I am not sure what it means to do this. You ahve to specify more.

“My objection is that Republic cut the health insurance without telling the employers. You don’t see a problem with that? WOuld you see a problem with the wages being cut without notification (in breach of contract)?”

I am not sure what you mean. Of course people aer “told” when their wages are cut. “Hey, gus, I was paying you $12/hour, but starting tomorrow, it’ll be $10/hour. Hard times.”

What’s the big deal?<<<

nskinsella: Do you ignore always ignore elements of a discussion you don’t like? I specifically brought up that Republic’s employees health insurance was canceled without notification. Is this ok? Would you support this in your ideal society?

“Only because you insist on conflating contractually limited liability (which left-Rothbardians don’t oppose) with limited tort liability granted by the state incorporation charters you claim to oppose.”

I am not conflating them. It’s the other way around: when you guys oppose corporations based on their limited liability features, your argumetns woudl apply equally to a free market version of it. That’s why they are flawed.

“regarding: “But the main thing is that the property is probably already mortgaged so that it’s not reall owend by the employer–but by some secured creditors.”

“Then let this hypothetical creditor materialize and press their alleged claim so it can be compared to that of the workers. The union showed up for multi-lateral talks that included the company’s principal banker. It was the company management that didn’t show up.”

Uh, okay. Look, here is the bottom line. 1. The workers were squatting on property they didn’t own. 2. There is not even any proof they have a contractual claim. If they do, they shoudl be paid–out of any unencumbered assets. 3. The property is probably owned by another creditor.

“Meanwhile, the workers continue to guard the collateral ”

Better than breaking windowz, I guess.

“Only because you insist on conflating contractually limited liability (which left-Rothbardians don’t oppose) with limited tort liability granted by the state incorporation charters you claim to oppose.”

I am not conflating them. It’s the other way around: when you guys oppose corporations based on their limited liability features, your argumetns woudl apply equally to a free market version of it. That’s why they are flawed.

“regarding: “But the main thing is that the property is probably already mortgaged so that it’s not reall owend by the employer–but by some secured creditors.”

“Then let this hypothetical creditor materialize and press their alleged claim so it can be compared to that of the workers. The union showed up for multi-lateral talks that included the company’s principal banker. It was the company management that didn’t show up.”

Uh, okay. Look, here is the bottom line. 1. The workers were squatting on property they didn’t own. 2. There is not even any proof they have a contractual claim. If they do, they shoudl be paid–out of any unencumbered assets. 3. The property is probably owned by another creditor.

“Meanwhile, the workers continue to guard the collateral ”

Better than breaking windowz, I guess.

Bank Says It Will Consider Loan to Pay Workers in Factory Sit-In
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/10factory.html?ref=us

Republic Windows owner linked to Iowa plant purchase
http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago_news/Republic_Windows_owner_linked_to_Iowa_plant_purchase,19712

Then let this hypothetical creditor materialize and press their alleged claim so it can be compared to that of the workers. The union showed up for multi-lateral talks that included the company’s principal banker. It was the company management that didn’t show up.

Meanwhile, the workers continue to guard the collateral — because the company management have reportedly already started a different window company under a different name, bought a plant in a new town, hired temps there and were carting off equipment to the new plant from the old before the closing of the old one was even announced. Fat lot of good that equipment would do your hypothetical claimants if it had already been swiped by the management team charged with a fiduciary duty to manage it as operating capital.

Only because you insist on conflating contractually limited liability (which left-Rothbardians don’t oppose) with limited tort liability granted by the state incorporation charters you claim to oppose.