Commonwealth v. Hunt is the legal case which established the right to unions in the US. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt https://en.wikip

Commonwealth v. Hunt is the legal case which established the right to unions in the US. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt . The crux of the decision is: > We think, therefore, that associations may be entered into, the object of which is to adopt measures that may have a tendency to impoverish another, that is, to diminish his gains and profits, and yet so far from being criminal or unlawful, the object may be highly meritorious and public spirited. The legality of such an association will therefore depend upon the means to be used for its accomplishment. If it is to be carried into effect by fair or honorable and lawful means, it is, to say the least, innocent; if by falsehood or force, it may be stamped with the character of conspiracy. If you use legal methods to form and carry out a union, then it is fine. The moral right to strike is the same as the moral right to form a company. Archive.org tells me Commonwealth v. Hunt is not mentioned in the two page appendix essay "There Is No Moral Right to Strike" of "The Coming Aristocracy" at https://archive.org/details/comingaristocrac0000leon_p8i8/page/168/mode/2up?q=%22strike%22 https://archive.org/details/comingaristocrac0000leon_p8i8/pa... . The argument hinges on a definition that a strike is a "coercion to force unwilling exchange or to inhibit willing exchange", which is a something Commonwealth v. Hunt addressed over a century previous.