: So, we come back then, to teh simple fact that their wealth is utterkly un-earned, and got simply through ownership of property?
And communal ownership is precisely the same 'unearned' (by your very particular definition) ownership, and is called equitable because there is straight 'all this divided by all them' calculation.
Its not that different - just the way the split is decided. In capitalism by ability to exchange value, by socialism by ability to...well - exist.
: Except a socialised firm would probably be in the position of not being dominated by empire building cliques-
Im glad you added the word 'probably' there, it being not subject to 'proof' until practiced and empire building being quite possible under any model.
: Why unlikely, I expect being put in such a position would reflect their long experience and their esteem among the workforce in general- and some admin posts may well be appointed by lottery (I like apppointment by lottery, fine greek idea...).
fascinating quality process - some people are better at some takss than others - we are not infinately interchangeable. even if we were theoretically able to be equally skilled (whic I reject) then we would never be after divergence in experience etc. Would it reflect esteem and who would 'put' them in such a position - I though you 'voted' for yourself not others?
: If I have not wage, and no personal interest (income-wise) regarding the the size of my department, I will have no incentive to empire build- if my department exists solely to perform a function, and is not constantly trheatened by budget cuts (which is the real source of empire building- once you've got a budget, you have to spend it, lest they cut it, and you might well need that higher budget next year...etc.).
the same threats posed by budgets are posed by resource allocations of any kind. The impetus to empire build has the same dynamic in socialism. To stop it you would have to employ mean to prune it.
: Yes, many more dollars were needed, famillies lost income (bread winners down), the hospitals built by UC and the Indian government were utterly inadequate, the people of Bhopal were left to rot.
What I meant specifically is that UC couldnt not help in any true sense - even if they had $1billion spare and made Bhopal into an abundance paradise it would have been too late in the context of thousands dead.
: Especially when their factories release 40 tonnes of toxic gas- odd that. 'I do not believe nicotine is addictive' bwahahahahahaha!
There comes a point where you just have say no. If you stuck a screwdriver into your eye would a) expect to see better, b) blame the toolmaker? In smoking would you a) expect to breathe better when 'the bleeding obvious' answer is that lungs are made for normal air and b) blame the company for any results.
Any specific areas of cigarettes can be tackled under appropriate areas of fraudulent misrepresentation. in law (ideally) you dont look at how black poor Mr Smiths lungs are, but whether the company fraudulently (and with intent) misrepresented the product. if you can establish that there is a case - unfortunately the wrong end of the (cancer) stick is the one that makes media gurus give column inches and lawyers submit lawsuits. You can be all indignant on TV you know, pretend to care etc.
: Givcen the way the Indian government has failed to pursue the case, has backed down to UC (lowered compensation, changed charges of culpable homicide to mansluaghter, etc.), I think they haven't bbeen too willing to hold UC to account.
behind the scenes deals no doubt. Typical in cases where one govt (US) doesnt need Indian votes and the other (Indian) doesnt fear a backlash from its well trained caste populous.
In the US a company is presumed guilty until proven innocent, whereupon they are just assumed to be 'suspicious'. hmmmm.