Yes, I realize that this post is less about the trolley problem and its moral dilemma than an allusion to the corresponding meme. And I certainly understand the intended message.

Nevertheless, I think the post is a good example of how the whole discussion about the healthcare industry in the US is currently being conducted: I don’t think it should be about whether vigilante justice is justified in the case of CEOs acting inhumanely. In my opinion, the discussion should rather be about why the healthcare system in the USA is so inhumane and profit-oriented in the first place and not only allows this behavior, but is specifically designed for just that. The question should be how this has come about and how a better (and more efficient) system can be established.

As long as this is not the case, the debate revolves exclusively around the idea that individuals and their greed were responsible for abuses. But this is a systemic problem where there will always be another unscrupulous person to take over as CEO.

Therefore, I think, nothing can change as long as the focus is on individuals and not on the goals and/or the failures of the healthcare system. In other words, as long as US citizens and especially politicians agree that the healthcare system is a business like any other, even vigilante justice directed at individuals will not change anything. Sure, that may help to draw attention to the actual problem. But this problem can only be resolved if the discussion is not about symptoms, but about their causes, namely the healthcare system itself. Or even similarly designed systems for that matter.

Since a healthcare system does not have to be designed in such a way that people inevitably fall by the wayside, this depiction of the trolley problem seems to me to be a pretty US-American thing.

I see it like this: the guy on the lever is also the CEO of a health insurance company and chooses the option of eliminating a competitor, accepting that his even more profit-optimized approach will lead to even more helpless people dying, which would not have been necessary if he had left everything as it was and not eliminated the competitor. The US thing about this is that there is no third option in the first place, where nobody dies because of the healthcare system. This very basic fact is not noticed, addressed or even criticized by anyone. Instead, even those who will die unnecessarily agree with the guy in charge in his decision to sacrifice them on the altar of higher profits because a hated person will die with them - they even agree with his statement that it would be for the greater good, instead of asking why it is even necessary for them to be tied to the tracks and run over.

This seems odd to me, but is probably only logical if you’re used to seeing the healthcare system as a business like any other. I don’t really get it tho.

Unfortunately, only for their own benefit.

I think it’s like this:

Due to their rarity, gold and silver are only available in limited quantities. This makes them suitable as a means of payment, as the limited availability of these materials allows them to have a relatively stable exchange value. They are also durable and easy to work with. So as a means of payment, gold and silver became representative of goods that can be purchased with them.

Coins made of gold or silver, which were used as currencies early on, were not very forgery-proof. However, as the materials themselves are rare, good forgeries were only possible if the material was available. And the rarer the material used, the more forgery-proof the coin became, which is why it made sense to mint coins with a high exchange value from rarer materials (bronze or copper for lower value coins, silver or even gold for coins with higher exchange value).

Early examples of inflation illustrate quite well how value and material are linked: In ancient Rome, for example, silver coins were used as a means of payment. Under Emperor Gallienus, there was massive inflation because he had the silver content of coins reduced to below 5% in order to finance military campaigns and other expenses (he basically created value out of thin air with this move). This ultimately led to a loss of confidence in the currency and thus to a decline in the value of the coins, as they were not inherently forgery-proof (it became quite easy to mint counterfeit coins with such a low silver content).

Still, the value of the material itself has always been variable and depended heavily on its rarity: When the Spanish imported large quantities of silver from their colonies in South America in the 16th century, the value of silver fell because the material became less scarce. This eventually led to massive inflation throughout Europe at the time.

However, the value is not so much determined by the material itself, but by the value that people ascribe to it at a certain time. There are also great historical examples of how speculative bubbles work: In the 17th century, tulip bulbs were at times traded at enormously high prices in the Netherlands because they were difficult to obtain and therefore rare - this made them coveted as a status symbol. However, this bubble finally burst in 1637 when traders could no longer find buyers due to the astronomical tulip bulb prices - demand was covered; the “Tulipmania” had ended. As a result, the merchants began to sell these tulip bulbs in “panic sales” at ever lower prices in order to recoup at least part of their investment. As a result, the price fell to near worthlessness.

Such speculative bubbles still exist today, of course. This is demonstrated very impressively time and again by cryptocurrencies, for example, which are not even material and have no central regulatory authority (such as a central bank) - their value results basically just from what someone is willing to pay at a certain point in time.

So gold and silver were and are valuable not only because of their utility value, but also because of their use as a means of payment, whereby the value - as with today’s currencies - results from a (more or less stable) consensus on the exchange value in goods attributed to a material or currency.

As gold in particular has historically been used as a means of payment for a very long time, most countries still have gold reserves to back their currencies to a certain extent, even if their currencies are generally no longer directly linked to an equivalent value in gold as they used to be. Nevertheless, the US, for example, still holds large amounts of gold at Fort Knox and elsewhere to counteract the fact that paper money, and especially its virtual equivalent in some digital form, is materially worthless.

I guess if we had a sun god instead of Christianity, climate change wouldn’t be a thing.

Any girl who would touch him we would think could lick the arse of a diseased hangman.

Catullus (~84BC - ~54BC) The Carmina of Gaius Valerius Catullus. Leonard C. Smithers. London. Smithers. 1894.

It ain’t easy being grumpy

OMG, UrPartnerInCrime, guess who’s back in town. Chicken Nugget Wizard! Ya know, Hamburglars’ cute lil bro 😏🔥 He’s still single, so you should totally vibe with him and see what happens! I can already feel major chemistry! 🍆💖 Let’s get it poppin’! 😂

Exactly, find a partner in crime.

Yea, I mean, he apparently even traveled back in time to try to save cheese for future generations. But I’m afraid that was a futile attempt, because the US citizens have nevertheless set the course that will lead us to the timeline where there is no more cheese.

German guy here: What’s with the cult of personality around exceedingly unattractive and politically unappealing people? I’m asking for my grandfather.

Yes, unfortunately the UK has always been much more US-oriented than the rest of Europe, especially when it comes to neoliberal sham rationalization measures like this. I assume that the UK’s exit from the EU has reinforced this tendency once again.

What I mean is that I am not aware of any other country that privatizes state sovereign rights in the way that the US does: If someone is sentenced to prison for any crime, it is a punishment that the state determines and thus usually carries out. In the US, however, it is possible for a private company to enforce the sentence “on behalf of the state”. This is a very US-American procedure which, as far as I know, is not implemented in this way anywhere else. I may be wrong, but where I come from, Europe, this is unthinkable because private companies are not allowed to take on government tasks as important as these - at least not to this extent. Another example is the privatization of the military, as Blackwater, now Academi, and others have been doing for decades in the US (recently also Musk with Starlink). In Europe, this is also a matter for the state and the state alone. Even in Russia under Putin’s regime, private armies are officially illegal, although of course they still exist (not officially tho).

Cool. Still, don’t get caught three times smoking weed in a state where it’s illegal. Otherwise: enjoy the weekend and smoke up.

Don’t ask me since I’m from Europe. But even I know that this candidate could not possibly have been Trump.

I assume you mean the problem of going to prison for a little weed, right? Or are private prisons illegal in 24 states? That would be news to me.

I don’t think anything will change about people being sent to prison for trivialities as long as there are private prisons. Because if you organize this matter according to capitalist logic, the illusion arises that people in prison would not cause costs in the public budget, but just profits for private companies - just like in a hotel where the beds have to be occupied as best as possible. In my opinion, this fundamentally contradicts the purpose of prisons. It is not about generating profits, but about ensuring the functionality of society - in the worst case by locking people up because they are a danger to society. In a capitalist logic, you lock them up for trivialities because that generates profits. That should never be the case. There are purely economic arguments against this approach, namely that the labor of those imprisoned unnecessarily is lost and at the same time costs are incurred for all citizens as a result of this imprisonment. For this reason alone, private prisons are absurd. They are also morally wrong because they create monetary incentives where there should be none.

Completely understandable. From my point of view, I can’t understand how there can be such a thing as private prisons at all. It’s a terrible approach, no matter where in the world. I haven’t looked into it much, but as far as I know, the US is the only country that organizes state sovereignty according to capitalist logic(at least in some states). In my opinion, that is absurd.

Yes, I’m aware of that. What’s your point?

I’m pretty sure you’re absolutely right. I just can’t say much about all this myself because I’m from Europe. Things are very different here: private prisons are unimaginable for very obvious reasons. Doesn’t mean that we don’t have similar problems (people trying to get rich on this) with public prisons, but at least all this is treated less as a business in Europe, which of course it should never be for very obvious reasons.