> Yes, I do support that right, just as I support people's right
> to try to fight that.
You mean that you support people's right to fight, but not to actually win? You support people's right to fight, but you would prefer that the state not take their side? You would oppose, say, a law banning permanent scabs? Once again, I don't think you really believe this, or at least, I don't think you've fully thought through the implications of what you're saying.
> I also support everybody's right to vote and argue for fascists,
> though I obviously oppose fascism. It's called democracy.
No, it's called capitalism. The two are not synonymous. And putting aside the notion that fascists have a right to "free speech" (I'll just accept your premise for the sake of argument), there's a difference between some crackpot advocating fascist ideas, and someone putting fascist ideas into practice by going into the streets and busting heads. Similarly, there's a difference between someone advocating a "right to scab" and someone actually doing it. Scabbing is not speech or advocacy -- it is actively colluding with capital to steal someone else's job.
So I'm sorry, but nothing you're saying here makes much sense. You support capitalists' "rights," but also "the right to fight against it"? Wojtek is correct: everything you're saying is imbued with business ideology. In no other country on earth would a trade unionist say the kinds of things you are saying, and I do not say this to disparage you as a trade unionist in any way. In many other countries, not only are permanent scabs banned, but there are much more severe state restrictions on an employer's ability to hire scabs en masse, not to mention a deeper social ethic against scabbing. Surely you are not suggesting that this a bad thing?
The kinds of arguments that you are employing are the kinds of false appeals to "individual" choice that employers use in arguing for "right to work laws" against "forced union dues," attempts to further restrict unions' political participation on the grounds of "paycheck protection," and the like. They're profoundly anti-democratic lines of argument dressed in pseudo-democratic garb, where the "market" becomes the ultimate arbiter for freedom and synonymous with democracy.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories