On who gets to prosecute crimes and assess punishments.
Kathy is rather upset that Luici Mangione decided to play Scoreboard -- he was pissed off enough at the lack of justice in our system and could identify one person he believed deserved justice to go exact it himself. While he certainly tried not to get caught he had to know he probably would get caught.
He did it anyway.
Why is Kathy scared? Oh yes, in her "denunciation" there was displayed plenty of fear; anyone who watched it knows this, so why?
Because she knows damn well that it is only the voluntary delegation of administration of justice to those who we elect and are appointed that keeps it in that place and that we, the people, can revoke that delegation either individually or as a body politic any time we'd like and if we do there is exactly nothing Hochul or anyone else can do about it. She knows damn well there is utterly no way to determine in advance who will get pissed off enough to do this sort of thing and there never will be any way to figure it out in advance.
Well, ok, that's not entirely true: They -- meaning the government -- can still prosecute those who do so once they act (or if they're dumb enough to threaten it first.) Whoopie do; the best they can achieve if the person is not stupid and thus issues no threats first is make the scoreboard even because said person already got their score on the board.
Now let's look at the NY Post:
Twenty-four percent of US voters ages 18 to 29 answered that Mangione’s alleged brazen execution was somewhat acceptable, and 17 percent said it was completely acceptable.
That's an under-report; it is skewed by those who actually believe that act was entirely or somewhat acceptable but don't want to admit it in public, just like some percentage of people who are gay also don't want to admit it in public. Of course admitting that you think someone deserved to get whacked is a bit more-severe than admitting you like fucking or being fucked in the ass (or munch carpet) so I wouldn't be surprised if some larger percentage, perhaps as many as eighty percent of young people think it was at least somewhat-acceptable that jackass took an involuntary dirt nap.
By the way, I'm among them and after over 60 spins around the glowing orb many consider me a "senior citizen" -- I'm glad he's dead and I'm also perfectly-satisfied that his family has to live with the anguish of it because they've profited mightily, to the tune of millions, from his firm fucking other people and thus they deserve the fucking they got in return.
But here's where I take it further: Having studied this area of the economy in great detail (most people haven't) I know damn well this conduct, all of it, is illegal and has been for a hundred years. Having run a significant-sized company as a CEO I wouldn't have dreamed of so much as having lunch with others in the industry and discussing a way to get a different price on some product or service than the next guy other than by a fully-transparent and clearly-justified means such as single-invoicing and thus single-payment-risk (e.g. I buy 20 or 100 of these and you send one bill to one known credit risk or invoice me monthly against a committed delivery schedule .vs. you selling 100 of them with each going to random people on the street with wildly inferior credit risks and no guarantee you'll sell and deliver any of them.) Oh, and incidentally when it came to my company said discounts were evenly available on the other side, that is for customers, as well provided you wanted to buy the same mix of services and/or goods and were of equivalent or better credit quality.
Why?
Because its illegal to do otherwise, that's why and when I ran MCSNet even the mere attempt to pull something like that was an act I'd expect to get 10 years in the slammer for -- because 15 USC Chapter 1 says that's the penalty for doing it even if you try and fail.
That law applies across international boundaries too which means every drug firm is in violation and every involved person is liable for a decade in the slammer with both persons and firms liable for a MONSTROUS fine FOR EACH PERSON WHO GETS SCREWED. Go read it yourself.
Oh hell, clinking links is too hard as doing that requires you put the bong down for 30 seconds so here is the actual language of the law in question -- it leaves exactly zero doubt as to what's prohibited and what the penalty is if you do it anyway:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
By the way that clause (in Section 2) was passed (as "Clayton") after Sherman was passed (Section 1) and some wise-asses attempted to evade punishment because they tried and failed. What does Section 1 say?
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Do you think I was willing to risk 10 years in the slammer and confiscation of all my money and every asset of my firm to pull that sort of crap to give someone else a "better deal" than some other customer who wanted to buy substantially the same thing with the same cost to my company to deliver it? Oh Hell no.
(Read the rest of it, including Section 13 which is also known as Robinson-Patman, which I shoved up a supplier's exit door during my time running MCSNet; they folded when challenged.)
Every single drug, medical firm, health insurance company, network and virtually every physician does it every single day; sufficient legal proof thereof being found in every "Chargemaster" schedule, every "Explanation of Benefits", every different price depending on what "insurance" you have (or don't) and yet not one such indictment has issued.
People die or are crippled as a result of these very illegal acts on a daily basis which is just a "wee bit" more serious than someone being charged more than the other guy for access to the Internet or web hosting.
Oh and by the way both Royal Drug and Maricopa County (two USSC decisions) say that yes, this law applies to the medical, pharmaceutical and health insurance industry. Those decisions are a literal 40 years old so spare me the bullshit run to my face by Congress-fuckheads like Matt Gaetz in an attempt to defend it at a town hall meeting when I called him out on it a few years ago.
I believe, and always have, that we delegate enforcement of the law to government because if you don't do that then indeed it would be "vigilante justice" and that's bad. If I'm accused of some crime I'm entitled to due process of law; that's what a reasonable civilization does. I'm entitled to face my accuser, I'm entitled to discovery, I'm entitled to a jury of peers and so on. All these things are part and parcel of a civilized society and "vigilante justice" voids all of them, thus it is, under ordinary circumstances, unacceptable.
But the premise of "vigilante justice" requires that there be actual government enforcement of the law which is short-circuited by said actions. That consideration is not only lacking today it has been lacking for decades and no amount of changing representatives and parties in power by peaceful means has improved the situation so if that's your argument against someone deciding they've had enough of the abuse then you are a fuckhead and its likely odds-on you are profiting personally from this scam and thus perhaps you deserve said justice as well.
When government refuses to enforce long-standing laws, in this case laws on the books for more than a hundred years (and in the case of 8 USC 1324 with illegal immigrants on the books since the 1950s) and there is no change irrespective of whether Democrats or Republicans are in office then it is only reasonable for me, and the rest of civilized society, to determine that the only two choices remaining if one suffers such an assault is to administer justice personally or consent to getting fucked up the ass repeatedly by those who rightly would be judged as felons and sentenced to life terms in prison along with forfeiture of every single penny they and their families have and the destruction of the firms they are employed by and/or operate. Incidentally the only difference between sex and rape is consent so which is it when you get screwed in the ass by some so-called "health care provider", "pharmaceutical company" or "health insurance firm"?
Culpability and thus personal exposure to said justice also extends to every lawmaker that funds a police or justice department at the local, state or federal level that refuses to enforce said laws (a reminder that each and every such person takes an oath to do so; ergo they have violated the terms of their employment if they do not and thus are owed exactly zero dollars for that reason and every penny of their compensation not only was stolen their employment is reasonably considered part of said conspiracy to violate those laws) and every member of every Executive or "law enforcement" agency who likewise took said oath, and since each Executive is in fact in charge of said law enforcement and has the DUTY to order same to enforce those laws every person in said Executive is also personally liable for said willful and intentional refusal.
It's all well and good to say that "you should vote them out and that is your means of control of this situation" and in ordinary circumstances I'd agree. But we have voted them out -- we've voted out Democrats and favor of Republicans, Republicans in favor of Democrats, individual office-holders such as Sheriffs and Attorneys General in favor of others and yet exactly zero of them have upheld their oath and indicted, arrested, prosecuted, confiscated said assets and thrown into prison those who have been and continue to blatantly and openly violate said laws -- and by the way this is the entire reason that we are running monster deficits and you have your earned value stolen via inflation which they have deposited in their banks, investment accounts and mansions.
So what's left?
Have I personally been aggrieved to a degree that I have a desire to do such a thing? No.
Can I judge someone else's level of aggrievement? No. I do not have all the facts. But after reading of all the people who died while hospitals were paid to stick toetags on patients over the last few years, never mind all the other stories about being financially extorted, screwed and charged for harms done by the hospital itself such as infections they gave you I bet there are millions of people who might be that pissed off.
And thus I DO consider it acceptable, or even praiseworthy, if someone who does judge their level of aggrievement sufficient, given that the government refuses to bring the charges that would have PREVENTED the insult, that they are willing to sacrifice what remains of their free existence in society in order to exact justice as they see it when it is evident for the last several decades that exactly zero of the participants in these schemes, from lawmakers, to governors, to CEOs, to employees of said firms to physicians, hospital administrators and pharmaceutical company employees at any level are ever held accountable under A CENTURY OLD LAW that mandates TEN YEARS in prison for EACH PERSON who even ATTEMPTS to fix prices or monopolize markets, along with fines sufficient to literally confiscate every penny since each person harmed is a separate offense.
Thus yes, I absolutely do find such an act "acceptable" when there is no other alternative than to accept being abused, including having either themselves or their loved ones harmed or killed, and I further offer a toast to anyone who evaluates the situation on a cold, dispassionate basis, reaches that conclusion and then succeeds in acting on it.
And, from my point of view, its all the better if in doing so they inflict at least as much anguish on those who had a part in the willful and profit-driven acts of deliberate refusal to enforce said law, which was proximally involved in their anguish, on one or more of the responsible parties and/or their families.
Why?
Because only fear stops a brigand, thief or other felon from continuing to commit their crimes. That fear can come from ruination of their financial wealth, ruination of their company, imprisonment or worse. I'd GREATLY prefer that the government enforce these laws and have strongly advocated for same for more than three decades because not only are these acts wrong as defined in the law, not only did I follow said law both in letter and spirit when I held such a job as a CEO in the Internet industry, these abuses are the entire reason we have a federal debt today that is spiraling out of control; other than the pandemic give-away crap it is responsible for every bit of inflation over the last thirty years and if we don't FORCE a cessation of it by one means or another in the present and immediate future, NOT on some timeline years or decades down the road our government and society will collapse as this scam is exponentially extracting more and more value out of the economy from the common citizen.
Since the stakes are that high if the government continues to insist on refusing to enforce said laws, all of which are and have been on the books for decades and thus all of which could be enforced starting today and would correct the problem in a literal hour as none of these CEOs would choose to go to prison and forfeit all their wealth rather than cut that crap out then I find it perfectly acceptable if people decide to take matters into their own hands and no, that is NOT "vigilante" anything as the government is deliberately refusing and thus to an individual employed by said government has become a willing partner and co-conspirator in the original felony acts.
It is neither illegal to find these acts acceptable or use my First Amendment Right to so-state, nor to publicly offer toasts to each and every single asshole who goes to meet Satan on an expedited basis as a result. Indeed were I to be seated on a Jury in such a case and found that this was the motivation for the act I'd vote "Not Guilty by reason of rational recompense for felonious acts of the deceased not otherwise available through due process of law as a result of deliberate and unlawful decisions of and by the government."
I WILL CHANGE MY OPINION AND OFFERING OF SAID TOASTS ONLY WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR DECADES ARE INDICTED, ARRESTED, PROSECUTED, IMPRISONED, ASSET-STRIPPED TO THEIR UNDERWEAR AND THUS THIS CRAP ALL STOPS -- NOT ONE SECOND BEFORE.
Until then go fuck yourself Hochul.