demonstrate why a forcible government is a threat to liberty and a self- contradicting monstrosity etc.
Haven't really gotten any rebuttals that don't self-implode from any liberal geniuses on any of it and don't expect I will.

Universal Healthcare?
I have no objection to you and your friends pooling your efforts and justly acquired property to create YOUR Universal Healthcare setup. My objection isn't with your idea, my objection is how you would implement it. It's wrong.

My "voluntaryist utopia" (snicker) doesn't disallow people from cooperating on a voluntary basis, it's when greedy people violate the consent of disinterested but otherwise peaceful people that Voluntaryists object.

You and @Cannavore don't have a problem using government violence or threats of it to insist other people pay for your ideas. That's the part neither you have the sack to admit.

Has it ever occurred to you that you, or any government do not own everybody? I own myself. I don't own you and have too much respect for YOUR liberty to insist you pay for my ideas without your consent.

Your other stuff
Milei the Argentina overlord , might claim to be an Anarcho Capitalist, but he isn't.
An Anarcho Capitalist running a government is the evidence of that. Anarchy means "no rulers", the head of a forcible governemnt is by defintion a ruler. Milei is a fraud.

Elon Musk is for sure NOT an Anarcho Capitalist, not even close. He is a crony capitalist like most billionaires. He and you both don't have a problem using government force to bring you what you want.


The silly government propaganda article
As far as the article goes, I stand by what wrote, if you want to focus on what you think my beliefs are rather than address what I wrote about the article, that's up to you.

 

[Eltitoguay]

Thank you for asking! If you want to learn my motives etc. just read what I've written below.
(...)

I'm sorry for your confusion, but I didn't ask you any of that, I asked Cannavore. What I did ask you, and you didn't answer, was:

(...) before I answer you specifically about the topic and (real) content of the article, let me invite you to follow Microberman's advice about trying to apply Dialectics...
Try "with a little" of Aristotelian Logic, of Dialectics, to analyze the "incontestable" arguments that you use, and I quote you only from memory:
"Would you lower the height of the basketball hoops so that the (I don't remember if "children" or "people", but it doesn't matter) short and chubby white people could shoot?"
(and you don't have to be white or short or fat to not shoot well, by the way)

If I were to "lower" myself to using your same bar counter rhetoric, and put forward the example of the groups of "people in wheelchairs + lame people + blind people + elderly people" asking if the sidewalks of the streets could be lowered at each corner of the block...:
I see two possible responses on your part: Either modify your argument, or maintain it.

If your answer is to repeat the same thing again, I earnestly beg you to tell me: that would finish defining your desired model of society, and it would save me the effort of explaining to you what the previous article really says...(you already know the capitalist rule that any investment and effort is only worth it if it gives sufficient benefits)

 

[Captain Red Eye]

I'm sorry for your confusion, but I didn't ask you any of that, I asked Cannavore. What I did ask you, and you didn't answer, was:

I'm happy to apologize in a quid pro quo apology for my mistake.

If you admit that you and Cannavore both are okay using force against disinterested but otherwise peaceful people to make them pay for your ideas. I'm sorry you are confused that using government force like that is acceptable.

 

[Eltitoguay]

(...)
You and @Cannavore don't have a problem using government violence or threats of it to insist other people pay for your ideas. That's the part neither you have the sack to admit. (...)

Well, I don't know if you should perhaps exclude Cannavore from that statement: I think he is much closer to Libertarian Anarchism or Libertarian Anarcommunism than I am...

I have no problem including myself in your statement; that is, as long as your "using government violence or threats of it to insist other people pay for your ideas" means:
that you will be fined if you do not pay the taxes with which to finance Public Health and Education (and etc.), and that this idea (of having and financing Public Health and Education with taxes) is also a majority idea among voters, within a system as democratic as possible (with "total democracy" as a utopia, yes, but as a utopia to which it is worth any effort to get closer and closer)...

 

[Eltitoguay]

Hehe.. You keep ignoring and ignoring the same question"

Eltitoguay said:
(...) before I answer you specifically about the topic and (real) content of the article, let me invite you to follow Microberman's advice about trying to apply Dialectics...
Try "with a little" of Aristotelian Logic, of Dialectics, to analyze the "incontestable" arguments that you use, and I quote you only from memory:
"Would you lower the height of the basketball hoops so that the (I don't remember if "children" or "people", but it doesn't matter) short and chubby white people could shoot?"
(and you don't have to be white or short or fat to not shoot well, by the way)

If I were to "lower" myself to using your same bar counter rhetoric, and put forward the example of the groups of "people in wheelchairs + lame people + blind people + elderly people" asking if the sidewalks of the streets could be lowered at each corner of the block...:
I see two possible responses on your part: Either modify your argument, or maintain it.

If your answer is to repeat the same thing again, I earnestly beg you to tell me: that would finish defining your desired model of society, and it would save me the effort of explaining to you what the previous article really says...(you already know the capitalist rule that any investment and effort is only worth it if it gives sufficient benefits)

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Well, I don't know if you should perhaps exclude Cannavore from that statement: I think he is much closer to Libertarian Anarchism or Libertarian Anarcommunism than I am...

I have no problem including myself in your statement; that is, as long as your "using government violence or threats of it to insist other people pay for your ideas" means:
that you will be fined if you do not pay the taxes with which to finance Public Health and Education (and etc.), and that this idea (of having and financing Public Health and Education with taxes) is also a majority idea among voters, within a system as democratic as possible (with "total democracy" as a utopia, yes, but as a utopia to which it is worth any effort to get closer and closer)...

So, are you saying because something might be lawful that means it's automatically rightful?


Total democracy is a horrible idea. Gang rape is a democratically derived decision and so are other even worse things, like wars. Slavery of some is the logical end of a democracy.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Hehe.. You keep ignoring and ignoring the same question"

Eltitoguay said:
(...) before I answer you specifically about the topic and (real) content of the article, let me invite you to follow Microberman's advice about trying to apply Dialectics...
Try "with a little" of Aristotelian Logic, of Dialectics, to analyze the "incontestable" arguments that you use, and I quote you only from memory:
"Would you lower the height of the basketball hoops so that the (I don't remember if "children" or "people", but it doesn't matter) short and chubby white people could shoot?"
(and you don't have to be white or short or fat to not shoot well, by the way)

If I were to "lower" myself to using your same bar counter rhetoric, and put forward the example of the groups of "people in wheelchairs + lame people + blind people + elderly people" asking if the sidewalks of the streets could be lowered at each corner of the block...:
I see two possible responses on your part: Either modify your argument, or maintain it.

If your answer is to repeat the same thing again, I earnestly beg you to tell me: that would finish defining your desired model of society, and it would save me the effort of explaining to you what the previous article really says...(you already know the capitalist rule that any investment and effort is only worth it if it gives sufficient benefits)

Pro basketball doesn't come and force people to pay for their ideas if they aren't going to their games, and otherwise remain peacefully disinterested.

Forcing people to pay for what you consider charitable ideas and only pointing at the hoped for result, while ignoring the forcing is not a good comparison to a joke about lowering a basket so chubby white kids can slam dunk. (Not sure I'm understanding your point about lame people, blind people etc.)

Charity is a good thing, forcing a disinterested but otherwise peaceful person to pay for your ideas is wrong it's not charity either.

It's forced redistribution. Charity is giving, not taking from somebody else and then applying it to your idea.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

(you already know the capitalist rule that any investment and effort is only worth it if it gives sufficient benefits)

I'm not a crony capitalist though. I don't follow their rules.

I'm also not a forcible redistributor like you, Cannavore and crony capitalist are, I don't think that is a rightful thing to do.

I like every person to have choices about how they will conduct their own life if they aren't intervening in others lives. You and crony capitalist disagree with that. You both think it's okay to apply force to disinterested but otherwise peaceful people.

You hide behind, "but, but democracy" like that can't and isn't used to violate people.

I know your heart is in the right place, but you can't use violent threats and call the result charity.

 

[Eltitoguay]

Pro basketball doesn't come and force people to pay for their ideas if they aren't going to their games, and otherwise remain peacefully disinterested.

Forcing people to pay for what you consider charitable ideas and only pointing at the hoped for result, while ignoring the forcing is not a good comparison to a joke about lowering a basket so chubby white kids can slam dunk. (Not sure I'm understanding your point about lame people, blind people etc.)

Charity is a good thing, forcing a disinterested but otherwise peaceful person to pay for your ideas is wrong it's not charity either.

It's forced redistribution. Charity is giving, not taking from somebody else and then applying it to your idea.

Ha ha... So much chatter to answer the question with a NO.

I don't need any more to definitively end the conversation with you.
And don't be confused or attribute false statements to me: I don't believe that lowering the sidewalks in certain areas to facilitate the mobility of wheelchairs is charity.
And I consider that the need for charity is a failure of society (although the fact that charity emerges and spreads in society in the face of need speaks very much in favor of that society)

Best regards.