Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
A rational look at Luigi Mangione's statement.
Liberty and equality are often proclaimed as the quintessential elements of what it truly means to be free. The horrendous brutalities of war, revolution, murder, torture, and even genocide have been used to safeguard or achieve the lived reality of freedom in all its illusory shapes and forms under the age old maxim, that "the ends justify the means," only to then be left with the lingering doubt of whether a morally wrong action is actually necessary to achieve a morally right outcome—or, for that matter, whether morality is even relevant anymore. Recently, a 26 year old man by the name of Luigi Mangione placed the age old maxim to the test when he murdered Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in broad daylight on a Manhattan street. And while the responses from law enforcement, politicians, and politically correct pundits have been predictable; it's fair to say that public opinion on the matter speaks to a very interesting truth that deserves our attention.
I admit, that when I first learned of the killing my initial thought was that it couldn't have happened to a better person; an opinion and sentiment that may seem jaded or cold, but it's one born from the lived experience of being denied healthcare because the treatment was deemed "too expensive," "elective" or otherwise "unnecessary." When I was in my early twenties I was diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (enlarged heart), and likewise told that it could lead to sudden death because of my affinity for long distance running. The doctor told me that I would need a transplant, which my insurance would never cover, and that I should refrain from running. But I decided that I wouldn't forgo the thing that I loved, and if it killed me, well, how was that different from any other outcome in life? And more than two decades later I'm still running; which isn't to say that I don't struggle with occasional dizziness, fatigue and exhaustion—not to mention the lived reality of knowing that my heart can stop at any time. Add to this a torn meniscus in my knee that severely compromises my ability to walk and run without pain, where the answers are the same: "too expensive," "elective" and "unnecessary"—"if it hurts to run or walk," they say, "just stop doing it." All of which makes me feel justified in my jaded sentiments towards a CEO who was presumably killed for having made his fortune—not to mention the profits of his shareholders—from the denials of medical claims of people who often have no alternative.
Recently, I came across something that made me think of Mangione's decision to take the life of a man who leads a company whose business model is to "deny," "delay," and "depose" the claims of people who pay money to his company for services not rendered; and to potentially forfeit his life for the sole purpose of making a statement loud enough for the establishment to hear it. It read, "[l]ife is built up by the sacrifice of the individual to the whole. Each cell in the living body must sacrifice itself to the perfection of the whole, when it is otherwise, disease and death enforce the lesson." And, as the words took shape in my mind, I immediately thought of Mangione, not because I condone violence, because I don't, but because society itself is an organism whose life and liberties clearly depend on the individual actions (sacrifices) of every individual (cells). And when those sacrifices are not made, the outcome is a tumor that lives to destroy its host.
The current parroted narrative being repeated ad nauseum through every platform of mainstream media is that Mangione's actions are as "unacceptable" as they are "detestable," because there are "mechanisms" in place for expressing our discontent or otherwise addressing "issues of concern," as New York City Mayor Eric Adams claims. What Mayor Adams isn't saying, at least not publicly, is that the supposed "mechanisms," in place for addressing "issues of concern," are so deteriorated that in order to effectuate actual change some extreme action (sacrifice) needs to be taken in order prevent an even more egregious harm from occurring—tumors. Because protesting in designated areas with permits, writing letters to elected representatives, advocating with donations to nonprofits who share a particular opinion, or voting are not working, and will presumably never work, not when healthcare lobbyists outnumber elected representatives in Washington four-to-one. Unless, of course, what is really being said, is that we're not meant to change the profit driven paradigm where corporations are incentivized to take a person's hard-earned money in exchange for the promise of a future service never to be rendered; because if the future service were to be rendered, how would they generate enough revenue to (a) incapacitate politicians, and, (b) sufficiently accumulate enough wealth to justify the means?
Mayor Adams has also said he and Police Commissioner Tisch "are going to send a very clear and loud message that this act of terrorism and violence…is something that will not be tolerated," and then went on to add that, "anyone that celebrates [Luigi Mangione's actions] is vile, and it is sending the wrong message." But, despite all our supposed "mechanisms" for addressing "issues of concern" there is no mechanism for comparing the moral reprehensibility of knowingly denying legitimate health insurance claims for needed treatments and procedures for profit, in comparison with the killing of a single man who happens to be actively contributing to the latter. We can agree that violence and murder are not sustainable solutions to a problem, but we can also agree that under the current paradigm of political appropriateness a CEO like Thompson would likely never be held accountable for the thousands of lives that he infringes upon or outright destroys in his corporate pursuit of profit. And if we are going to be rational, well, let's be rational.
Apparently, the Mayor of NYC actually made an appearance on the Wall Street helipad to see the alleged killer's face when he got off the helicopter to face a judge for the first time in the state where he allegedly committed his crime. As mentioned, there's lots of claptrap about "sending a clear message" that we don't tolerate this kind of behavior. Commentary which demands from us a momentary inventory on the clear messages sent in the not so distant past.
In the 80s, when the war against drugs was launched (or, relaunched), again, a clear message was sent. Did it stop drug addiction? Did it ameliorate any of the negative and obvious secondary consequences of drug addiction? No, it absolutely did not. In the 90s, when Clinton signed the notorious Crime Bill, making mass incarceration all but inevitable, did that message in any way, shape or form reduce the reality of violent crimes in our communities? During Obama's presidency the global financial crisis crippled the global economy and leaders from around the world all parroted a similar narrative that the belligerent behavior of banks and other financial institutions would not be tolerated. But then it became clear that the banks were "too big to fail" or be held accountable; so the message became, "the ends justify the means." We may even recall the Occupy Wall Street movement, an example of the "mechanisms" in place to address "issues of concern." And how the billionaire bankers observed the protesters below from their balconies, sipping champagne and eating caviar, as if to say, "it doesn't matter what you do because we own your supposed elected officials."
What none of those billionaire bankers seemed to understand or appreciate is that there were people watching and cognitively acknowledging the injustice of what was taking place. One of those was quite possibly a young Luigi Mangione, who then goes on to witness through his own formative education, repeated instances of injustice until he finally identifies a problem and sees himself as a potential solution. The fact is, Congress knows that healthcare in America is a cruel joke and the majority of those members of Congress are complicit because they repeatedly block any form of substantive change that would prove detrimental to the profits of the corporate, political donors. Mangione's apparent solution was to do something outside of the approved "mechanisms" that sends an altogether different message, not just to healthcare executives, but to anyone who systematically profits from the misery of others: there are consequences because nobody is immune to karma and natural law.
What politicians, bureaucrats, and billionaires rarely seem to grasp is that the message they send is not the message received. More importantly, there is no message to be sent that would effectively prevent the next Mangione from a similar course of action; unless, of course, they are willing to create legislation that effectively enforces existential consequences to corporate entities who sacrifice life and well-being for profit and corporate gains.
The healthcare industry, just like every other industry that has demonstrated itself caustic to human life, will never reform itself. Unfortunately, it does not care how many executives are killed, tortured, maimed, or otherwise infringed upon to effectuate reforms to its creed and greed for gain. For the simple reason that a non-person (i.e., a corporate entity) possesses no morality and therefore cannot confine itself to our moral parameters of acceptable behavior until the consequences for failure to behave within those parameters becomes existential. It might even be hard to comprehend how we collectively arrived at a point where corporate gains supercede human morality—a discussion for another time. What's relevant, at this point, is how to effectively address the reality that individuals, like Mangione, exist; and not only do they exist, but there is no consequential message that can be sent other than action; and, ironically, that action would essentially rearrange the priorities of our society to such an extent that the concepts of "limited liability" and "personhood" for corporations would cease to exist.
The decision to charge Mangione with terrorism is not an effective message. None of us need a law or statute to define for us what terrorism is, especially given the fact that too many of us witnessed 9/11, either on screen or in person. We internalized and felt what it means to be helpless, incapable of preventing the individual manifestation of a choice to pursue a particular course of action. Even though fear may be a collateral consequence of terrorism, to make the comparison between Mangione and 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing is not only immoral it's dangerous.
The crime of terrorism, as defined by New York statute (490.25), makes it possible to charge almost any violent offender with terrorism, if needed, to "send a message." And, as someone who was once on the receiving end of a politically motivated message from an elected prosecutor, allow me to challenge Mangione's prosecutor-turned-defense attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo's statement that the "federal government's reported decision to pile on top of an already overcharged first degree murder and state terror case is highly unusual…" because it's not unusual—in fact, if anything, it's very predictable. Mangione's actions have sent chills of fear through every corporate executive and politician who knowingly operates outside the moral parameters of acceptable human behavior. Because no security detail can account for every eventuality or potential threat, and maybe that's a good thing.
The truth is, Mangione is being charged with terrorism because his alleged crime is presumably only second degree murder, which would one day make him eligible for parole, and therefore, to prevent that eventuality from ever occurring the prosecution needs the added element of terrorism to upgrade his crime to first degree murder. This strategy is not "highly unusual" at all, and a former prosecutor would know that the overcharging of crimes is the normal, immoral behavior of the vast majority of prosecutors in America.
The prosecution's premise is that since Mangione allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare to send a message and influence or frighten others who are presumably causing harm in great numbers, it's terrorism. I'm sorry, but by that same reasoning, the former CEO could have been charged with genocide, since the people who he attacked through the corporate policies of "deny," "delay," and "depose" suffered and died in great numbers. But, genocide is not what Brian Thompson did, any more than Mangione committed terrorism. What the prosecution is really afraid of is the wildcard of the jury. Because regardless of what the evidence demonstrates at Mangione's trial, regardless of how guilty he may be of the crime of murder, the jury carries the moral and legal right to acquit, and there is no appeal for that wildcard outcome.
Which means that the prosecution is faced with not only proving its case, but with convincing the public that what Mangione did was not only wrong, but a crime deserving of punishment. Because if he is acquitted, the message to come from that acquittal will not only be one of fear, it will be a message of warning to every politician, bureaucrat, and billionaire who knowingly profits from the demise of people. And calling people "vile" because they aren't displeased with the outcome of having one less morally bankrupted billionaire to contend with, is not the path to convincing the public that what Mangione did was a crime deserving of punishment. Instead of calling us "vile," try convincing us that the ends don't justify the means—and do so with your own actions—because the principles of liberty and equality demand it.
No man desires to see that light which illumines the spaceless soul until pain and sorrow and despair have driven him away from the life of ordinary humanity. First he wears out pleasure; then he wears out pain—till, at last, his eyes become incapable of tears.
~Unknown
