3 ms·

That's patently absurd, and you know it. >Nationalization: >the transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control.

That's patently absurd, and you know it. >Nationalization: >the transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control. Employee ownership is not state ownership. By this logic, the US already has state-owned healthcare, since the government mandates that employers provide health coverage. Do you also believe that the US government is seizing business revenue by requiring that employers pay wages? You're just desperate to find a snarl-word you can attach to this obviously reasonable and largely undisruptive plan.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> That's patently absurd, and you know it. Sure, let's go with the personal attack and the claim of bad faith when we don't like someone's position. (That's against site guidelines, by the way.) > Employee ownership is not state ownership. But who gave it to the workers? Who made the current owners give up control? The state. (That's almost certainly still a "taking" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. That means "just compensation" for the current owners. Where are you going to get the money?) > By this logic, the US already has state-owned healthcare, since the government mandates that employers provide health coverage. Do you also believe that the US government is seizing business revenue by requiring that employers pay wages? Your "logic" here is non-existent. It doesn't follow from my position whatsoever. > You're just desperate to find a snarl-word... False. Again the accusation of bad faith. > you can attach to this obviously reasonable... Excuse me? Obviously reasonable? I call BS. > and largely undisruptive plan. That's quite an assumption there. Or as they say in court: "Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence." You're mighty free with what you're going to require other people to do with their property. I don't own that much property, but I deny your right to order me to give half of it to those that you think should own it.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> That's patently absurd, and you know it. Sure, let's go with the personal attack and the claim of bad faith when we don't like someone's position. (That's against site guidelines, by the way.) > Employee ownership is not state ownership. But who gave it to the workers? Who made the current owners give up control? The state. (That's almost certainly still a "taking" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. That means "just compensation" for the current owners. Where are you going to get the money?) > By this logic, the US already has state-owned healthcare, since the government mandates that employers provide health coverage. Do you also believe that the US government is seizing business revenue by requiring that employers pay wages? Your "logic" here is non-existent. It doesn't follow from my position whatsoever. > You're just desperate to find a snarl-word... False. Again the accusation of bad faith. > you can attach to this obviously reasonable... Excuse me? Obviously reasonable? I call BS. > and largely undisruptive plan. That's quite an assumption there. Or as they say in court: "Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence." You're mighty free with what you're going to require other people to do with their property. I don't own that much property, but I deny your right to order me to give half of it to those that you think should own it.