Over the last week, the guide has surged to become the 5th-most-accessed book on Project Gutenberg, an open source repository of free and public domain ebooks. It is also the fifth most popular ebook on the site over the last 30 days, having been accessed nearly 60,000 times over the last month (just behind Romeo and Juliet).
Direct link to the book (without the backref):
Which doctor can provide free chemo if I have cancer? Which doctor can provide a free MRI if I have a stroke? Do they keep those things in their home?
You don’t mind children dying, and apparently you don’t mind very sick people dying either.
So how many people do you feel is an acceptable number to die for your cause?
The workers own the hospital. Fuck capital. Just walk in and take it.
Ah yes, just walk in and take the MRI machine. They are notoriously portable.
I suppose they can just take the entire OR back to their sterile environment they keep at home too.
Also, chemotherapy drugs are compound medications, meaning they must be correctly mixed on a per-patient basis, which you can only determine by running a bunch of tests that can only be done in a hospital.
And either you’re extremely ignorant or you know all of this and don’t give a shit if sick people die as long as people are striking. And I think it’s pretty clear it’s the latter.
No, walk in and use the machine. They work there.
You can choose to live a life of subservience and artificial scarcity if you want. Or you can take back what is stolen from us and live in abundance
You literally said they should walk out and strike.
Which is it? Are they going to be working in the hospital or not?
Do you even remember what you’ve already said?
Its not breaking the strike to use the building to provide free services to other strikers.
First of all, again, you literally said they should walk out and strike. Are they leaving the hospital or staying there? Make up your mind.
Secondly, do you expect the hospital CEOs to go on strike? And their security team? And the cops? Because otherwise, they’re not going to be using the building for anything.
You need to learn a bit about history.
Accusations are not explanations.
So for how much longer would you consider it acceptable for the current system to cause more suffering and death before drastic actions for change are acceptable?
It seems you care more about those who would be hypothetically be harmed than those who are being harmed right now.
I don’t think that those who advocate for mutual aid networks and a general strike are either ignorant or uncaring of the harm that it could cause. I think they believe that the harm caused would be less than the harm already being inflicted by the current system. That said, I think it’s a big ask for people to put themselves and their families at great risk, even if it’s for a good purpose.
Allowing people to die of cancer and other illnesses that require a hospital causes suffering and death. Why does that not matter to you?
Are you really under the impression that mutual age can compound chemotherapy drugs or construct an MRI machine? Or even an X-ray machine?
You two don’t give a shit about kids and don’t give a shit about people who are sick. I mean you think cancer patients would only “hypothetically” suffer and die if there were no one to give them chemo. Which is literally not how anything works.
I asked them and they didn’t answer, so how about you tell me: what is the maximum number of dead innocent sick people and children would you would accept here? I bet you won’t answer either
People dying of treatable conditions does bother me, it’s one of the main reasons I’m disgusted with the state of healthcare in the US.
As many as 44,789 people in the US die each year from lack of health insurance.
I’m under no illusions when it comes to the limitations of mutual aid, it’s not a replacement for a functioning society. It’s far more a foundation of a strong labour movement and sense of community.
The hypothetical being talked about here is a general strike. I know full well that not having access to healthcare kills people. I’d also like to specify that I’m not advocating for a general strike, I was speculating on the justifivuof those who are.
And to answer your your final point I’d like to refer back to the 44,789 people who die every year from a lack of health insurance in the US. Now attempting to bring about radical changes would most certainly cause more deaths than that, but you asked for a number. So if I could change things for the better without killing more people than those who are currently dying under the current system then I would consider that acceptable. So there’s your number, 44,789 people dying per year to achieve the goal of universal healthcare in the US. I however live in a country that already has universal health care, so I thankfully wouldn’t have to make such a grim decision. It’s easy to engage in such calculations without having to have the emotional burden of potentially condemning thousands to suffer and die.
Wow. You’re such a humanitarian. “It’s okay if just as many people die as they always do if change happens eventually” is just disgusting and I have no idea why you think otherwise.
Because saying that proves your claim that people dying of treatable conditions does not bother you.
You are completely missing my point. Firstly, just because I consider something acceptable doesn’t mean I think that it’s okay. It’s more that If action or inaction on a problem causes the same amount of suffering and death, then I believe that action with the hope of a good resolution is the better course.
Let me phrase it in terms of the trolley problem. Just because I would calculate to take the least shitty course of action does not mean I’m uncaring of the outcome. I would simply be forced to play the hand that I’m dealt. And like I said, the problem of US healthcare is not mine to fix. So I can only speculate on what I might do without having to face the potential reality of action.
So what about you? Would you choose action causing harm to stop it later, or inaction and do nothing to mitigate the present harm?
There’s no course of action available in which people won’t suffer and die. In an ideal world that would not be so, but we must face reality however shit it may be.
Sure sounds like you consider it acceptable to me, especially since you admit it won’t affect you at all:
So basically this entire time you’ve been expecting other people to make sacrifices that you won’t have to make. Which is pretty shitty.
I’m not expecting anything, I’m talking entirely theoretically. I’m not asking anyone to do anything, I’m speculating on what I would do in that situation.
If I’m in a situation where I’m solving the trolley problem by equation, which track I’m on is not a factor. Or to put it as simple as I can. If I had to be one of those who die, it would not change my thoughts on what would be acceptable.
This entire time, you have been defending someone who says there should be a general strike where everyone walks off their job regardless if kids starve or are taken away from them for neglect and regardless of whether or not kids die.
And suddenly you aren’t expecting anything?
Have you read anything the person you have been defending has written? Including the part where they say naming imaginary people as spies is dangerous?