Do you need make character sheet, if so how should it be written?
No character sheets required, although I suppose they'd be a handy reference.
Make a small effort of it, you may well be surprised.
Well, you're coming across as quite hostile from a dead start, so I don't actually especially
want to invest the effort, but for the sake of experimentation: my political and economic opinions, in addition to not being present in this text, come from so unorthodox a perspective that they don't readily
map to the very categories I'm using in this quest. It is equally silly to suggest that I'm advocating for the entirely fictional New Capitalist ideology as it is to suggest that I'm voting for Turkey Wingnut Rapscallion as the foundation of the ideal political platform.
I don't really understand how this is a hostile takeover? You can only "take over" by... actually working there. In which case, what are you taking over, exactly? Control of your own labour? You had that already, though?
Also, I suspect if you tried to form a syndicate to try to forcibly influence workplace democracy, you would rapidly have the issue of people being unwilling to hire from that syndicate?
I mean, it's legitimate under the rules, but so is a hostile takeover. In a typical corporation, you just go to the shareholders and convince them of the merits of your case, which is perfectly legal. In this case, you don't have shareholders, so you send workers to a business with the intent of outnumbering and displacing the prior workers and assuming control of the company. Or maybe you don't even bother, and just try to convince the already-present workers to sell themselves to your larger company before using your massive numbers advantage to remove them from their positions and restructure their assets. Negotiating in bad faith is not a
capitalist concept; it's
human. Or maybe (almost certainly) there's some other underhanded strategy that didn't occur to me in the last ten minutes. And in theory, yes, people would stop associating with you, but that a) presumes that their agents are foolish enough to announce their affiliations ahead of time, and b) is in theory what prevents companies from falling to hostile takeovers IRL, but they still do. There's always somebody selfish or short-sighted enough to break ranks, even ignoring malice.
It's just...people being dicks. I've yet to see a political or economic system that has managed to address every case of that. It's a system. There are rules. People will game them.
Really, though, my reaction is more glee than anything else. That's some nice worldbuilding to use.
What sort of legal concepts would those be, exactly?
Lots of First Amendment stuff is rooted there, actually, but you can relate a fair amount of due process back to it. Honestly, a lot more of the stuff in the Bill of Rights is rooted directly in Enlightenment ideals than stuff in the actual Constitution, and it's those things of which we tend to think when we try to envision the ideological foundation of America. Like, if somebody asks you whether the ideological foundation of America is freedom of expression or a legislative body chosen according to geographical districts, what are you picking?
@PoptartProdigy Yeah I figured as much. The mechanical debuff doesn't what gets me, throwing any sort of founding document is a pretty big deal no matter how you spin it. It's just the wording comes off as very aggressive and pessimistic of the Constitution but I suppose in this instance people are legitimately upset as they perceive that it failed them and the nation. Still, saying it belongs in a trash heap of history is very strong wording.
I mean, in addition to capturing the popular perception of the move, I am
also paraphrasing a couple of posters from the thread.
Guessing from what others have told me, I trust the OP shall slap us harshly with the pitfalls and weaknesses of our chosen system whatever it is.
This one gets it.
