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
I agree with most of your points except the points about worker democracy. Being able to exit is not the same as having voice and exit, which is what worker democracy involves. The employer is not a workers’ delegate. Their managers manage the firm in the employer’s name. The employer appropriates 100% of the positive and negative product of the firm. The workers are de facto responsible for creating the product. This violates the principle that legal and de facto responsibility match
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
If given a choice between democratically elected politicians and unaccountable dictators and autocrats, I would choose politicians.
By capitalism, I mean specific institutions. I have specific solutions in mind such as recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy, and common ownership of land, natural resources, and the means of production.
Land’s inelastic supply, which can only be solved by socializing it, plays a role in housing costs.
Work issues remain unsolved by those two
Shitty bosses are probably less likely if your boss is ultimately democratically accountable to you and not to the some alien legal party that is your employer
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
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