I dont understand where you found that in what I said

I dont care about the difference between “propagandized” and “idiot”. You attacked me instead of my argument.

Its not the hypothetical removal of the evil and waste of a system, it’d about the process of removing the undesired elements. The problem wasnt just with Brian Johnson was an interchangable empty suit, the problem is with the entire culture and system of incentives. Killing one bad person doesn’t do enough to fix things, targeting enough people to make the change that’s really needed will need a bureaucratic structure to actually get done, target selection, weapons supply, training, validation, paperwork. Very rare for breaucratically enabled violence to ever be good.

For healthcare in particular is pretty much is just as simple as nationalizating health insurance and have everything done by medicare (or state/local govt health plan) But targeted assassination doesn’t automatically translate into an act of congress.

Wow very convincing. thank you, directly calling me an idiot without addressing the core of my argument really has brought me over to your way of thinking

I very deliberately said “in general”, i did not say “in all cases whatsoever”.

For health insurance there is a replacement ready, the answer is to have Medicare do everything.

I didn’t make any arguements about this specific situation? Murder in general is bad

The problem is that there’s no clear endpoint of that thought process. The number of people that exact thought process applies to would require a level of violence that I doubt anybody sane wants.

Edit: to be more precise here. I’m leery about trying to apply the logic of individual self-defense to broader questions about social murder. The entire system is complicit, but if we go to burn the system down without a replacement ready we’ll end up sorrounded by nothing but ash and corpses

I agree is justified in many situations, the French revolution ain’t a good example for that, namely that it didn’t work in the long run with all the Napoleon-ing. The people most adept at violence, who will be most empowered by violence as normalized political tactic mostly don’t promote the interests of most people if they get into power. Napoleon and such

also every time there’s been prominent “propaganda of the deed” it’s backfired by inciting a HUGE state crackdown, Tsar Alexander II and William Mckinley come to mind though both were relative reformers, which would make this about target selection and not alienating potential allies rather than the use of the tactic in general

murder is in general bad, fed-posting is inadvisable

also there’s a broader boring argument about the dangers of violence being normalized as means of political change, but those arguments are boring

Why did the article feel the need to mention US foreign policy from the early Trump administration? I can’t imagine it would be hard to find hypocrisy from the Biden administration itself.

Instead of talking about the US human rights failures, it spends time downplaying the accusations about Uighurs. None of the information constructed here builds into a cohesive thesis.