> The flaw in your position is that the position necessitates the devaluing of life.
That does seem like the beginning of a slippery slope. Life is precious. Its a fair point.
My ask is does a society that allows for-profit health insurance companies to lobby our leaders, deny coverage in a game style system, directly depriving thousands of people of life... not also devalue life?
Personally I'm not actually a big moral crusader, but I do find ecosystems respond with a certain conservation of energy. When one person becomes in charge of such a large cog in a system that steadily devalues life, when they have implicitly promoted such a time of contempt, it seems immensely predictable that they themselves perish in that same ecosystem.
Hitler lost the war because he made certain key mistakes -- chasing his country's best scientists out, invading Russia at the wrong time, spending a fortune on gimmicks to murder civilians instead of combat weapons.
It's possible that killing Hitler would have paved the way for a more competent, saner leader to emerge.
Okay. So we should assassinate all the CEOs. Presumably the president, anyone with significant power in the national security apparatus. Then what? The people rise up? We put you in charge so you can cull all the undesirables?
Zuckerberg is a bad example IMHO, various sources reported on this but Facebook created a space that tolerated and spread incitement to violence that led to thousands of rapes and murders. They saw engagement on hate speech, and promoted the hate speech.
That puts Facebook as the cause and not the people who committed the violence. It provided a technological meeting place, as there are many now, but what did it promote that lead to violence?
