pull down to refresh
109 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 11 Dec \ parent \ on: Progressivism and the Murder of a Health Insurance CEO Politics_And_Law
He got held accountable to the highest degree, didn’t he?
I don’t know if it was decided on his level or some other level within the company to deny 33% of the claims, but he, as CEO, was still responsible. People have a hard time holding a fictional person (corporation) liable for blood damages. Money doesn’t always seem to cover those kinds of damages.
When we think about justice in a Rothbardian framework, responsibility always has to rest with an individual. It may be that a corporation pays out the damages for contractual reasons, but only an actor can be morally culpable.
reply
Yes, he was morally culpable, wasn’t he? Other people considered this and acted upon it, individually. This is what happens when the state cronies are protected too much. It even happens to the leaders of states, such as Nicolae Ceaușescu and his wife.
reply
Whether or not he was culpable, I don't like society moving in this direction. It might be rough seas ahead.
reply
Hasn’t society already drifted into that pattern. Riots where the looting is rife and is excused ‘cuz reasons? What will happen when the “progressives” decide to riot and burn cities about the time Trump is inaugurated, ‘cus reasons?
I don’t think that this will go down well with civilized people. I did not like it when my favorite bookshop got burned to an absolute crisp and no justice was done. Civilization seems to be evaporating rapidly, I think, by design.
reply