One could easily point out Libertarian misconceptions about anarchism or what libertarianism actually means, too. I'm using communism in this example because we've all seen them use Soviet straw men.
explodicle
I was incorrectly assuming that's what you meant by workers owning production, but I see in your reply to the other post that you also include state power organized labor.
So I guess my point is that a Libertarian would use the meme above with a punchline of "we just say communism" instead of Soviet Communism, when most here would not agree that's the inevitable result of all communism.
I think if a Libertarian considered workers owning production in good faith but using their own terms, they'd see that a bunch of people owning production is more decentralized than one dude owning the whole factory. And then become a left libertarian.
What's the question? Whether or not to unionize?
I think it's more constructive to interpret what someone means, rather than with our own definitions that occasionally go against the common vernacular.
That's why pointing out that today's authoritarian dictatorships aren't communism - while correct - is always interpreted as a True Scotsman. They're differentiating "crony" capitalism because they haven't been convinced that capitalism inevitably leads to the rich buying laws. They think we just need the right people in charge.
Isn't the slogan "workers of the world unite?"
Macrotransactions
Don't you get 3 restarts?
Did you have a PC in 2010?
Since we get all the information we have now: the correct answer was Bitcoin Armory. You'd have a dedicated computer just for signing transactions, carried back and forth over flash drives.
That was a lot more difficult before BIP39 seed phrases were invented. You could of course write down anything, but there would've been a lot of room for error.
I'm not going to pretend like I have all the answers there. Personally I don't think goverments are helpful; the vanguard state has failed repeatedly. Those weren't "crony" vanguard state. But unions and co-ops have worked out much better. If everybody is voting, then elites would need to coerce everyone instead of just whoever is in charge. One Stalin can't ruin everything.
This can cause its own problems (like voter fatigue), but those can be mitigated in various ways (like with liquid democracy). And if/when it becomes corrupt and your voice goes unheard, then creating or joining a new union is much easier than doing so with a new government.