• Zorque
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    The problem is that if you’re willing to sacrifice the good of the minority for the stagnation of the masses, everyone is going to suffer. Because the majority is just a conglomeration of lots of different minorities. So no matter the issue, you’re one chopping block away from being sacrificed for the sake of maintaining the status quo.

    Breaking the strike didn’t make anyone’s life better… just made it less inconvenient for people who wouldn’t benefit from the strike.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      The problem is that if you’re willing to sacrifice the good of the minority for the stagnation of the masses, everyone is going to suffer.

      The benefit is that if you’re willing to protect the good of the majority for the prevention of greater harm to the masses, everyone is going to benefit.

      Changing a few words in your statement flips it the other way.

      Breaking the strike didn’t make anyone’s life better… just made it less inconvenient for people who wouldn’t benefit from the strike.

      It didn’t make lives better, it worked to prevent further harm. The making lives better should be coming after the fact in the forms of new legislation be pushed to prevent this scenario while protecting the workers and the unions at the same time.

      This is why it bothers me so much when people allude to one action taken as if it means something more while also excluding additional details that don’t support what’s being alluded to.

      It’s ok to be upset about blocking the strike while also acknowledging the tough decision to prevent harm to the majority.

      What is wrong with stating the president broke the strike but continued to work after the fact to get the unions what they were looking for to begin with?

      Then you can focus your criticism on what action has or hasn’t been taken to prevent this situation in the future while protecting the rights of workers or unions?