why did you disingenuously disconnect the two parts of my sentence (regarding "starting a business on one's own being perceived as being Literally Impossible" a

why did you disingenuously disconnect the two parts of my sentence (regarding "starting a business on one's own being perceived as being Literally Impossible" and "ubiquitous instantaneous communication has made collaboration in shared purpose easier than any prior point in human history", and then respond to them separately, as if they were two separate thoughts? they were two parts of the same thought, hence them sharing the same sentence. anytime enthusiastically pro-union people want to try to start a business on their own, together, by pooling their resources to collectively take on risk—if for no reason but to prove that unions don't exist more or less solely to tear down existing things that weren't built by the union themselves—they're more than welcome to give it a shot. but, since this doesn't really seem to happen, it's really easy to continue to perceive enthusiastically pro-union people as outwardly appearing entitled to rewards for risks and resources that were not theirs. anyone can destroy—it takes considerably more effort to create.