4 ms·

The comparison is made to force the reader, who may very well believe in a moral right to strike, to find the fundamental principle underlying it. If there is n

The comparison is made to force the reader, who may very well believe in a moral right to strike, to find the fundamental principle underlying it. If there is no fundamental principle then all the moralizing of striking is just opportunism justifying itself after the fact. Qualitatively, the two scenarios are the same, they differ only in degree. The action is the same, the outcome is only more destructive in one vs the other. But if there is a moral right to strike, it applies to both professions because a right is universal and absolute.

invalidname 3y ago
This is called a strawman argument. Even in the writers strike some productions got a pass to keep working and finishing important projects. Doctors and nurses were on strike here, urgent care and treatment was still given. This is a ridiculous argument designed to strip away the only power working people have against corporations.
eesmith 3y ago
A fundamental principle in the US is that people are allowed use legal means to make money, even if that means others may make less money. You may call that "opportunism", likely using the neutral definition "putting self-interest before other interests when there is an opportunity to do so, or flexibly adapting to changing circumstances to maximize self-interest" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism . If you have a problem with that, what then is the moral right to form a limited liability company? How are companies not just opportunism by the owners of the company?
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  I wouldn't call that a fundamental principle. A contentious state of affairs that we all begrudgingly live by because that's the world we are in. Nobody likes it when laws are crafted that create injustice because it is profitable. I personally am not an opportunistic person in that sense. I don't think someone has a right to shield themselves from liability for their actions. I don't try to do so, and I only passingly consider the legality of behavior I engage in, and only consider the ethics or morality. I would never engage in behavior that would cost someone else knowingly for my own benefit, legal or not. I'd like to live in and help build a society where, from first principles, when we understand the ethics or morals of certain behavior, if something is deemed unethical it is illegal, and likewise the opposite. That's me personally, and probably a lot of people. That's one of the reasons I don't live or work in SV. So I'd say no, it's not a principle and I agree, limited liability is not a moral right. Which brings us back to the topic at hand: striking is not a moral right either.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    > I wouldn't call that a fundamental principle. Okay, you have your definition and you can dream of some utopian world where everyone practices your own morality. The thing is, all you've done is shift the topic to what 'injustice' means. The US court case which established the right to strike, Commonwealth v. Hunt, specifically highlights how union action is not necessarily injustice but may have a "proper purpose". Quoting https://web.archive.org/web/20150123211142/http://www.lovkoandking.com/commonwealth-v-hunt.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150123211142/http://www.lovkoa... : "The manifest intent of the association is, to induce all those engaged in the same occupation to become members of it. Such a purpose is not unlawful. It would give them a power which might be exerted for useful and honorable purposes, or for dangerous and pernicious ones. If the latter were the real and actual object, and susceptible of proof, it should have been specially charged. Such an association might be used to afford each other assistance in times of poverty, sickness and distress; or to raise their intellectual, moral and social condition; or to make improvement in their art; or for other proper purposes. Or the association might be designed for purposes of oppression and injustice. But in order to charge all those, who become members of an association, with the guilt of a criminal conspiracy, it must be averred and proved that the actual, if not the avowed object of the association, was criminal." The moral argument is that you have the right to do as you wish, limited to legal and moral restrictions. You need to demonstrate that the result causes injustice, not assume it exists. > I personally am not an opportunistic person in that sense. I personally find it very boring to have a discussion with people who make up their own non-standard definitions to justify their position. > striking is not a moral right either Then why should anyone care? Many legal things in the US are not based on moral rights. Where is the moral right to fire an employee? What is the moral right to restrict the presidency to persons 35 or older?
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      Because we are discussing in this thread whether there is a moral right to strike.
      - eesmith 3y ago

invalidname 3y ago

This is called a strawman argument. Even in the writers strike some productions got a pass to keep working and finishing important projects. Doctors and nurses were on strike here, urgent care and treatment was still given. This is a ridiculous argument designed to strip away the only power working people have against corporations.

eesmith 3y ago

A fundamental principle in the US is that people are allowed use legal means to make money, even if that means others may make less money. You may call that "opportunism", likely using the neutral definition "putting self-interest before other interests when there is an opportunity to do so, or flexibly adapting to changing circumstances to maximize self-interest" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism . If you have a problem with that, what then is the moral right to form a limited liability company? How are companies not just opportunism by the owners of the company?

friend_and_foe 3y ago
I wouldn't call that a fundamental principle. A contentious state of affairs that we all begrudgingly live by because that's the world we are in. Nobody likes it when laws are crafted that create injustice because it is profitable. I personally am not an opportunistic person in that sense. I don't think someone has a right to shield themselves from liability for their actions. I don't try to do so, and I only passingly consider the legality of behavior I engage in, and only consider the ethics or morality. I would never engage in behavior that would cost someone else knowingly for my own benefit, legal or not. I'd like to live in and help build a society where, from first principles, when we understand the ethics or morals of certain behavior, if something is deemed unethical it is illegal, and likewise the opposite. That's me personally, and probably a lot of people. That's one of the reasons I don't live or work in SV. So I'd say no, it's not a principle and I agree, limited liability is not a moral right. Which brings us back to the topic at hand: striking is not a moral right either.
- eesmith 3y ago
  > I wouldn't call that a fundamental principle. Okay, you have your definition and you can dream of some utopian world where everyone practices your own morality. The thing is, all you've done is shift the topic to what 'injustice' means. The US court case which established the right to strike, Commonwealth v. Hunt, specifically highlights how union action is not necessarily injustice but may have a "proper purpose". Quoting https://web.archive.org/web/20150123211142/http://www.lovkoandking.com/commonwealth-v-hunt.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150123211142/http://www.lovkoa... : "The manifest intent of the association is, to induce all those engaged in the same occupation to become members of it. Such a purpose is not unlawful. It would give them a power which might be exerted for useful and honorable purposes, or for dangerous and pernicious ones. If the latter were the real and actual object, and susceptible of proof, it should have been specially charged. Such an association might be used to afford each other assistance in times of poverty, sickness and distress; or to raise their intellectual, moral and social condition; or to make improvement in their art; or for other proper purposes. Or the association might be designed for purposes of oppression and injustice. But in order to charge all those, who become members of an association, with the guilt of a criminal conspiracy, it must be averred and proved that the actual, if not the avowed object of the association, was criminal." The moral argument is that you have the right to do as you wish, limited to legal and moral restrictions. You need to demonstrate that the result causes injustice, not assume it exists. > I personally am not an opportunistic person in that sense. I personally find it very boring to have a discussion with people who make up their own non-standard definitions to justify their position. > striking is not a moral right either Then why should anyone care? Many legal things in the US are not based on moral rights. Where is the moral right to fire an employee? What is the moral right to restrict the presidency to persons 35 or older?
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    Because we are discussing in this thread whether there is a moral right to strike.
    - eesmith 3y ago