Unions can also receive fines for organizing illegal strikes. Union heads have gone to jail for organizing illegal strikes, but it's incredibly rare and hasn't happed in decades.

I suppose the corollary to my question then is, "What are the traits that an organized strike must have that makes it immoral or harmful to a society enough to enact punitive legislation?"

Simply put, "Where's the line?", as they say. I understand military necessity, but Air Canada is a business, despite being publicly traded (as far as I know).

The right to contract is fundamental to our Constitution in the United States. It's protected by the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments. Though many disagree, the United States Constitution is, on paper, agnostic in terms of economic systems.

The question, for me personally, is do socialist or communist systems produce less corruption in capitalist systems inherently? My answer is no. I am of the opinion that neither arbitrary central planning nor complete laissez-faire economics are inherently more virtuous or morally sound than the other. Economic systems just like their political counterparts are susceptible to corruption in determining what individuals or societies "need".

Immoral behavior by smaller groups within larger groups is a byproduct of human nature. No matter the economic system, the only way to reduce corruption is to build systems that do not concentrate power, be it the state, or a group of unscrupulous plutocrats that rig free markets in their favor once they've cornered them.

I contend that societies that perform the best (i.e., upward social mobility, positive outcomes in hunger, per capita income, life expectancy, infant mortality, and literacy rates) have hybrid systems between socialist and market economies with tightly regulated and enforced antitrust and consumer protection.

Political and economic power must not be allowed to concentrate in individuals, trading guilds, institutions, nor the state.