I’ll write one. The talk argues that employment contract is invalid due to inalienable rights. Inalienable means can’t be given up even with consent. Workers’ inalienable rights are rooted in their joint de facto responsibility in the firm for using up inputs to produce outputs. By the norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, workers should get the corresponding legal responsibility, but in employment, workers as employees get 0% while employer gets 100% of results of production

There are finite number of possible humans due to there being a finite number of states a brain can be in.

There is an argument for moral realism that takes advantage of finiteness and computability of mental processes to show that there could be an objective morality

@askbeehaw

Tax exempt status for all worker coops

@politics

Capitalism is inherently based on dishonesty. It routinely treats people as things in the employer-employee relationship. When the factual and legal situation don’t match, that is morally a fraud.

Postcapitalism would consists of various intersecting and overlapping voluntary democratic associations managing their own collectivized means of production. Within these groups, there would still be a notion of possession of the shared asset.

@technology

Here are a few anarchist and anarchist-adjacent sources to go into specifics about institutions that an anarchist society might have:

The Possibility of Cooperation by Michael Taylor - A critique of Hobbes’s argument for the state with modern game theory

https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/plural-money-a-new-currency-design/ - A currency design that encourages mutual aid. Mentions how collective ownership can be achieved without a state.

Ancaps support employment contracts. This is contradictory: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

@technology

Marx incorrectly cites private property as capitalist appropriation’s basis. The employment contract is what enables the employer to appropriate the entire positive and negative result of production. Now, capital ownership does play a role in increasing bargain power to get favorable terms during contract negotiations. By emphasizing value, he missed out on a critique based on property rights. In property terms, the employer gets 100%

Morality can be analyzed in less idealist ways @politics

It is known as neo-abolitionism, the movement to abolish human rentals, and economic democracy

Here is their website: https://www.abolishhumanrentals.org

David Ellerman developed the underlying arguments against the employer-employee relationship with inspiration from classical laborists. They focus on property rights instead of value as you do. With the property theoretic framing, employers own 100% of the positive and negative result of production while workers as employees get 0%
@workreform

Marxism:

A scientific analysis that gets basic facts about the structure of property rights in the capitalist system wrong, and uses value theory to critique a property system

Moral arguments can help make people class conscious and recognize their oppression. Morality can motivate people to act, gives them a coherent structure for guiding action, and give direction. Morality is an important tool that enables people to coordinate without authority
@politics

Capitalism doesn’t qualify as free market activity then. Capitalism inherently involves treating persons as things. In the firm, the workers are jointly de facto responsible (DFR) for production, but the employer gets sole legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of production. This violates the principle of legal and de facto responsibility matching. DFR isn’t de facto transferred, but legal responsibility is. Morally, this is an institutional fraud
@memes

Employers steal the entire fruits of your labor as well. The fruits of workers’ labor consist of the liabilities for the used-up inputs combined with the property rights to the produced output. Both of these are entirely held by the employer. This assignment violates the ethical principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. You and your fellow workers are jointly de facto responsible for producing the product, but the employer has sole legal responsibility for it
@lemmyshitpost

Not yet.

Copyfarleft has not had a whole movement built up around it, and no one has standardized the licenses.

@linux

Such a license would allow commercial use by worker cooperatives. I understand that software freedom as it has been defined excludes such licenses, but I would argue that this position is wrong. There is nothing unfree about preventing firms based on workplace autocracy from exploiting the commons and the workers that work on the commons and the workers in their own firms @linux

@drwho The difference in my mind is that AGPL doesn’t come with a builtin business model to fund the legal fights when they become necessary. Such a copyfarleft license does by charging capitalist firms a licensing fee for using the software. These funds can then be used for paying project developers and funding license enforcement for those that choose to use the software without paying the licensing fee @linux

What I am suggesting is using a license that disallows capitalist firms completely from using the software not AGPL, which still allows them to use the software as long as they provide source code. In other words, copyfarleft that only extends use rights to non-capitalist commons-based economic entities-like worker coops. The project can then dual license to capitalist firms charging them for the right to use the software. This would give them a source of funding to fund any legal fights @linux

Why not use a license that prevents capitalist firms from even using the software?

@linux

Dialetheism is the view that some contradictions (i.e. p and not-p) are true. The argument for this is based on the liar’s paradox:

This sentence is false.

If you follow the logic through, you get the conclusion that it is both true and false. It requires some changes to Frege-Russell-style classical logic to be coherent, but it allows one to solve almost all paradoxes in one philosophical move. For example, you can have naive set comprehension principles

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

deleted by creator

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