Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Maybe you have never had unionized employees. Maybe you have never read an actual history of the business failures I identified.

 

You’re confusing land and human beings

 

The only thing preventing me from punishing you for that statement is your government.

 

Mondragon bought these companies because they could not compete with other companies due to cost of labor. The result: Mondragon is not truly a worker owned co-op nor do they act like it, but nothing more than filthy capitalists like the rest of us.

Funny, if you ask me. It is the epitome of the socialist movement and it's inherent contradictions as pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

Recently I found one item produced by Fagor available on the market I have access to. It was a pressure cooker, and priced about 3 times the cost of one produced by what would be called a capitalist company. Rather than make myself poorer, I bought from the capitalist company, and saved about $50.

 

My source was peer reviewed facts from Wikipedia whereas all you have provided to date is your union hating opinion.

That you still can't provide a single credible link substantiating your allegations that unions caused the failure of Pan Am says volumes,

 

"Right on" goods cost more.

Organic food, bloodless diamonds, fair trade coffee. Recycled paper. Green energy.

It costs extra to feel morally superior. Being a lefty is a rich persons game.

 

And who would be the one to tell me no and enforce that?

 

Of course I have had union workers. Never been a problem. Indeed its been a positive as they tended to be more willing to come forward and ensure 'voice' productivity gains. God bless em!

 

The non-existent government, vigilantes?

 

Impossible when the Articles of Incorporation specify that only worker-members may buy shares of company stock and each worker may own no more than one share. The CEO cannot own stock, the Board members may not own stock unless that Board member is also a worker who owns one share. One share gets the worker one vote. So the workers run the company. They hire and fire the CEO and Board members. That is not a description of a capitalist company.

 

When we have a socialist society, you will find out. Are you saying such laws cannot be established and enforced?

 

I see. So there will still be a state to impose socialism by force.

 

Of course! Let me not confuse you further by mentioning "the dictatorship of the proletariat"!

I've said all along that a government would exist and be necessary under socialism. Confused? If you're not going to pay attention when I answer your questions, there's no point in me answering your questions.

 

Government enforced socialism has worked out so well in the past.

 

What's your point? We both know you're opposed to people running their own lives. We also know there has not been a society without a government in our history. So what's your point?

 

I'm opposed? Can you be more specific?

 

I didn't expect you would be able to figure it out, so sure, I'll be more specific. You are opposed to socialism.

 

Yes, I'm opposed to state imposed socialism. And you're saying that means I'm opposed to people running their own lives? I'd say it means the exact opposite of that. I would suggest that the one calling for state imposed socialism is the one who opposes people running their own lives.

 

There's no hope for any other kind.

Right. To the anti-socialist, the right to exploit others by law is the freedom to run one's own life, but the right to have a vote in running your workplace and stop exploitation is not. To the anti-socialist, the right to vote every few years for someone to govern the funneling of tax dollars away from the people and into the pockets of the rich is the "freedom" to "run their own lives" because they get to write to their elected official and be ignored, but stopping such robbery is to stop "freedom" to write to your congressman and be ignored.

You have a very strange sense of what running your own life should look like.

 

I'm opposed to state imposed anything. Once state imposed, citizens of a community has had their right to run their own lives infringed.

 

By exploit, I assume you mean hire to perform some particular work.

Anyone who would like a vote in running their workspace is perfectly free to create or join a WSDE.

Running your own life should be not initiating aggression against the bodies or property of your neighbors.

 

Don't look now but EVERYTHING is imposed by the government.

 

You know better than that.

It's not quite that easy but we're working toward that.

That's what capitalism is.

 

Careful ... you are asking that one thinks around here?

Many can't even spell correctly ...