2/2

If a worker voluntarily commits a crime for their employer, that is still inalienably their decision. Yes, the employer told them to do it, and that gave them a reason to do it, but having a reason doesn’t absolve them of guilt or responsibility for their actions

@technology

1/2

A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their intentional joint actions. The pure application of the norm that legal and de facto responsibility match is to deliberate actions. The workers joint actions that use up inputs to produce outputs are planned and deliberate. They meet the criteria for being premeditated. The workers are not under duress in normal work, and consent to the employer-employee contract.

@technology

I’m not a socialist because I think markets are useful and haven’t seen a planned economy proposal that seemed plausible. Worker co-ops and unions aren’t socialism in 20th century sense because they are technically compatible with markets and private property.

An economic democracy is a market economy where all firms are worker co-ops, so I was speaking about managers in a worker co-op

@technology

If the Republicans are going to call the Democrats communists and socialist regardless of how moderate a campaign Democrats run, Democrats might as well lean further left on economic policy. Appealing to the right does nothing because the right can appeal to the right better than the center-left can

@leftism

5/5

Creating or joining a worker coop is a much more actionable political step that someone could take then completely transforming the government. If the worker coop movement grows big enough, it could acquire the economic power to purchase it own lobbyists to influence the political process to hopefully pass those reforms

4/5

It is irrelevant that some workers don’t want to be held responsible for the positive and negative results of their actions (the whole result of production). Responsibility can’t be transferred even with consent. If an employer-employee cooperate to commit a crime, both are responsible. This argument is establishes an inalienable right i.e. a right that can’t be given up or transferred even with consent like political voting rights today

2/5

The empirical evidence I have seen on worker coops and employee-owned companies seems to suggest that worker-run companies are slightly more productive.

I oppose socialism as I think markets are useful. I advocate economic democracy

In an economic democracy, the employer-employee contract is abolished, so workers automatically legally get voting rights over management upon joining a firm.

1/5

Worker coops can have managers. Managers’ interests can be aligned with the long term interests of the firm by giving them non-voting preferred shares as part of their compensation. Managers will make sure workers they are managing perform. The difference is that these managers are ultimately accountable to the entire body of workers and are thus their delegates.

Profits/wages don’t have to be divided equally among workers.

I’m going to use multiple toots since I’m on Mastodon

Your reforms sound good, but aren’t pragmatic. Today’s system requires you to have lobbyists to push an agenda through. Who is going to fund the lobbyists to make these reforms happen.

Also, even in an ideal capitalism, there is still an injustice at the heart of the system. The employer-employee contract violates the tenet of legal and de facto responsibility matching. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, but employer is held solely legally responsible.

@technology

Thanks for the feedback. Will try to keep that in mind when coming up with post titles

@solarpunk

I have never found a meme that suitably emphasizes the responsibility aspect. Responsibility plays an essential role in the underlying argument due to the peculiarity that responsibility can’t be transferred from person to person even with consent. You find memes about workers deserving the entire value of their labor, but none that emphasize responsibility and workers’ property rights to the literal produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs rather than just their value

@solarpunk

The entire video isn’t required to understand the argument. The first 15 minutes are sufficient

This argument probably can be explained in a 4 panel comic.

Probably, something like:
1 side: an employer and employee cooperating to commit a crime, which results in both being held responsible
Other side: an employer and employee cooperating to produce a widget resulting in the employer solely appropriating 100% of the property rights to the widget and liabilities for used-up inputs

@solarpunk

A variant of this should replace non-profit tax exemptions and all campaign finance rules.

The way to prevent bribing is secret and anonymous contributions. You could, for example, imagine including these contributions to your favorite media and FOSS organizations as part of your ballot.

This could be implemented by a federation of worker coops to fund local public goods that all the member coops benefit from with the matching pool coming from membership fees and Harberger leases

@socialism

Any company that receives government subsidies or is bailed out because it’s too big too fail or whatever the reason should be mandated to become a worker coop

@politics

The founders can hold more or all non-voting preferred stock in the worker coop to represent their larger stake and investment. They can also use a separate corporation, which only the founders own, with no employees to hold their capital and then lease it the worker coop

@politics

It would definitely be easier in an economy where this was the only way of doing things.

I am not a lawyer.

Based on the underlying economic theory and ethical arguments for worker coops/employee-owned companies, what you could do in such a situation is make a separate legal entity for the worker coop, and then lease the assets of the current legal entity to the worker coop. You and your partner maintain exclusive ownership of the original legal entity

@politics

Or we could abolish the employer-employee contract and mandate that all firms be worker coops, so that no one could appropriate the positive and negative fruits of other people’s labor

@news

There is information in it. Namely, that it itself is false. It is fully grammatical. Similar sentence are obviously valid such as:

This sentence has five words.

That is a true valid grammatical sentence.

I didn’t invent the paradox. Philosophers have been contemplating this paradox for a long time.

The problem it gestures at is very deep and similar paradoxes showed up in the foundations of mathematics in the 20th century. It can’t be dismissed easily.

@general

That sentence has a presupposition. The sentence I used can be fully formalized in a logic with predicates for knowledge of an entity and truth

@science_memes

Being logical doesn’t imply knowing every true sentence.

Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knower_paradox

@science_memes