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
The trick is to edit out the mention of the lemmy community before you add the hashtags then lemmy doesn't see the updated version of the post with the hash tags, but people on mastodon see the hash tags
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
While this is sort of a tax, it also has elements of common ownership because it reduces the exclusion power of capital owners due to the mandated transfer. A worker coop that has the funds can take the capital and use it in production. They do not have to negotiate to buy the property. The problem with other rules is that they will have loopholes that the rich will exploit. The revenue can be used to fund a basic income. The entity that receives the revenue can be non-state.
As an anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist I find many of their proposals to be objectionable. I lean towards open borders simply on freedom of association grounds, so I am opposed to their immigration proposals. Their common ownership self-assessed tax on the other hand is very interesting because it allows collectivization of some of the returns to capital while still managing capital in a decentralized fashion.
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)?
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.
Being a pro-market libertarian left anti-capitalist is not respected. Pro-capitalists basically view this as anti-market communism. The left sees you as personally defending every bad aspect of capitalism despite your opposition to capitalist appropriation, monopolistic aspects of private property and privatization of natural resources. Historically, this position was prominent with examples including Proudhon and the classical laborists
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
While the universe is indifferent because it is not conscious, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that there is a pattern to the goals that rational minds that can exist in this universe find attractive.This pattern would be an objective structure to morality and arguably would qualify as an inherent purpose to the universe
That doesn't sound like someone who believes nothing matters. This would sound more like it:
dfakjdsnhabfkjdhfjksdabckjadsbnvchievfbiq4rjwiofhewnJSABjaksbjakdbjbdahbDHBHabshbSHbhbHSBABHDBSHDBbhba
Truth and falsehood can overlap. In other words, that contradictions can be true. The reason for this is paradoxes like the liar's paradox. The sentence, "this sentence is false," is both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Building on that, mathematics made the wrong choice philosophically when they modified the axioms of set theory instead of changing the logic in which it was embedded and keeping naive comprehension and extensionality
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
Capital is causally efficacious in workers use of it. However, capital is a dead tool. It cannot be de facto responsible for anything. The person that uses the capital is the one that is de facto responsible for what they do with it positive and negative. Your assumption that critics of capitalism are merely criticizing improper application of fundamentally sound principles is wrong. The sophisticated critiques of capitalism apply even in its "perfect" form found in econ 101 textbooks @asklemmy
Referencing property not value. The workers in the firm are selling their labor itself to the employer not the outputs because the employees never jointly legally own the produced outputs and do not jointly legally hold the liabilities for the used-up inputs. If they did, it would just be a coop selling products to a buyer.
This position is similar to a minimum "wage" where the "wage" is control rights.
That's all that fits in a toot. Will respond to other points later in the conversation
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