> The flaw in your position is that the position necessitates the devaluing of life.

That does seem like the beginning of a slippery slope. Life is precious. Its a fair point.

My ask is does a society that allows for-profit health insurance companies to lobby our leaders, deny coverage in a game style system, directly depriving thousands of people of life... not also devalue life?

Personally I'm not actually a big moral crusader, but I do find ecosystems respond with a certain conservation of energy. When one person becomes in charge of such a large cog in a system that steadily devalues life, when they have implicitly promoted such a time of contempt, it seems immensely predictable that they themselves perish in that same ecosystem.

Yes, because clearly it's the left that devalues life. You known, unless you are queer...

Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Hitler lost the war because he made certain key mistakes -- chasing his country's best scientists out, invading Russia at the wrong time, spending a fortune on gimmicks to murder civilians instead of combat weapons. It's possible that killing Hitler would have paved the way for a more competent, saner leader to emerge.

> It's possible that killing Hitler would have paved the way for a more competent, saner leader to emerge.

only an insane leader would have invaded france from the belgian ardennes; from your logic, ww2 would have been avoided

When Rosa Parks sat on the bus it was a crime.

Sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do, and results in great improvement.

Murder and civil disobedience are not equivalent.

Rosa Parks hurt no one. That CEO should have gone to prison, but that doesn't make murder OK.