An #EconomicDemocracy is a market economy where most firms are structured as #WorkerCoops.
Worker co-ops don’t necessarily have full worker ownership of the means of production because a worker coop can lease means of production from a third party. It is not socialist. Nor do I mean to suggest it is capitalist. It can’t be capitalism as it has no capitalists as you correctly point out. Since you recognize that it is technically correct to say a worker co-op market economy has private property, you recognize
Capitalism ≠ private property @asklemmy
When I said capitalists there I meant liberal defenders of capitalism.
A market economy of worker coops has private property, so can’t be socialist. Market socialism is a misnomer and unnecessarily associates with a label people already have preconceived notions about @asklemmy
The normative basis of private property, which capitalists claim to adhere to, is people’s inalienable right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. Capitalism routinely violates this principle in the employment contract. Satisfying the principles of private property would require that all firms be worker cooperatives. The principles of liberalism imply anti-capitalism. It is entirely compatible to be a liberal and an anti-capitalist @asklemmy
Many liberals are anti-worker, but the political philosophy of liberalism is not inherently anti-worker. Liberal anti-capitalists like David Ellerman illustrate this using liberal principles of justice to argue for a universal inalienable right to workers’ self-management and abolition of the employer-employee relationship @asklemmy
GrapheneOS is more secure than linux: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html
A FairPhone that can run GrapheneOS.
Dual screen phone (separate screens not foldable) with that can run GrapheneOS
Tablet with keyboard case that runs GrapheneOS and has support for Linux apps, so I can replace my PC with something more private and secure
Don’t know if this is possible but a keyboard where each key can show different icons depending on if the shift or control key is pressed to make keyboard shortcuts easier to learn, but still possible to type without looking
Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.
Value doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative
That is strange to me as well. He normally talks about abolishing the employer-employee relationship in favor of democratic worker membership in the firm. I speculate that it has to do with trying to explain it to a more general audience
ESOPs in the US by default work something like that. The author is definitely not advocating that. He has a similar critique of American ESOPs in this work: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/102452
The author advocates 1 worker 1 vote (or equal voice if we are talking more sophisticated voting systems like quadratic voting). He is definitely speaking from a more democratic tradition
It wasn’t even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role
What I meant was blacklisting certain destinations. It obviously wouldn’t prevent all malicious traffic
Would it be possible to allow exit nodes to blacklist specific kinds of traffic and somehow privately verify that the traffic is not one of the blacklisted kinds (zero knowledge proof perhaps sorry not a CS person)?
End-to-end encryption is my favorite technology.
- Prevents those with power from spying on everyone and ossifying their power
- Protects communications from smaller scale malicious actors
The difference between something natural and artificial (man made) is that no one is responsible for the natural. People are responsible for producing the artificial. Animals, for example, are moral patients, so bear no responsibility for the results of their actions. That is why animals are a part of nature.
I would recommend reading David Ellerman to get more of this perspective. Here is a link to a text where he argues that the employment contract is illiberal, which means that it violates liberalism’s fundamental principles, and the only kind of economy that is compatible with liberalism is an economic democracy where all firms are democratic: https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Article-from-ReclaimingLiberalismEbook.pdf
The workers should not have to negotiate for their inalienable rights to appropriate the fruits of their labor, the moral basis for private property. A system that really defends private property should guarantee and secure their rights. You might respond that workers consent to give up their rights, but the rights are inalienable meaning they cannot be transferred even with consent. They’re inalienable because they follow from de facto responsibility, which can’t be given up even with consent
The workers do produce sprockets and are jointly de facto responsible for them. A group is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their joint intentional actions. Responsibility cannot be cut off like this just like it cannot be cut off at the trigger pull and ignore the resulting crime. The sprockets are a purposeful result.
Selling labor is different. I can transfer capital and the person can use it independently of me, but I can’t do so with myself @asklemmy
Perhaps, but there isn’t a good reason to place such a restriction on worker co-ops. Worker co-ops shouldn’t be forced to buy the entire thing when a segment of its services would do.
Liberals as a group tend to support capitalism. Liberalism as a political philosophy can have implications that claimed adherents don’t endorse. After mapping out all the logical implications of liberal principles, it becomes clear that coherent liberalism is anti-capitalist @asklemmy