4 ms·

> the problem with unions is that they tend to enjoy legal protections not afforded to anyone else Capital has higher protections than unions, what are you on

by braiamp 2mo ago

> the problem with unions is that they tend to enjoy legal protections not afforded to anyone else Capital has higher protections than unions, what are you on about? You have the corporate veil whereas the liability stops at the organization rather than the individuals and that is very seldomly pierced (J&J is a neat case here, even while courts are being wise to that move now). Also, if carve-outs distort markets, that argument disqualifies the corporate form first. Because corpos have limited liability, corporate personhood, patent monopolies, etc. they also have political power on top, which is always fun. BTW, and I alluded to this in another comment, antitrust was used against labor, not capital. Labor had to work for decades to be excluded. Before that, union members got personally sued into the ground under antitrust, almost losing their homes and savings accounts. Maybe we should bring that back too, but with actual people that needs to be antitrusted.

teravor 2mo ago
> Capital has higher protections than unions, what are you on about? You have the corporate veil whereas the liability stops at the organization rather than the individuals the corporate veil does not protect capital, it explicitly makes capital be the vulnerable part. or are you decrying the fact that a human capitalist isn't made vulnerable? there are good reasons for that as in a standard corporate setting individuals may not have the requisite influence to dictate a course of action, if they are held responsible by what the emergent corporate entity embarks on then there will be no capitalism. if the unions become corporate entities and their members give up all labor protections (become contractors) then it will be more even but they obviously don't want that. a highly organized minority is always the elite for a reason.
- braiamp 2mo ago
  When I talk about capital owners I meant their home, savings, etc. So yes, the invested capital is vulnerable, that's the point. Their personal exposure is limited instead. And "otherwise there would be no capitalism" is basically my argument. We give capital special legal protections because unlimited personal liability would make organizing capital much harder. So the objection can't simply be that labor gets special legal protections too, you'd have to explain why those protections are unjustified for labor but justified for capital.

by braiamp 2mo ago

teravor 2mo ago

> Capital has higher protections than unions, what are you on about? You have the corporate veil whereas the liability stops at the organization rather than the individuals the corporate veil does not protect capital, it explicitly makes capital be the vulnerable part. or are you decrying the fact that a human capitalist isn't made vulnerable? there are good reasons for that as in a standard corporate setting individuals may not have the requisite influence to dictate a course of action, if they are held responsible by what the emergent corporate entity embarks on then there will be no capitalism. if the unions become corporate entities and their members give up all labor protections (become contractors) then it will be more even but they obviously don't want that. a highly organized minority is always the elite for a reason.

braiamp 2mo ago
When I talk about capital owners I meant their home, savings, etc. So yes, the invested capital is vulnerable, that's the point. Their personal exposure is limited instead. And "otherwise there would be no capitalism" is basically my argument. We give capital special legal protections because unlimited personal liability would make organizing capital much harder. So the objection can't simply be that labor gets special legal protections too, you'd have to explain why those protections are unjustified for labor but justified for capital.