You are the only one implying preference
Third party here, jumping into this thread. It’s pretty clear that OP didn’t say, or even imply, anything about preference, and even put scare quotes around “preference” when responding to you bringing it up. You come off as paranoid and bizarrely defensive in this thread, and it’s a bad look.
It’s pretty common to use acre inches and acre foot as a unit of volume for measuring water in agriculture, water use, flood mitigation, etc.
So if we can use area height as a volumetric unit, by not volume/area as a height unit?
Unless you’re converting seconds to minutes, hours, days, years, etc.
Then you get things like watt hours. Or light years.
Which business leaders were killed on the way to securing a 5-day workweek? Those gains were achieved through direct action affecting business bottom lines: strikes, sabotage, and direct action on the streets, not secret targeting of soft targets.
Put another way: there were two attempted assassinations of Donald Trump in the past year. Do you think that will change his political actions to be more popular?
Do you think that United Healthcare’s next CEO will suddenly forgo profits? What about hospital administrators, pharma CEOs, or any of the other tens of thousands profiting off of this fucked up system? Do you think that a mass assassination campaign will actually happen in large enough volume to change any behavior at all?
You’d take the 2nd choice and hire bodyguards. Sure, you might. But not everybody would.
No, the question isn’t whether everyone would. It’s whether anyone would. And the answer is obviously yes.
So now the position is filled. Did the healthcare system change?
My argument is that no, you can’t kill your way to reform on this one. There will always be another CEO to step into that place.
And the ratio of dead would-be assassins to CEOs would also pile more bodies on.
This is ludicrous. A person faced with unpopular decisions that might send assassins after him is going to make himself harder to assassinate, not less hated.
There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They won’t. Anyone who has a semblance of belief that their decisions in the job might actually cause their own death just won’t do the job. Instead, it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
And once they’ve internalized the idea that any decision made by any one employee of the company, including their predecessor CEOs, can put them in danger, it’s pretty attenuated from the actual decisions that they themselves make.
It’s a dice roll on a group of people, which isn’t enough to influence the individuals in that group.
We all know that the death of a CEO is a blip in the actual day to day operations in the company. The teams and departments will continue operating as before, and the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
After all, if they’re already doing cost/benefit analysis with human lives, what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses, and then try to recover their costs through the business (including through stinginess on coverage decisions or policies).
You’re absolutely right and I’d argue it boils down to the fundamental error in OP’s shower thought:
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track. It just adds another dead body to the pile.
I dunno, I think our comment histories are pretty distinct, in both our views/preferences and the topics we’re comfortable discussing. I think that’s pretty clear for anyone who just wants to take a look. Again, by insisting that we must be alts for the same person with a secret vegan agenda comes off as paranoid and delusional.