And what is your evidence that he was personally involved in any of these alleged crimes? He's the CEO of a huge bureaucratic entity. He plays his own highly limited, even if high-profile role. He probably doesn't even know what's going on in 99% of the company.

Before going as far as taking his life, you should be able to articulate exactly what he did wrong, how he is culpable, etc, and back your claims with objectively compelling evidence At least try to mimic the judicial process before taking such drastic measures. That even this bare minimum isn't being done by the mobs of people cheering on his cold-blooded murder shows a basic lack of regard for justice and human life.

And no, it doesn't work that way at all. I have problems in my life, stemming from government laws, that I might have to wait 80 years for any government to fix. It's likely everybody does. If everyone resorts to terroristic violence because of such problems, the very foundations of society would fall apart and we'd see mass suffering far greater than anything people experience now.

As for letting bad things happen, every time the party we don't like wins the election, we let what we personally view as "bad things" happen instead of use violence to overturn the election. That's the whole point of democracy. We show some humility and respect the majority will. We respect the process.

The reference to white collar crime is an extremely provocative assertion, because it smuggles in a tenuous allegation that Thompson committed white collar crime.

More generally, I said there is a major difference between structural harm, white-collar crime, and deliberately killing someone. Your answer was to fixate only on general claims about inequality, underpolicing, social causes, etc, which insinuates that maybe Brian Thompson deserved to be murdered while maintaining plausible deniability.

Yes, the system is unfair, but in what ways it's unfair is up to debate, unlike whether the child predator in the Jeffrey Doucet case abused a child. You are trying to connect the fact there is injustice in the world to how justifiable it is to deliberately kill someone, by using this analogy.

You can deny that you are endorsing it, but your comment still does the same thing: it takes a personal act of violence and places it inside a moral story that makes it sound less straightforwardly wrong. That is exactly the problem.

Also in no moral universe, do you shoot someone in the head in cold blood because they were negligent, let alone negligent in some abstract way related to structural social forces. That is a blanket justification for all sorts of political violence.

On democracy, you are using disappointment with democratic outcomes to erode respect for democratic process. By your standard, every single political faction would argue against respecting the democratic process.

2. The reference to white collar crime is an extremely provocative assertion, because it smuggles in a tenuous allegation that Thompson committed white collar crime.

3. Structural harm, where it exists, is most often done without intent. Intent is a key element in criminal culpability.

What is most disturbing in your comment is that it shifts from "the system produces unjust outcomes" to "violent personal retaliation is understandable or even laudable". That logic erodes the distinction between disagreement, accusation, and a right to kill.

Once people treat their own ideological conclusions as sufficient moral license for violence, they are abandoning all respect for democratic and due process — beyond just the letter of law, as in the Jeffrey Doucet case, but also in its spirit, for we have democracy and due process precisely to tease out the ambiguities that social questions of causation and responsibility are so replete with.

I agree entirely that it's much easier to imagine a successful moon program built around repeatable missions at high cadence, so I'm not disagreeing on that point. I would just push back on the idea that this has little or no value.

Anyway, I wasn't making a point about recent developments. I was talking about more long-term trends showing that why the US has outpaced EU in economic growth.

Soldiers infected with more virulent strains were more likely to be shipped to military hospitals, while those infected with less virulent strains were more likely to remain in the trenches.

The military hospitals were much more active vectors of transmission than the bays of the trenches, so the normal pattern of transmission was inverted, with the more virulent strains spreading faster than the less virulent ones.

Under normal conditions, the very sick would stay home while the less sick would go to work, which would tend to push highly virulent viruses toward becoming less virulent over time.

Now, looking only at the statistics, there are certainly some things European countries are doing better than the U.S. But based on my research so far, which admittedly isn't enough for a full understanding, my tentative conclusion is that almost all of those things don't seem related to economic policy. They seem more related to things like urban planning, for example more pedestrian- and bike-friendly cities.

In terms of work and wages, U.S. wages are substantially higher than wages in most European countries. And I'm not just talking about longer hours. I mean the compensation per hour is significantly higher.

EU Europe average per-capita income ≈ $30,500

United States per-capita income ≈ $68,000

Sure, full-blown protectionism everywhere would make the world including the US poorer (less specialization, less division of labor), but it would also harm EU exports, as the US is the EU's biggest importer, and moreover it wouldn't change the factors behind the growing US-EU gap. US-EU trade policies with each other are basically the same. The difference is internal, and mostly comes down to the US just not sabotaging the private sector as much.

The fact that the tech industry concentrated in Silicon Valley is simply due to network effects. Regardless of which locale became the Schelling point for U.S.-based technology companies, that locale would have succeeded, because of the national economic policy it operated inside of.

America has produced 70 times more stock market wealth if you look only at companies created within the last 50 years than the EU. And this is not all paper wealth. If you look at technological sophistication, whether that's frontier AI models, leading-edge pharmaceutical drugs, total amount of compute, or the space industry, the U.S. has grown its lead over the EU over the last 50 years.

It's because the EU has largely fixated itself on reducing wealth inequality by punishing those who succeed. It's safety-maximalist approach to private industrial action has also hamstringed industry — see Germany closing all 17 of its nuclear power plants. The US doesn't really need to do much except not sabotage itself to maintain its lead. Like in all nations, laissez-faire (French for "leave it alone") allows the private sector to do the rest.