I agree that employment is voluntary in the legal sense. Voluntary transaction occur if both parties perceive that they will benefit from the arrangement. The problem is that responsibility can't be transferred.

You know that there is no de facto transfer of de facto responsibility happening in the employment contract. If you thought that a transfer of de facto responsibility occurs in employment, you would think that the employer is solely legally responsible for crimes committed

@politics

Employment is a voluntary transaction, but there has to be some corresponding factual transfer to actually fulfill the contract. No such de facto transfer of de facto responsibility occurs to match the assignment of legal responsibility in the employment contract. The contract is not ever fulfilled nor is it, in principle, fulfillable. The only arrangement where legal and de facto responsibility match is a worker coop. Labor is nontransferable at a factual level. You accepted as much

@politics

100% land value tax would solve this @asklemmy

The tenet that legal and de facto responsibility match, when applied to property theoretic questions, is the tenet that people have an inalienable right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. The latter is the principled basis of property rights. Since employment violates the former principle, it also violates the latter. Employment contracts violate property rights' principled basis.

Labor isn't transferable.

The foundations of capitalism need destroying

@politics

Thank you for making my argument for me. Now, what morally relevantly changes when workers cooperate to produce a widget on behalf of the employer instead of committing crimes for the employer? Do they become non-conscious non-responsible robots? No.

Legal responsibility matching de facto responsibility implies that all firms should be mandated to be worker coops, and rules out employer-employee contracts. In worker coops, the workers are jointly legally responsible for the results

@politics

Not quite. Voting rights over firm governance are non-transferable/inalienable. The employer-employee contract is abolished, and everyone is always individually or jointly self-employed.

Incorporating social objectives should be done at the level of associations of worker coops

@general

Things are even more complicated than that due to the existence of liberal anti-capitalists that interpret the liberal theory of inalienable rights, which originated in the abolitionist, democratic and feminist movements, as also invalidating the employer-employee contract.

In other words, there is overlap between liberals and leftists as well

@progressivepolitics

While many socialists supported worker coops in the interim, an economy of exclusively worker coops comes more so from the classical laborists such as Proudhon.

@general

I'm aware of the standard line.

De facto responsibility can't be transferred from the employees solely to the employer to match the legal responsibility assignment in the employer-employee contract. A thought experiment showing this is to consider an employer and employee cooperating to commit a crime. The employee can't argue that they sold their labor, and are not responsible. The law correctly applies the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching. Both are criminous

@politics

An employer, in principle, can hire both labor and capital, so they don't have to own capital. In practice, employers tend to be corporations that own capital due to bargaining power.

Workers consent to employment terms, but they can't fulfill them. The problem is that consent is not a sufficient condition to transfer de facto responsibility.

Abolishing employment doesn't infringe on property rights. Employment contracts infringe on labor's property rights to the fruits of labor
@politics

Workers are de facto responsible for creating the opportunities that employers gate keep. Employers violate workers' inalienable rights. The workers are de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce outputs, but the employer gets sole legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production. This violates the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match.

No one is responsible for creating land. Landlords deny everyone's equal claim to land

@politics

Intellectually honest people that for whatever reason started out on the center-right can be convinced to support worker coops. The arguments in favor of them are personal responsibility arguments that center-right people tend to favor. I actually posted one such moral argument for worker coops in this community. Here is a link to that post:

https://lemmy.world/post/17963706

I agree that it is not capitalism as it abolishes the employer-employee contract, but it isn't quite socialism either because it is technically compatible with private property.

In terms of expanding the worker coop sector, I actually have some ideas for getting startup funding for worker coops, and creating economic entities that would buy up capitalist firms and convert them into worker coops

@general

There are 2 risk reduction strategies commitment-based and diversification based. The diversification-based strategy is the usual spread your eggs across many baskets strategy, but there is also a commitment-based dual strategy where you put your eggs in a few baskets and watch over them carefully.

Workers in coops can share risks with investors with non-voting preferred shares and other financial instruments. They can diversify by investing in other worker coops non-voting shares

@general

There would still be limited liability. Furthermore, they can share risks with investors, and self-insure against risk as well @general

A worker coop is a firm. A pure market is trade between people that have no direct social ties prior.

Weyl's mechanisms become relevant in larger communities where Elinor Ostrom's method doesn't work as well. Currencies can be community oriented by having build in fees that go into the community fund that scale with social distance. They can emphasize a logic of commitment

Capitalism emphasizes the logic of exit to the exclusion of the logic of commitment. This is dehumanizing

Yeah, we are using "community" differently. I agree that with strong ties this would be irrelevant. There are degrees of how coordinated actors can be. Capitalism misses that with its false dichotomy of total economic planning as in the firm, and full autonomous action as in the market. What we want is a gradient

The spectrum is:

pure market → large-scale communities with collective ownership using PCO → Ostrom-style CPR → firms

Here is the voucher stuff:

https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/plural-money-socially-provided-goods-and-the-principal-agent-problem/

@anarchism

As I mentioned in my other comment, there are situations that Ostrom acknowledges where conventional models make sense. We can just take the proposal to be addressing those sorts of larger-scale low interaction communities where agents are relatively autonomous

Your second objection is acknowledged in the article, and the authors actually address it in another article. A solution is not to use money, but rather non-trasnsferable vouchers

@anarchism

If you read their work, they emphasize that the residual rights should belong to a democratic community. The whole idea is to share wealth with communities that help generate it and collectivize property at the community level rather than capitalists owning it. The funds are for facilitating cooperation.

Ancaps are opposed to common ownership.

What does AI have to do with ancap.

Your statement is a genetic logical fallacy.

Describe why you disagree with the proposed structure

@anarchism

The ancap vision lacks necessities for stable stateless societies besides the dual logics of exit and commitment. By having some rights be non-transferable, it prevents them from accumulating and concentrating maintaining decentralization and preventing collusion to form a state. There is no middle ground, in the ancap vision, between full economic planning of the firm and completely uncoordinated atomized individuals in the market. The groups I describe provide that.
@technology