2 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoWhen 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.