A writer going by the name “Gurwinder” produces a popular Substack blog. In the following piece Gurwinder writes thoughtfully about the experience of discovering that one of his fans was a cold-blooded murderer:
“The Riddle of Luigi Mangione: My interactions with the alleged CEO assassin”
Quote:
We interacted on social media several times afterward, and each time he seemed as polite and thoughtful as he’d been in our chat. As the summer ended, I largely withdrew from social media to focus on my book, so I didn’t notice Luigi had vanished.
And then, a few months later, Brian Thompson was shot dead.
Many people celebrated the murder, mocking the victim and lionizing the killer. Some were frustrated that health insurance cost so much, and some were outraged that they or a loved one had been denied medical claims. For this they blamed Thompson, the CEO of the US’s largest health insurance company.
But while thousands reacted with laughter emojis to Thompson’s murder, and with love-heart emojis to his alleged murderer, I was sickened. Vigilantism is always wrong. If you celebrate someone gunning down a defenceless person in the street, then you advocate for a world in which this is an acceptable thing for anyone to do. You in fact advocate for a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re also a bad person, and gun you down in the street. In such a world, I promise you, your health insurance would cost much more.
The murder would’ve been shocking even if I didn’t know the murderer. But when Luigi was revealed as the suspect, everything became surreal. My mind raced back to our chat, searching for clues he could’ve done this. The only thing that stuck out was when Luigi briefly mentioned healthcare in the US was expensive, and said we Britons were lucky to have a socialized National Health Service. But even this statement, by itself, gave no indication Luigi was capable of what he was being accused of.
When someone is found to have committed murder, friends and relatives will usually say things like “I can’t believe it, he seemed like such a nice guy.” I instinctively said the same thing about Luigi. But as the shock faded and my wits returned, I ceased to be surprised. I’ve long known that people who are capable of great kindness also tend to be capable of great cruelty, because both extremes are often animated by the same crazed impulsivity. It’s why many of the people celebrating the murder are those who self-identify as “compassionate” leftists. And it’s why most of history’s greatest evils were committed by people who thought they were doing good.
(Emphasis added by me, although Gurwinder himself has chosen to highlight this passage.)
Some were frustrated that electricity costs so much, so went out and killed an electricity supply company director.
Some were frustrated that heating gas costs so much, so went out and killed an gas supply company director.
Some were frustrated that transport costs so much, so went out and killed a train company director.
Some were frustrated that childcare costs so much, so went out and killed a nursery director.
Coming soon to a country near you!
“Fuck around and find out” doesn’t give a free pass to guys with MBAs from Wharton and ten thousand dollar suits and golden parachutes after all.
jgh in Japan at 3:57pm,
How about a list the Left can really get behind:
Some were frustrated that education costs so much, so went out and killed a Dean of Education Administration.
Some were frustrated that entertainment (movies, streaming services) cost so much, so went out and killed a Hollywood executive and a Broadway theatre producer for good measure.
Some were frustrated that environmental regulations are too lax, so went out and killed the EPA Director.
You make a great point that many such lists are possible–and dangerous if taken seriously!
I agree that no one person should unilaterally get to decide who lives and who dies. But we’re talking about the CEO of a major insurance company that pushed for, and helped write the law for, Obamacare, a law that requires people to buy health insurance, and then wrote an AI that was designed to deny 90% of claims right off the bat. We’re talking about writing a law that people are required to buy a service and then the company denies that service and we’re all supposed to just go along with it. And lest we forget, we’re discussing life and death medicine being denied. Rationality goes out the window when you read a letter saying grandma’s cancer care is being denied or your sick child can’t get the orthotics she needs to walk with. Now throw in someone who is unhinged. I’m not surprised this CEO got clipped; I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often.
I hate seeing some guy get gunned down in the street, but at the same time I’m not all that upset in the rich and powerful being reminded that they aren’t bulletproof and they can only push normal people so far before someone pushes back. It’s why we end up with people like the shooter or Marvin Heermeyer.
*gets popcorn*
Probably worth pointing out that Mangione appears to have been – based on all available evidence – a centre-right “grey tribe” libertarian.
We’re talking about United HealthCare, a company in which I own stock, a company in which I’d rather not own stock because it makes a rather poor profit, and it only makes that because it sells plans with very-defined terms and conditions and then enforces those contracts.
There is no other way for an insurer to be profitable. It has always been thus.
Leftists blame everything on “capitalist greed” – ignoring all evidence of government intervention by regulations and tax-and-spend.
The Collectivist establishment types can, for example, look at the introduction of the Poor Law Tax in Ireland in 1838 (the minister who pushed it was Lord Russell – ancestor of Bertrand Russell) and its massive increase in the late 1840s (with Acts of Parliament forcing areas of Ireland that had not gone bankrupt to bailout areas that were – thus dragging all of Ireland down into a Poor Law Tax nightmare – again Lord Russell was the driving force behind this, he was Prime Minister at a time when a Prime Minister had real power) and say that “laissez faire” (liberty) reduced the population of Ireland by at least a quarter.
They even talk of Lord Russell’s commitment to “laissez faire” – he who supported a state education system in Ireland (1831) the Poor Law Tax (1838), the massive increase to the Poor Law Tax (late 1840s), state supported “Teacher Training” in England and Wales, Bank Bailouts (yes Peel’s Banking Act was suspended when the ink had barely dried) and on-and-on.
They ignore the tax burden (to tax is to burden) – and blame liberty.
Ditto with American health care – doctor licensing (the AMA scam) – ignored, FDA medical drug regulations – ignored, Medicare and Medicare (vast sums of money – which pushes up health care costs in the same way that government backed “student loans” push up student tuition fees) – ignored, “statement of need” regulations before new hospitals are allowed – ignored, all other regulations – ignored, even Obamacare (only passed a few years ago) – ignored.
Instead the high cost of American health care is blamed, by the left, on “capitalist greed”, everything else is ignored. And shooting an unarmed man from behind is cheered and celebrated.
Yes cheered and celebrated – for example on “Saturday Night Live” where the studio audience of leftists went into whoops of joy when the cowardly murderer was mentioned.
That is the left – they want to murder you for your “capitalist greed” – they want to sneak up behind you when you are unarmed and shoot you dead.
That is why it is a mistake to talk of a “knowledge problem” and act as if this or that argument could convince them not to murder us.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
They are evil, they want as dead – because they want us dead, because they get a kick out of it.
Finis.
@Steven R
I agree that no one person should unilaterally get to decide who lives and who dies.
No one person, save God alone, gets to make such a decision. All an insurance company gets to do is determine what their contractually agreed obligation is to pay for treatment. If the insurance company denies coverage that doesn’t mean all options are gone. You can find other ways to pay for the care you need.
Cancer kills you, all an insurance company does is determine what they can do to help.
Of course this may be impractical, but that is in large part because government interference in the healthcare market has driven competition and options out of the arena, and there is, to all intents and purposes, no downward pressure on costs at all (save the ugly option of denying care.)
But we’re talking about the CEO of a major insurance company that pushed for, and helped write the law for, Obamacare, a law that requires people to buy health insurance, and then wrote an AI that was designed to deny 90% of claims right off the bat.
However, here I am 100% with you Steven. It is government interference, often with the ugly hands of lobbyists, happy to give kickbacks and directorships to the politicians and civil servants to service them so readily, that is the true problem here. And when it comes to drugs, one of the biggest government interferences is in the realm of patents that drive costs insane, and the FDA who make drugs vastly more expensive and erect international barriers. If my vial of insulin costs $100 dollars in San Diego and $5 in Tijuana, that is entirely the fault of the regulatory state.
Another person was even more responsible for Obamacare telling bare-faced lies about what it would and wouldn’t achieve. However I doubt if there would be the same clapping and cheering had he been the one shot on account of it.
A takeaway from this might be that health insurance shouldn’t be seen as a profit-making exercise, given that the only way to make a profit from it is to take more in payments than one pays out in care.
The whole thing has thrown into disarray the purpose of insurance – insurance is a way of pooling risk amongst your fellows against unforeseeable events. Mutual Aid societies have been mentioned a few times recently, and this a good example of what they should be – everyone pays a little, and when one of your mates gets hit with the cancer stick, your contributions go towards his treatment. Insurance is – on the whole – a good thing – but it’s now at risk of being seen as a bad thing, because UHC are being publicised all over the web with their horrific stats on denial of healthcare for very crappy reasons.
Paul – no. This is a cartoon vision of the left with no bearing in reality, except in isolated examples, and there are far more examples on the “right” of people killing others because they’re “different”. You *may* be confusing liberals with leftists, but the leftist view is that *everybody* should have equal access to healthcare, shelter, food, and all the prerequisites for survival. In the case of certain bigots who wish harm and suffering on people because of their religion, skin colour, sexuality etc, we *still* think they should have access to (eg) healthcare, it’s just that we aren’t going to cry if they end up in a situation where they need it.
Again, Mangione was *not* on the left, as best as anyone can tell, he was centre-right gray tribe.
Yes – not the whole story, of course (because it’s very complex, like everything), but an enormous part of it. Removing patents would have an undoubtedly enormous effect on reducing costs for everyday people.
neonsnake – I disagree with what you type in your last comment.
Indeed the disagreement is so total that further conversation with you, on this matter, is pointless. But I certainly do not wish to show any disrespect for you – you have your beliefs and I have mine.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you.
Mangione doesn’t seem to have a full coherent ideology, and I don’t think fit neatly in left or right labels. This is somewhat similar to Ted Kaczynski who combined a dislike of capitalist modernity with very sharp (and FWIW, very accurate )criticism of leftists.
What is interesting is seeing many on the left making Mangione a hero. After a decade of the American left trying to be the ‘respectable people’s in opposition to supposedly transgressive insurrectionary deplorable, they are now again celebrating the ‘propaganda of the deed’. Such ‘propaganda’ rarely works. It was the Bolsheviks who took over Russia while the anarchist assassins got nowhere. The weathermen and black panthers didn’t take over, or at least some of their alumni only gained influence after they gave up terrorism and pursued marching through the institutions. This leftist cheering for murder is perhaps a sign of weakness.
I completely believe the “AI designed to automatically deny 90% of claims”. My first attempt to get compensated for an expense always fails. The insurance company asks for Form X to be filled out and receipts provided. I do that and am denied. They force me to dig to find out why and what my options are. And I’m paying for this “service”?
If we were talking about one of my streaming services and $10/month, no big deal. But we’re talking about $1000-$2000 per month paid in with nothing but resistance to pay out.
How about this: any insurer who denies a claim that is later found to be valid not only has to cover the expense at 100% (not at whatever lower percentage the original contract called for) and pay a penalty, in cash to the insured, of the same amount. Inappropriate claims denials would stop overnight.
How to set this up to be simple and enforceable? …I have no idea but others more clever than me likely do.
If you like. I will note that this site has accused me of being a “degenerate” and no-one has meaningfully disagreed, and yet whilst I no longer comment here in any frequency, I still stick up for your rights (except in extreme example like that Kirk twat who was an out and out nazi) whilst you don’t stick up for mine.
Martin’s comment above is informative: whilst he says that “many on the left” applaud Mangione, he’s ignoring (deliberately?) the many on the “right” who feel the same, and are also in favour of his actions. As much as everyone is trying to paint this as “propaganda of the deed” by a leftist, he was of the centre-right – and the right have applauded him for very obvious reasons.
(Putting the Weathermen and The Black Panthers in the same sentence is just daft. For the love of god)
Really? Pretty sure that’s not samizdata’s editorial position.
Yes, Perry. I’m unclear whether you’re being sarcastic or not, given that it *may* not be the editorial position, but it’s been allowed to go unchallenged.
As I say, there’s reasons I know longer comment frequently, and it’s essentially: why on earth would I comment on a site that welcomes those who accuse me of being a “degenerate”?
John:
Make that a she.
Although, sure, he was an enabler.
neonsnake:
It would help if you named names, maybe with links.
Speaking for myself, i “accuse” you of being a tool of the Anglo-American Establishment, nothing more.
And Merry Christmas to you, too!
Given the slope of their returns, they might not be for long.
But they’re not the problem.
The real problem is that medical science is one of the very few fields that have actually given us our flying cars.
But flying cars are expensive as hell.
There have been tremendous accomplishments in the science. They can fix almost anything. But none of the fixes are cheap.
An example: Look at Ozempic. New miracle drug, really. Fixes all sorts of serious medical issues, PLUS it helps overweight people lose weight. IIRC, over 30% of America is far overweight. So everyone wants it. They can’t ramp up production fast enough to satisfy demand. (Mostly because production infrastructure is so expensive.)
And it costs $1200 per month to take it.
In America, with our for-profit insurance, they’re trying to figure out how to deal with this. Normally, if a doc prescribes it, even for off-label use, med insurance will pay for it.
This will kill profits for some time, until they figure out how to deal with it. There’s no way to profit when one drug can easily cost them that much money.
But the main point is, how have the socialist countries handled this?
In the UK and in Canada, docs have been instructed to NOT prescribe Ozempic except for the most severe of insulin problems.
The for-profit system gets the drug to you, while it is prohibited for the most common use in the socialist system.
In those places, it seems like you’ll get a MAID pamphlet instead.
Health insurance only seems like a ripoff if you aren’t aware of how incredibly expensive health care is.
Woah, woah woah! (sweet chiiiiild, of miiiiiiiine)
The UK is not a socialist country, it’s a neo-liberal country, and has been since I was born in 1977!
Point remains – it’s not actually that expensive, it’s only patents that make it so. And of course the cost is not $1200 per month, it’s like $9 dollars or something (once all costs are properly factored in)
🙂
(Yeah, I thought that would trigger you. 😉 )
1). UK’s NHS, and Canada’s Canada Health, strike me as systems that are more socialist than not. Probably not technically correct, but close, and I couldn’t resist.
2). Look up the manufacturing process of Ozempic. I have no doubt that, when they can ramp up, the insurers are going to negotiate a cheaper price, but the base cost is presently very high. Imagine a clean factory filled with DNA synthesizers. And yes, patents – Teslas would be very cheap if I could just steal one. That pesky property-rights bugaboo is keeping us down, man! 😉 (Yes, I support patent rights.)
@neonsnake
A takeaway from this might be that health insurance shouldn’t be seen as a profit-making exercise,
Really? Why not? Being a doctor is a profit making exercise. Being a nurse is a profit making exercise, being an EMT is a profit making exercise (in those cases the “profit is called “salary” but it is the same thing.) Drug making is a profit making exercise. Making MRI machines is a profit making exercise. So why shouldn’t the company that oils the whole system be one too? It is worth pointing out that insurance companies are not especially profitable, neither are hospitals. Drug companies are, but that is because the government does things like exclude competition, mandates the use of the product, excuses them from liability, erects price barriers to allow them massively advantageous price discrimination, and gives them monopolies on life saving products.
As a side note, one place that there is a massive shortage in is the supply of transplantable organs. I am completely baffled by why we don’t solve this the screaming obvious way by paying people (or more likely the family of recently deceased people) for their organs. Literally everyone else involved gets paid, the transplant surgeon and scrub nurse, the guy who drives the ambulance carrying the organ, the guy who makes the box the organ goes in, the guy who sells the ice it is packed in, the lawyer who writes the consent form — everyone is paid except the one person who makes the biggest contribution.
Profit, payment for services, is not a dirty thing. It is a beautiful thing that convinces people to invest in, for example, a medical degree. Competition, if we allow it, keeps things in check.
The whole thing has thrown into disarray the purpose of insurance – insurance is a way of pooling risk amongst your fellows against unforeseeable events.
That is not the purpose of insurance. The purpose of insurance is mostly to pool risk against unlikely events. It is not unforeseen you might crash your car, just, if you are a good driver, unlikely. BTW the pooling or risk is not just over many people but over many years too. We are all going to die eventually, but if we pool the risk of death and disease over our whole lifetime we don’t die with a massive end of life bill.
@bobby b
(Yes, I support patent rights.)
I’m a little crestfallen with this statement. After years of being here and never convincing anybody of anything, I thought I had at least convinced YOU, a super smart and insightful person, that patents were extremely destructive (and ESPECIALLY so in the medical business.) Oh well. I’ll keep plugging away.
Don’t be. I’m far less of an absolutist about it than I used to be, primarily because of some things you’ve said here.
I’ll agree that there is a lot to be improved at the margins – time, scope, etc – but I still cannot dispel my thinking that humans need incentive – personal incentive – to keep us progressing and producing and inventing and developing, and that SOME form and amount of protective reward for achievement is a good thing.
If you spend ten years in your garage and invent the next chip architecture, I think that you have earned an ownership right to that. That’s my core belief. But I’ll dicker about for how long, and other details. Wouldn’t really have done that before. Your fault.
But cosmetic surgery has got cheaper. That indicates that, absent medical insurance (State or private-but-State-regulated), medical care would have got cheaper.
There was an article on PJMedia, years ago. American author. IIRC he paid less than $100 for a simple surgical procedure. He asked how much they would charge an insurance company for the same procedure, and the reply was something like $600. That is not profiteering, it’s the cost of interacting with an insurance company — and of course there is a cost for the insurance company to interact with the hospital.
As i said, this is my recollection. Maybe Americans reading this have had a similar experience.
But let’s have a Merry Christmas anyway.
Fraser:
But, as you probably realize, there is much that most of us on Samizdata agree with you, to start with.
You do not have to convince us of that!
And that’s the Christmas spirit.
” UK’s NHS, and Canada’s Canada Health, strike me as systems that are more socialist than not. Probably not technically correct, but close, and I couldn’t resist.”
As someone who actually lives in the UK (I have no idea if neonsnake does) I would characterise the NHS as pretty much pure socialism. It is funded through a progressive taxation and benefits system (which means that a large proportion of the population make no net cash contribution at all, and the wealthy pay a large net contribution) and provides its services purely on the basis of need (ie you don’t get a hip operation any quicker even if you paid a £100k tax bill that year). It also has very little profit motive throughout its structure, and that which it does have is perverse (GPs are private contractors, but are paid directly by the NHS not the patient and make more profit by not seeing patients or providing them with care) and as all socialist production systems do, ends up matching demand to supply via rationing. The NHS system could be transplanted into a socialist dictatorship with hardly any changes to how it operates, it would fit in perfectly in a Marxist or Communist state.
@bobby b
I’ll agree that there is a lot to be improved at the margins – time, scope, etc – but I still cannot dispel my thinking that humans need incentive – personal incentive – to keep us progressing and producing and inventing and developing
Thanks for you comment bobbyB. My fingers itch to respond to this, but it is a bit OT, and I’ll just say I appreciate that you were open enough to listen and change your position, even if not to the full degree I’d like to convince you of. But there is always 2025 😊
@Snorri Godhi
But cosmetic surgery has got cheaper. That indicates that, absent medical insurance (State or private-but-State-regulated), medical care would have got cheaper.
Right, when a complex surgery with an extremely advanced surgeon like a boob job costs probably a quarter of what the simplest surgery, done by junior surgeons does, such as an appendectomy, you know someone is screwing up the market for the latter.
Every ten years or so my doc sends me to get a scan of my major arteries looking for arteriosclerosis. Doing pretty well for a man my age. But the interesting thing is that the MRI people just charge straight up $100 each time — no insurance. Why? Because if they do it through insurance it costs WAY more. This isn’t just the MRI people gouging the insurance company, it is just the ridiculous amount of paper work, failed charges, and general office staff that adds hundreds of dollars. And the worse? Medicare. From the docs I talked to they ALWAYS pay six months late and ALWAYS pay 60% of the bill. The MRI people I just mentioned? They don’t take either Medicare or Medicaid.
Same with ambulances. I’d have to be literally on death’s door before I used one. Why? Because on average only one in eleven people who use ambulances actually pay for it. So that poor eleventh guy? He pays for the other ten.
But this is another one of the problems in American medical payments. American medical consumers think insurance is supposed to pay for EVERYTHING. I mean I’m guessing if the average medical consumer had his way his insurance would pay for his aspirin and band aids too. It is why insurance is SO complicated in terms of understanding payments. First there is a deductible, and then there is this weird inscrutable bit in the middle where it is above the deductible, but less than a deductible maximum (personal and/or family) and then there is a maximum above which it pays nothing. Further complicated by special deals made with particular doctors “in network”. So there are eight different payment zones in a medical insurance system — and consequently nobody really understands what they will pay.
Only government interference could create such a tangled mess. It is one patch on top of another patch on top of another. People who think the American medical system is a “free market” system don’t understand what is really going on.
Of course anyone who thinks the solution is to shoot the CEO of the insurance company is both wrong (insurance rates and complexity will go up) and deserves to either spend the rest of his life in prison, or end his life dangling at the end of a rope.
lmao
I’ve spent the past six or seven years either setting up or participating in mutual aid groups which are by their entire nature in opposition to your “Anglo-American Establishment”
lol.
That’s what you think.
The man was murdered, he was unarmed and shot in the back, and the left celebrated – that is not my opinion, that is a fact. The left celebrated the murder – not just the audience of “Saturday Night Live”, but also the left on social media and just about everywhere else.
And if anyone cares – it was the murderer who was born well off, and the murder victim who was born poor.
An interesting point about the murder is that the gun was home made – showing how pointless “Gun Control” regulations are – even in ultra Gun Control New York (since the Sullivan Act of 1911).
As for “liberals” – in the United States that word had its meaning reversed as far back as the 1920s, being turned 180% from someone who wanted a smaller government (like Senator Roscoe Conkling in the late 19th century or Presidents Harding and Coolidge in the 1920s – yes the great enemies of the “liberals” were-the-real-liberals for that is what Harding and Coolidge were – the real liberals), to someone who wanted a BIGGER government – even supporters of the Soviet Union, the worst tyranny on Earth in the 1920s, started to call themselves “liberals” and, somehow, got away with doing so.
Making a profit from healthcare – that was not an invention of insurance companies, doctors (healers) have always made a profit from health care, that is how they earned their living. And the best doctors and surgeons often became rich. Even if some doctors are employed by secular or a religious mutual aid societies (such as fraternities) they are still “making a profit from health care”. Just as Sir Kingsley Wood, the main spokesmen for private insurance companies in the United Kingdom in the early 20th century, “made a profit from healthcare”.
Equal access to food, shelter, health care and so on – either this is a monastic community (and even there the Abbot often did not live quite the same as the monks) or it is a totalitarian society – and the “equal access” eventually ends up, in a large scale society, with collapse and starvation.
Sorry, missed this earlier.
The funny thing is, the private-insurer Basic Medicare Advantage policies are simply private insurers taking over the complete functions and coverage of Parts A and B of Medicare, in exchange for the standard $174 that Medicare charges everyone (I think) for that coverage.
Not only do they do it well – you can find docs who will accept it where they really don’t want Medicare patients, because they get paid quickly and more – but the insurers make a large profit on it where Medicare loses money for the same premium.
I just think that’s funny. Yay, government!
The obvious answer to the “Really? Why not?” is to respond with “Really? Why?”
Not everything needs to be a profit making exercise. Society is a rich and complex thing, and many different ways of interacting with each other are all equally valid in their relative contexts. I happen to think that whether people live or die is probably an example of when not to think of it as a profit making exercise; if we’ve spent centuries and millennia building a society, I think we’ve failed if we then say “yeah, I’m gonna profit by denying this person’s medical claim”.
And, well: we know, beyond any shadow of a doubt now, that we only survived this long by helping each other and co-operating. Yes, the past couple of hundred years have stripped that back and pretended that we’re some kind of atomised individual, but we know this isn’t the case, and it’s beginning to show.
(more formally: wages/salary aren’t “profit”. It’s a slightly different point, but a nurse earning enough through her labour to pay her bills is a very different thing to an investor who does not contribute any labour to the enterprise taking a reward from it. When we say “labour is entitled to all that it produces”, that’s what we’re against, and that’s why profit, rent and interest are antithetical to a free-market, and can only exist in any great quantity as a perversion of a truly free market)
I’m 100% with Fraser on this one. IP laws prevent iteration on already existing ideas, and hold back progress.
The idea is that it stops Big Corp from nicking the idea of someone coming up with the next generation of chips in their garage. Sure, I can buy into that!
But it never works like that. In practice, it stops the next person from iterating on the current generation of chips, because the patents are owned by Big Corp.
You remember the Lays thing? A bunch of Indian farmers happened to be growing the same “type of potato” as Lays, which happened to be “patented”. What actually happened was that the farmers in India were following centuries-old traditions of swapping successful seeds with each other (if nothing else, no-one wants an “unsuccessful seed” in your neighbour possibly cross-pollinating with yours).
Even from a purely utilitarian point of view, patents are very very bad. There was a study done some years back which showed that patents hindered progression, and were largely irrelevant compared to first-mover advantage (Fraser has seen the same study, I think. I, likewise, cannot find the bastard link for the life of me, and I’ve tried. I don’t like “trust me bro” as a source, but…)
There’s also a moral point of view. There’s only so many ways that existing technologies can be combined to make the “next thing”. It’s basically saying that I cannot use my own thoughts to make stuff, on the off-chance that someone else has had the same thoughts and got to the patent office before me!
Re. Tesla and stealing? It’s the “you wouldn’t download a car!” thing. Sure. But…well…if I can download it and print it on a (massively amped) 3D printer…? Why not?
I’m not a liberal. Pointless and silly comparison. And anyway “libertarian” properly means “anarchist”, and has also had it’s meaning reversed in the 20th Century, so, you know, we can both play that game.
As for the rest, I’ve already pointed out: Luigi Mangione’s actions are being feted by the right. A rare but instructive example of class overcoming partisanship. Again, to be clear, he himself is not of the left, but of the centre-right “gray tribe”, the center-right “libertarian” movement headed up by Silicon Valley types like Thiel, Musk etc.
No, this is literally untrue. I’m going to charitably assume that you’re not very familiar with history, as the entire basis of our success as humans is based on individuals producing more than they can individually use, and sharing with others.
I believe that promise of reward is the great human motivator, not altruism or conscience or class feelings.
Marketplace-oriented societies tend to do better, to innovate more, to advance quicker, than other types of society. I think this is because we are incented to do things more efficiently in a marketplace.
But what I’m agreeing with in the patent system is that particular core belief. I’m very open to other means and mechanisms of serving the concept of “reward” that aren’t open to patent abuse.
I haven’t seen any such suggestions. But, I’m still reading.
Roads, destinations, and intentions…
Sorry, i missed this earlier:
The problem here, as usual, is incentives.
If an insurer denies valid claims, the insured have an incentive not to renew their insurance.
BUT: If an insurer accepts dubious claims, the insured* have an incentive to make fraudulent claims.
* not the honest folk, to be sure; but surely i do not need to explain why honest folk have an incentive to look for insurers who reject dubious claims.
But the last couple of centuries were the only centuries in which, for most people in at least some countries, it was worth living a human life… at least since the invention of agriculture.
(And before the invention of agriculture, our ancestors did not live what we would recognize as a human, as distinct from animal, life. Although, still arguably better than human life before 200 years ago, for most people.)