DaDragon

You’re disregarding Art.15 III GG then. Particularly Art. 15 III s. 2,3 GG (of the German version), which regulate reimbursement in the case of nationalisation. Which, again, make it a fairly difficult thing to do. Especially as we all know that Art. 20a GG, which is the only logical argument to base this all on, is just a way of getting out of actually doing something. Pretty much everyone has agreed that it means nothing except for a vague sense of ‘direction’.

As for your last point, that could just as easily be interpreted as the energy they produce being in the service of energy production for the entire country, as well as ensuring that coal miners continue to have a job. If that’s not a socially beneficial use of coal reserves, not sure what to tell you. Energy self sufficiency is important.

As for your landlord comment, which honestly is an entirely different matter in and of itself, that basically won’t fall under ‘land, natural resources or means of production’, unless one of those Berlin judges decides to do Berlin things.

EDIT (because I forgot the context of what I was replying to)
None of this even takes into account that what the guy above me wrote was about simply ‘shutting down coal’ tomorrow. Which is a very different thing from taking public ownership, and then running the business into the ground overnight.

Is that legal? I’ll tell you the answer, it’s not. They would need to pay massive payouts to RWE for breach of contract. What you’re describing is rule of emotion, not rule of law.

Because the entire economy of that region depends on coal mining and coal miners. You are aware that closing the mine down tomorrow would instantly land a fairly large group of people into poverty because they have no other marketable job skills other than coal mining, right?

Between the TV and the bed there’s a black thing. The side profile seems to indicate it’s a couch.

Kompromiss: andere Länder bleiben bei ihren archaischen Tempolimits, wir in Deutschland machen wie normale Menschen weiter.

(Sorry for the late reply, been busy)

No idea man, I just work here. There have been commercials showing Kool Aid man getting up in the morning, going into the shower, filling up with water, and then squirting in kool-aid. So by assumption, Kool Aid man is Kool Aid man simply because he chooses to be filled with Kool Aid, just like how a goth is a goth because they wear goth clothing, not because they, themselves, are the definition of goth.

The Jug Life

I think the idea is that Kool-aid man is both the liquid and the jug. Though we have clear proof that Kool-aid man is just a big glass jug, and is not the liquid.